Workmen or Captives? Avoiding the Snare of Subjectivity

 

Pastor Harvey takes a serious look at how we interpret God’s Word and cautions us to avoid the trap of subjective impressions.

 

Meet Sarah, a widow and mother of two small children. Sarah’s life tends to ricochet between Frenzy and Loneliness, with frequent stops at a place called Exhaustion. Yet Sarah has a source of hope and courage which few outside her church can relate to. That source is her Bible.

In the aftermath of the accident that took her husband’s life, many sought to offer Sarah words of comfort. Most of the non-Christians mumbled something about freak events or made vague references to “being strong.” The responses of believers, however, were less predictable: perhaps Satan had been able to strike because the family defenses were down; others sympathized, saying that God did not desire this untimely death; some questioned God’s goodness for allowing the accident. Eventually there were even rumors that the accident had been divine judgment on what “must have been” a secret, scandalous life. Through it all, Sarah remained steadfast. She had read God’s Word.

For each of these people—Christian or non-Christian, wise or foolish, right or wrong—tragedy revealed theology. An unexpected death exposed deeply rooted beliefs about the character and nature of God. This echoes one of the inescapable facts of human existence: we all believe something about God. We are therefore all theologians of a sort, and our theology is reflected in our daily lives. Given the hope she holds and the health she displays, it appears as if Sarah, unlike her would-be comforters, is a very capable theologian.

 

A Good Workman

Theology literally means “the study of God.” And because the foundation of theology is the Bible, a good theologian is simply a Christian who takes Scripture seriously.

The last letter of Paul’s life—his second letter to Timothy—reinforces the centrality of good theology. Paul’s final words of instruction had one clear goal: Timothy must keep the pattern of sound teaching, and guard the good deposit of sound doctrine (2 Tim 1:13-14). Above all else, Paul stresses, Timothy must remain a good theologian.

To illustrate his point, Paul introduces the workman. “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). The workman is a good theologian because he handles Scripture correctly. This passage presents believers with fundamental assumptions regarding the stewardship of God’s Word. Correctly handling the Word of truth:

1. is our responsibility
2. begins with “doing your best”
3. involves hard work (becoming a “workman”)
4. elicits approval rather than shame before God
5. will make us good theologians

Christians are defined and guided by the truth of a specific Book. We are to be a people distinguished by our faithful handling of The Book. This is an awesome privilege. It is also a fearsome responsibility.

 

Reclaiming the Mind

Our secular, therapeutic culture teaches that feelings trump thought. Today, emotion is erroneously equated with insight, and impulse is deemed to be wisdom. Even within the church, some see the mind as a hindrance to truth, either quenching the Spirit through over-analysis, or creating modern-day Pharisees who mouth pious platitudes about God. But Paul’s final letter clarifies the centrality of the mind in the pursuit of truth: “Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this” (2 Tim 2:7). Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul is teaching that correct handling of Scripture springs from correct thinking about Scripture. True insight is always preceded by mental reflection.

As people of The Book, the church is called to reclaim the mind. We must transition from owning our Bibles to handling our Bibles. Right handling of the Word of truth requires Spirit-led thinking.

And what of emotions? Do they have a role in the life of the good Christian/theologian? Certainly. Rather than there being a false dichotomy between heart and mind, as if they were irreconcilable adversaries, Scripture presents a unified vision. We are called to love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind (Mt 22:37), with the overall tenor of Scripture clearly putting the mind in the dominant role. John Owen describes the interaction:

The mind is the leading faculty of the soul. When the mind fixes upon an object or course of action, the will and the affections (heart) follow suit. They are incapable of any other consideration … The mind’s office is to guide, to direct, to choose, and to lead.¹

Without the mind’s tutelage, the heart will never discover truth. But as the mind leads us into discovering God’s truth, the will chooses, and the heart rejoices in that choice. The road to good theology is one where neither mind, will, nor affections travel alone. Isolate and exalt any one of these and you have a dangerous imbalance.

To the gift-rich but theologically deficient Corinthians, Paul offered this advice, “Stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults” (1 Cor 14:20). When it comes to spiritual growth, adult thinking creates good theologians.

The Call to Discern

Once the mind is reclaimed, the aspiring workman must learn to use this newfound intellect to distinguish truth from error. None too soon, either, because the greatest threats to our faith come furtively, and in forms we may not anticipate. The “Nine Enemies of Truth”² listed to the right are detected through the determined discernment of a Spirit-led mind.

