Implied Theology

I’m a religous mutt of sorts, a mixed breed if you will. I first grew up in two Pentecostal traditions, the Assemblies of God, and then later the Church of God. Now, oddly enough, I consider myself reformed. The church I go to is a similar mixed bag. Different views and religous backgrounds, but together as brothers and sisters around the central issue of the Gospel. I can’t tell you how many rich and fruitful conversations have happend. Knowing the difference between first importance issues, and second importantance issues is what makes these conversions worthwhile.

In our little church plant, running close to two hundred attendees now, I’m not the only one who has ever crossed over from the Pentecostal to the Reformed tribe. For those in this camp, and of a similar breed, we typically have good discussion about our previous denominations, while lamenting some of the assumed and faulty beliefs in our former congregations. We don’t see it as all bad nessecarially, but there are some similar points of frustration, and doctrine, that once you start reading the bible, they cannot be satisfied by standard denominationl pad answers.

What happens is unnecessary division.

After a recent debate with some friends from my traditions of yore, I decided to get to the nitty gritty. Much of my concerns, maybe we will talk about those later, were not with the denom itself, or their foundational beliefs, but certain unbiblical practices that have slipped in and our now held as primary.

I’ve noticed that the lines of division are not always over first or second hand issues of doctrine, but over assumed pseudo-theology that have slipped in the back door and become part of a particular church’s common language.

However, if you go to that denoms statements of faith and core beliefs you find that these ideas are not mentioned anywhere. They are at best implied beliefs, and are far from first hand issues that shouldn’t be moved from. They are assumed issues that we place too much value in. These ideas are implied in that church, but are rarely ever made explicit. Some implied beliefs are cause for strong stances, and division, other’s are not.

Lets have an honest moment. A lot of people, not just Christians, but maybe especially Christians, simply hear something from what seems to be a reputable source, and assimilate it into their worldview. This is how implied theology ceeps in.

Two easy examples to show my point are “cleanliness is next to godliness”, and “hate the sin but love the sinner.” Now both of these have some truth in them, but not to the level of God’s truth. Neither one of these statements is in the bible either directly or indirecrly. Yet I’ve heard people quote them as if they were, and even heard them through sermons from the pulpit. The first is a quote by Benjamin Franklin, and the second by Ghandi. The later of which denied the deity of Christ and wasn’t even a Christian, so there’s that.

Are these statements without value? No, not entirley, but when they are said and implied along side of scripture long enough they begin to be treated as authoritative when they are not.

This is difficult when you realize that much of what you’ve been taught may of been implied through popular thought, or denominational preferance. When in reality those beliefs are not explicit to the actuall content of the bible.

When you realize this you have one of two options. 1. You start to take the bible for what it says and start to undo the implied theology that you have assumed is true. Or 2. you ignore the clear meaning of the text and put your implied theology over top to try and make it fit. The reason the second option is so preferred is easy. Let’s say all of your life you’ve been told that the color blue is actually called green, and vice versa. You turn 25 and someone points out the error. Is your first thought acceptance or denial? The same happens with these churchy non-biblical ideas.

This normally leads to nitpicking particular verses out of context to try and make your point. This is dangerous, if it becomes common practice it, absolutely ruins a church or a movement over time. If you try hard enough you can find a scripture, and missuse it in such a way, that all of the sudden anything your heart desires, becomes acceptable by God. The problem is that if you use the second approach it will eventually catch up with you and cause you to have to compromise scripture in order to preseve implied theologies. This can also eventually lead whole Christian movements into apostasy.

When you look at my heritages and compare the foundational principles you see that, atleast in creed form, they agree on most things. Triune God, Repentance of sin, salvation by grace through faith, the authority of the bible etc. So it should be possible for us to live happily enough together. Sometimes our implied theologies have such a strong mental hold that they effectively blind us from the essentials of our faith, which are profitable and life giving.

Here is a popular line of division between Pentecostal and Reformded traditions. Predestination. You thought I was going to say the gifts, didn’t you? Ill leave that to John MacArthur.

Growing up in a Pentecostal movent I can tell you that what is disavowed is a characterture of Predestination, not what the reformed crowd actually teaches. When asked about the scriptures that mention predestination in them, it is usually ignored or explained a way by excuses so weak I can’t even recall any arguments worth sharing. However, when you look at the issue of salvation from both of each side’s different decrees, you’ll see they actually only differ in one way.

Both see salvation as nessecary. They both believe repentance is nessecary. They both believe its a gift of grace and love. They both believe its through Christ alone and by faith. Some of the language varies, but on all the main points of salvation we agree. The only difference is that the Reformed camp makes an explicit claim on how it happens.

The Reformed say that God chooses us, that he is the primary agent in a persons salvation, and that God is sovereigh over the whole deal. Ill admit that this is an over simplification, but most Pentecostals can agree with this on some level. Again the main disagreement is over the “how do we receive salvation” part. When the issue is..are people going to hell? Yes. Is Jesus still saving people? Yes. Then we need to faithfully proclaim the gospel that they may hear it and repent and believe.

