In a recent blog post lamenting Southern Baptists’ decision to disinvite Ben Carson from speaking at the SBC Pastors’ Conference, Pastor Perry Noble said that the disinviters “love theology more than Jesus.” Although Noble conceded that theology played an important role in the Christian faith, he could see no legitimate reason why Ben Carson’s theology should raise any concerns.
There’s a lot to unpack in this short statement contrasting theology and Jesus. I am sure that Pastor Noble and his church do a great deal of good for the Kingdom, but in this instance he has picked an instructive way to phrase the problem – one that is unfortunately typical of too much Christianity in America. While there are all kinds of ways in which people abuse theology, good theology is the only way we can know and worship the one true God.
As I have said in previous posts, whatever his merits as a person and a candidate, I applaud the SBC’s decision to have Carson withdraw, because the SBC needs to stop platforming random Republican presidential candidates at its denominational meetings. This includes the likes of former Baptist pastor Mike Huckabee.
But what about the question of Carson’s theology? Does investigating what we know about his beliefs amount to a failure to love Jesus? I don’t think we actually know much about Carson’s theology, or how prepared he is to articulate his beliefs. We do know that he recently made a universalist-sounding statement about Muslims, Jews, and Christians all being God’s children, which some of the Baptist objectors cited as one of the troubling aspects of his appearance.
Vague univeralism may not raise problems for large sections of the generically “evangelical” world in America. But for those attentive to orthodoxy, it is not a good sign. In addition to my hope that they’ll stop turning denominational meetings into campaign stops, I assume that the SBC would not want to platform anyone who is not clear about salvation coming through Christ alone. (And again, perhaps Carson misspoke, or perhaps he did not even write the Facebook post about us all being God’s children.) A concern about universalism does not mean that the objectors love theology more than Jesus. They have simply taken a position on the question of whether Jesus is, or is not, the unique Savior.
But what about loving theology vs. loving Jesus? There seem to be three common objections to the place of theology in Christianity. I take Noble’s type of objection to be the first: “what good is theology if you are mean about it?” Fair enough – there is certainly a fundamentalism that has no tolerance for mystery, theological conundrums, or slight differences of opinion on, say, the sequence of events in the last days. But pointing out theological differences about the question of how one is saved (and by Whom), especially concerning a prospective speaker at your denomination’s annual conference, does not amount to petty fundamentalism.
Second is the objection that “I love Jesus, and I feel his love for me, and I am turned off by the cold, overly-intellectual approach of theologians.” Again, fair enough. An affection-less Christianity is not true faith. But true religious affections, as Jonathan Edwards taught us, are rooted in a true understanding of God. God is a personal God, He has fixed attributes, and He has revealed Himself through Scripture and in the person of Christ. We may have all kinds of thoughts and feelings about who “God is to me,” but if they do not match up with Who God Actually Is, they are factually wrong.
Third is the kind of devotion that focuses on “practical piety,” not vain speculation. This action-oriented faith often casts theology as the opposite of true religion, which its adherents say is found in good works. This was the faith of Ben Franklin, and many others in American history, who have become jaded about theological squabbling but who still adhere to the ideal of Christian virtue. As a teenager Franklin rejected the Calvinist theology of his parents, but he still knew that the world could not do without Christian ethics.
Many people of nominal (or no) faith act with great charity and philanthropy. But to the orthodox Christian, acts of charity do not earn salvation. If all faith amounts to is virtuous actions, then yes, indeed, we all can qualify as God’s children (except perhaps for Hitler and other really bad people).
In the end, each of us has a theology. (Even the act of dismissing theology in favor of Jesus is theological.) If God exists (and He does), and He has fixed attributes (which He does), then the path to loving Him is knowing as much as we possibly can about Him. We’ll only know as much as He has revealed, of course, and we won’t always understand everything He has revealed. But make no mistake – knowing God and His attributes is the basis for, not the opposite of, loving Jesus.
[Friends, you can sign up here for my Thomas S. Kidd author newsletter. Each newsletter will update you on what’s happening in my writing and in the world of American religious and political history. It will contain unique material available only to subscribers, and each will help you keep up with my blog posts, books, and other writings from around the web. Your e-mail information will never be shared. Thanks!]
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In