Over time, and through the power of the Holy Spirit, the application of our mind, will, and affections to Scripture will create biblical wisdom — the ability to apply Scripture to concrete situations, evaluate life through spiritual eyes, and discern truth from error (Jas 3:13-18; 1 Cor 2:13-16; 1 Jn 4:6). Spiritual discernment is simply biblical wisdom in action.

Let me illustrate the evolution of discernment from my own life. Some men achieve distinction in an academic field or a sports arena. In the world of soda choices, however, my gift for distinguishing Diet Pepsi^® from lesser colas remains unsurpassed. My soda discernment was not cultivated by sampling the plethora of cola knock-offs, but through a consistent and enduring habit of drinking Diet Pepsi^® morning, afternoon, and evening. My intense enjoyment of the authentic equips me to smell a counterfeit from across the room. This talent was developed, not from being preoccupied with imitations, but through devotion to the genuine article.

So it is with discernment and Scripture. True discernment comes through diligent study of Scripture, not the myriad of counterfeits. The truth implanted in us through the Holy Spirit is then agitated by anything fraudulent. When unbiblical doctrine or practices occur, spiritual discernment triggers in both heart and mind a subjective sense which has been built by objective truth. As Jonathan Edwards once explained, godly people can smell the depravity of an act before they can explain why it is evil. “Smelling depravity” is a mark of growing discernment.

 

The Effects of Weak Discernment

“Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some” (2 Tim 2:16-18).

Here Paul identifies two men who, due to sin and lack of discernment, were attracted to bad theology. Their theology guided them away from truth and enticed others to follow, “destroy[ing] the faith of some.” Don’t ever listen to anyone who says theology does not matter.

How can we discern bad theology? Paul’s words echo Christ’s: “By their fruit you will recognize them” (Mt 7:16). There are at least three fruits of bad theology.

1. Spiritual and moral degeneration: “more and more ungodly” (v.16). Only sound doctrine will foster and sustain true godliness.
2. Proliferation of heresy: “teaching spreads like gangrene” (v.17). This is due to the influence of bad doctrine on “infants tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching” (Eph 4:14).
3. Deteriorating allegiance to Scripture: “wander away from the truth” (v.18). Eventually, false theology will progressively undermine one’s belief in the uniqueness and authority of the Bible.

In looking beyond his death, Paul knew that good theology would be critical to the continued health and growth of the church. With all of the exciting and potentially distracting things that compete for our attention today, we must renew our resolve to be people of The Book. Our lives depend upon it. So do our souls.

 

A Context for Truth

Most Christians are probably comfortable with the idea that the foundation of theology is the Bible. By itself, that statement leaves us free to interact with Scripture in a way that can seem fairly autonomous. It places the primary emphasis, appropriately, on an individual relationship with God through his Word.

But do we as readily accept the testimony of Scripture itself that the foundation of the Bible is … the Church? “If I am delayed,” Paul wrote to Timothy, “you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

Paradoxically, although truth is indeed the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20), the church is also a foundation for truth. The sense here is that truth must be anchored and applied within the local church. Without a church community to provide a practical context for the application of truth, truth would merely be a profound but impractical philosophy. A cool idea, and nothing more.

But truth applied is truth that has meaning and that protects us from deception. Truth applied is truth preserved. That’s why the church is such a brilliant idea! God could have just left us with a body of knowledge. Instead, he ordained a context where truth can be applied in this life as we prepare for the next.

And what if we fail (or refuse) to become Paul’s “good workmen,” to reclaim the mind, and to cultivate biblical discernment? Funny you should ask …

 

This Present Darkness

In September 1520, almost three years after launching the Reformation, Martin Luther fired another volley into the Roman Catholic camp. With sagacity destined to incite further controversy, he penned “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” a booklet that drew scathing analogies between the Babylonian captivity of Israel and the rule of Rome in Luther’s day. According to Luther, both Babylon and Rome had made forcible entries into the land, integrated themselves into the culture of God’s people, polluted the theological well, and neutralized the faith of believers.

If Luther were alive today, what might he entitle his next booklet? My guess is, “The Subjective Captivity of the Church.” I define this captivity as the tendency to exalt experiences, feelings, impressions, or emotions over the Word of God. This captivity does not eliminate or reject God’s Word, it simply relocates its authority to the periphery. Once disconnected from a source of ultimate authority, subjectivized Christians suffer gradual dislocation from sound doctrine, increasing loss of discernment, and choices that drift inevitably toward their own sinful drives.

