So, I’m on a kick with ChristianityToday articles. This time, though, I’m not quite so enamored. But The Problem with Mere Christianity is worth looking at for several reasons, including its suggestion that “mere Christianity” has a plastic definition, which surprised me:
At its best, mere Christianity can be summed up by Augustine's proverb: "In essentials, unity. In nonessentials, liberty. In all things, charity." ... However, mere Christianity will disappoint when it becomes a substitute for the Christian faith.
“Mere Christianity” cannot possibly substitute for the Christian faith; it is the Christian faith. Mere Christianity is essential Christianity, as I understand C. S. Lewis to have intended it. Lewis describes it as a “hall out of which doors open into several rooms.” (Mere Christianity, xi.)
The author, J. Todd Billings, suggests that evangelicals from non-denominational backgrounds
hit one roadblock that arises when "mere Christianity" severs our ties to theological traditions...At its worst, mere Christianity shifts with the trends of praise music or the latest evangelical celebrity. Despite our best intentions, our theology and practice can become "conformed … to the pattern of this world" (Rom. 12:2).
I suggest that a Christianity that shifts with the trends or becomes conformed to the pattern of this world is not mere Christianity, for, as Lewis continues, “It is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in...It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feels certain almost at once which door they must knock at.” (ibid, xi.)
Mere Christianity is a starting point, not a departure.
It is not separation from theological traditions that results in apostasy; this can happen whether a church is separated from theological tradition or not. And I don’t believe that even non-denominational churches are completely separate from theological tradition; far from it. Every church has a developmental history, whether within a mainstream tradition or not.*
I agree with the problem that Billings is illustrating, however, of churches failing to name or uphold their traditions in order to “attract more people.” But this is not, (I repeat), mere Christianity. It is worldly ambition and deceit. Billings points out that
Sometimes churches go further than downplaying their unique beliefs. So-called divisive doctrines get pushed to the side as nonessentials, even when they are truly important...[certain] questions [are] off-limits.
This is done to avoid controversy, yet as Billings goes on to say, doctrines aren't "dispensable" because they provoke controversy.” This is an important statement.
Yet it is incorrect to equate “nonessential” with “dispensable.” The term “nonessential” is used in connection with Christian belief to suggest those doctrines which are not absolutely necessary to salvation. But this does not mean that they are to be ignored, as Lewis says with his analogy of halls and rooms. In a sense, the non-essentials are essential, in that there may be moral compunction, given by the Holy Spirit, to consider and act upon them. This is not to be ignored. At the same time, it is not given to bring division within the Body of Christ, but rather build up each member, and hence the church.
I agree with Billings that
honest yet charitable discussions about our differences can deepen faith. We should not jettison disputed doctrines just because they can be divisive.
There is more to commend in the latter part of the article as he expands on this idea, and is worth reading.
*Yet often non-denoms are a reaction against error in mainstream denominational traditions, making them, not mere Christianity, an ill-advised departure. Yet departure is not always ill-advised, nor unwarranted. (This could possibly fall under the “lesser of two wrongs” category as discussed in a recent post.)