Honestly I don’t care whether people think that God chose them, or they chose God, but that they are in fact saved. Is predestination an important issue? Sure, is it a dividing issue? Nope. And I’m Reformed, I love the doctrine of election and predestination.

What’s funny is that the Assemblies and the Church of God never really specifically makes a distinction one way or the other. In their foundational statements they don’t say, we hold an Armenian view of salvation, and since its not a primary issue, then in theory, Calvinist could happily be in either denomination as long as there were no other points of disagreement. Their armenianism is implied not explicit. I’m not saying that either tribe would be completely comfortable in each others pews, but predestination is an unnecessary line of division.

The question then follows, “are there any necessary reasons for division between these two tribes?” The answer is yes, but the main point of disagreement is still implied through the denomination’s teaching and then assumed by it’s people, not an explicit decree or doctrine. Most of the main points of division are over implied theologies, there are hardly any that divide over a central tenant or issue.

The issue that is, in my view, the most primary is that of the prosperity gospel, also know as the health and wellness gospel. Again the theology here is implied, not explicit, but now it is also so assumed, that to drop prosperity teaching would require a lot of painful work. It would almost be easier to convince someone the true color of the sky. It was this issue that was the main course of discussion in my recent online debate.

The issue is that this theology is not explicit in any foundational doctrines of the Church of God or Assemblies of God Pentecostal movements. Its implied. Therefore we should be willing to set it against the highest authority of the bible, and if found to be in contradiction, we should begin the hard work to remove it.

I was criticized recently for holding that this doctrine was false and damaging to the integrity of the church, and the message of the gospel. I was told at great lengths that I shouldnt judge or talk bad about a man of God. There is some validity to those points, but not when it comes to this specific set of circumstances. What happened was essentially this…

Me: I think this is wrong biblically

Anonymous: Why?

Me: Here are my points and why they contradict the bible.

Anonymous: Well not everyone is perfect so you shouldn’t judge.

Me: But if I’m right then there is a serious problem, and you didn’t address any of my concerns.

Anonymous: but the bible says to “touch not my annointed”

Me: Okay but what about my points?

Anonymous: If people get saved why does it matter?

Me: Yes it does, what about my specific points.

And around around we go.

The issue is so ingrained at this point that careful biblical examination doesn’t happen. The issues are side stepped, red herring issues are brought up, then scripture used out of context to support the red herrings.

Much of the tension could be relieved between these two camps if prosperity teaching and philosophy was eliminated. Most of the other issues of division would be minimal, if the gospel preached by my former affiliations was more near to the gospel made explicit in the bible. Now, since this theology is implied and not explicit to core beliefs, there should be no problem addressing it and then walking away from it. You don’t have to hold to it in order to be a good Pentecostal.

In fairness, prosperity theology isn’t only found in charismatic camps, nor do all charamastic circles teach it. However this is where it is most prominent. Now before I make a false assumption of my own let me briefly explain the “prosperity gospel”.

Essentially it amounts to a poor bait and switch. The presentation is as follows.

“What do you need?”
“Oh you need ________, come to Jesus, give your heart to him and he will give it to you.”

On the surface is easy to think “well what’s wrong with that?” Well nothing is wrong if you fill in the blank with “salvation”, anything else and you’re wrong. I need a “healing”, or “God to fix my marriage” etc. It has been said before like this…

Jesus+nothing=everything
Jesus+something=everything

Now let me be clear. Jesus does heal, he does fix marriages, he does help people find better jobs or whatever. He’s done some of these things for me. The difference is my hope is not in these things, but in Jesus. Whereas the prosperity gospel flips this. The truth is even if you’re saved, Jesus may not do these things. So when someone says to you that it WILL happen if you “get saved”, then they are either being intentionally or sometimes unintentionally dishonest.

It makes Jesus out to seem like a politician or a snake oil salesmen, when he is in fact king. “Oh, your arm is stiff, just rub some Jesus on it.!” The truth is more like this. One day everything will be made right again, but in your life I don’t know what God has planned for all that troubles you. He may or he may not take it away, but either way you will have Jesus and he is better than everything.

I’m not saying that we don’t pray or ask God for those secondary things, we do, but they are just that, secondary. If we want God for those things than we don’t really want God, just his stuff. Let’s say you got a best friend, you guys are always hanging out playing your brand new PlayStation 4, six months later and he gets his own and suddenly you don’t hang out as much. Well that’s how the prosperity gospel treats Jesus. Go to Jesus for your needs, but go to Jesus ONLY for your needs and we’ve for a problem.

Now if you lead someone to salvation through a prayer based on that premise, then we have a whole host of problems. The prosperity gospel does a lot of damage. A false gospel makes false converts, false converts make false churches that spread a false message.

I feel a rant on the prosperity gospel coming on, but I want to stay on track. Here is my proposal. This prosperity theology is an implied theology. It is not explicit to and foundational beliefs in any of the tribes mentioned. Therefore you should not simply assume it as fact. You should, as with all implied theologies, test it. Please do just that. Don’t look just inside of your own team either. If it were me, i’d start here…

Examine, evaluate, trust the bible and lay down all the implied theologies that you have assumed based on their biblical merit.

Grace&Peace