I normally don’t publicize whether or not I land in the Reformed Theology camp, but I’ve been reviewing that decision. The reason I don’t is because I’m not called to point college students to Reformed Theology, Armenian Theology or some weird mix of the two that comes out of indecision. I’m called to point them to Christ crucified, teach them how to discover God’s voice in their life, teach them to obey it and join God in His mission in this world. I’ve seen too many college students get caught up in the theological distinctiveness of the people they admire more than being caught up in the person of Christ.
Now, please don’t stop reading and walk away saying, “Ben does not care about doctrine!” It’s the exact opposite of that. Examining doctrine and it’s implications is a vital part of my personal discipleship times with students. And it’s for this reason that I have been rethinking how I have not broadcasted where I land on many of the highly debated pieces of doctrine. But I stumbled upon this article today by Ray Ortland. He’s one of several Reformed guys I read from…and there are several non-reformed guys I read from. Here’s an excerpt from his blog that highlights well why I am careful at broadcasting where I land on anything but Christ, and Christ crucified.
“The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive – the rite of circumcision – as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself. Today the flash point is not circumcision. It can be Reformed theology. But no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness.”
I think that there are many theological distinctives that can drive us away from Christ alone as our only hope of glory. Reformed Theology is not the only one. So…for now I’m leaning toward staying silent a little longer. What do you think? Am I crazy?