Far from being a necessary evil, emotions, affections, and desires are vital to the Christian life, for they supply our passion for God and help us to love God with “all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength.” But we must never confuse vitality with authority. The strength of some sense or emotion must never become the sole determinant of our decisions or actions. Everything must bow to the Word of God.

Consider the Christian executive who divorces his wife because he “lost that lovin’ feelin’” yet rediscovers it in the arms of an attractive coworker. Or the sister from church who insists God confirmed her engagement to an unbeliever because she “sensed” God’s pleasure in this relationship (her friends note with concern that she has had this same “sense” with respect to three other guys!). Or the couple that suddenly and mysteriously disappears from their local church of four years simply because they “felt impressed” to move on. All these share one tragic similarity—they have been imprisoned within a subjective view of the church.

This “subjective captivity” of the church is the awful but predictable fruit of a Christian culture that is not diligent to correctly handle the Word of truth. Yet errors are rarely new, only recycled. This one goes back to a garden, a serpent, and a couple in the valley of decision.

 

The Origin of the Captivity

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked. (Gen 3:1-7a)

Satan’s objective was to alter the source of authority for all of creation by replacing God’s Word with a dangerous but appealing alternative: subjective impressions. His strategy had a profound simplicity: 1) Sow doubt (v.1); 2) Create confusion (v.4); 3) Launch a direct frontal assault (v.5), all designed to dislocate their confidence from God and relocate it to themselves. In three quick steps, God’s Word was replaced by what Eve “saw”, by what was “pleasing”, and by what was “desirable” (v.6).

An exchange of monumental proportions had now taken place. The authority for Adam’s and Eve’s lives had shifted from external to internal; from objective to subjective; from “God said” to “I feel.” History would soon attest that humans make poor replacements for God. We will do well to remember that the enemy’s first method is still his best, and one to which he often returns.

 

Subjectivity and Experience

A rich man and a beggar named Lazarus had both died. Arriving at their appointed destinations, Lazarus was comforted in heaven while the rich man was tormented in hell. The rich man then makes two appeals to Abraham, the first for a spot of water to relieve his agony. The second appeal is most instructive for a church mired in subjectivity.

He answered, “Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.” Abraham replied, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.” “No, father Abraham,” he said, “but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.” He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Lk 16: 27-31).

The rich man assumed his brothers’ greatest need was for a personal (subjective) spiritual experience. Surely a resurrected Lazarus carrying a heavenly message would succeed where God’s Word had apparently failed! According to Abraham, such logic is dead wrong (v.31). Spiritual experience never replaces or usurps the Word of God.

It comes down to an issue of authority. For Christians ensnared in subjectivity, spiritual experiences can carry an implicit authority that has the effect of overriding Scripture. Such experiences are commonly used to validate an ungodly decision, justify disassociation from the local church, or claim the right to live a life unexamined by others. Sadly, in some circles this approach is seen as the height of spiritual maturity. Such is the fruit of a church in captivity.

Supernatural encounters with God should be desired, even pursued. But these experiences with God are given to deepen our humility and incite our passion for God and the church. They do not represent an alternative to Scripture, nor are they capable of preserving our faith. The Israelites remind us that you can experience miraculous deliverance—the Egyptian plagues, the Red Sea parting, manna from heaven, the pillars of cloud and of fire, water from the rock—and still worship a golden calf. Even the most spectacular spiritual encounters fade with time; only God’s Word endures forever.

 

Workmen or Captives?

Paul was a man who knew a thing or two about supernatural experience (see 2 Cor 12:1-4). He knew its value and, just as importantly, its limitations. In his final instructions to Timothy, what was Paul’s chief burden? That his most faithful and promising disciple would excel in the pursuit of personal, subjective experience? Or that he would be diligent to correctly handle the Word of God? You know the answer.

As Christians, we must never forget that our remaining sin nature will continually drive us to subordinate the objective truth of Scripture to subjective impressions. We really only have two choices: to become skilled workmen in the rich, timeless, and objective truth of God’s Word, or to remain captives—each in our own cramped, subjective little universe of personal impressions.

Escape from subjective captivity. Become a workman in the Word.

 

PR

 

Notes

1. John Owen, Sin and Temptation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1996), pp. 36-37.
2. Robert M. Bowman, Orthodoxy and Heresy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), p.78.

Dave Harvey would like to assure any concerned readers that he is not attempting to position himself for a Pepsi^® sponsorship.

 

Reprinted with permission from Sovereign Grace magazine, a publication of Sovereign Grace Ministries. This article by Dave Harvey appeared in the July/August 1998 issue with the theme “Every One a Theologian.”