Legitimacy

This will almost certainly not come out the way I intend it. I am a believer, a committed Christian who is convinced of the truth of Christianity and the scriptures. But I want to ask a question, not about the faith, but about the legitimacy of the faith in the eyes of a pluralistic and post-Christian culture.

Some Jehovah’s Witnesses stopped by today and dropped off a pamphlet. It loudly proclaimed, “The End of False Religion is Near!” It went on to define false religions as those that meddle in war and politics, which spread false doctrine and which tolerate immoral sex. It identified true religion as the practice of love across cultural barriers; trust in God’s inspired Word; and the upholding of the family and of high moral standards. It even had an eschatological section about the great harlot of the book of Revelation, eerily similar to the popular end times scenarios I read as a teenager.

What strikes me is how similar this all sounds.



These days many Evangelicals are loudly critical of the intermingling of faith and politics. Certainly most evangelicals would wholeheartedly agree that false doctrine is an evil to be concerned about. Certainly the evangelical community, as well as the Catholic and more conservative mainline voices condemn immoral sex, even as the Catholic pedophilia scandals continue and news of Ted Haggard’s possible indiscretions breaks.

I certainly agree that true religion includes the practice of love of all regardless of race or class or gender. I absolutely agree that trust in God’s word is and has always been a central tenet of the true faith. Evangelicals and Roman Catholics in particular have long spoken of the need to uphold the family and traditional morality.

So here’s my problem. The minute these Jehovah’s Witnesses folks stepped out of their car and started to walk down my street, my first instinct was to lock the door and pull the blinds. It was Saturday, I’d had a long week and there was a good game on TV. I thought about debating them, but that has generally proved fruitless and I wasn’t in the mood. Those going door-to-door peddling religion are generally not appreciated, any more than calls from telemarketers at dinnertime. But that was just the gut reaction.

The real questions I asked myself later as I read the pamphlet. The first was rhetorical. These were just a small group of polite and conservatively dressed unknowns. Why should I listen to them? But then came the corollary -- if I were the one going door-to-door, why should anyone listen to me?

If I were the one going door-to-door peddling Christianity, what really makes my message any more credible than theirs in the eyes of those on whose doors I might knock? I might claim to be presenting “biblical” truth, so do the JWs. The JWs quote from their own translation of the scriptures, but I might quote from the NIV and folks could dismiss that as my “pet” translation. Their pamphlet decried the hypocrisy of the sexual scandals of “false” religion, whereas I might protest about the lunacy in the universi-babble mainline or the failure of the Vatican to put a stop to the abuse scandals. Fact is they and I would agree on many of the ills of society, we would both point to the Bible, and our understanding of it as the cure – we would in many ways be mirror images of each other.

My point is not that there isn’t a difference between Evangelical Theology and Jehovah’s Witness theology. My point is that there is almost no way for the average Joe to really be able to tell the difference. I, like they, would be another voice in the cacophony of personal opinions that characterizes our culture. My voice would have no more legitimacy than anyone else’s.

Harold O.J. Brown made the point in his great book on historical doctrine “Heresies” that once Luther successfully broke with Rome, the very term “heresy” ceased to have any real meaning. Heresy originally meant to “go one’s own way” as opposed to remaining in communion with the rest of the church. The unity of the church was assumed in the very term. But when, within seven decades after Luther’s break, there were already nearly three hundred different denominations, going one’s own way had become a virtue, and heresy had become simply a word used to label one’s theological opponents.

I don’t entirely agree with the view of some Catholic thinkers that in rejecting the authority of the Pope on the seven hills of Rome the Protestants had set up a multitude of self-proclaimed popes on every dunghill in Europe, but I do see their point. The fragmentation of Christianity has contributed to the mess of radical pluralism and we seem to be endlessly battling not only false faiths, but friendly rivals for legitimacy, all the while eroding the standing of "the faith once delivered" in the eyes of the culture.

Faith has to be built on more than just individual opinion, denominational loyalties or the latest scholarly speculations. For the sake of the gospel, for the exaltation of Christ and for the preservation of the culture, Christians need to again speak with one voice. And the simple fact is, we don’t.

Sure I can argue that the “evangelical” translations of the scriptures are more true to the original text than the JW version. I can argue that my view on the Trinity is in line with the teaching of Christianity long before the formation of the Nicene Creed. But I suspect most of those whose doorbells I might ring would just assume it was my word against that of the JWs. They would close the doors, pull down the shades, and go back to watching football or the food network. Just like I did this afternoon.