SHARING MY THEOLOGICAL JOURNEY - China Horizon



SHARING MY THEOLOGICAL JOURNEY

Dear Wangyen:

After quickly going over your 16-page paper on

truth and diversity (which is so interesting and gripping,

but frustrating to read, because just as you

wax eloquent, you cut yourself off -- I realize these are

extracts from several papers), I now remember the

occasion when we had dinner together, in a restaurant,

with 5 others, on the first floor of a "mall", near the Shell

station and the supermarket, southwest of SBC.

We discussed some issue, either

presuppositionalism vs. evidentialism, or

some other theological issue. You left a little

early. Well, it took me quite some time to connect

your name to an occasion (sorry, I still cannot

reconstruct your face in my mind).

I appreciate your honest struggles esp. in the first 2

pages of the paper, but actually throughout its

entirety. But I am different from you; I have

real hope, and have found some answers.

I will be honest with you. Please do not circulate

these comments broadly; but you may choose

to discuss it with those who came to the dinner

that evening.

1. I AM AGAINST NEUTRALITY/PRAGMATISM

I grew up in a pragmatic, anti-theological evangelical

environment, similar to your context since age 17.

And I don't like the pragmatism.

I still swim in these pragmatic waters -- for example,

the CCCOWE movement, Chinese churchesm

mission agencies, denominations, seminaries,

publishing houses, and parachurch agencies...

I have come to the conclusion that:

Theology/doctrine is important. Theological

presuppositions, convictions, distinctives, etc. are

important. We cannot just brush these aside and go

on exegesis alone to build convictions/conclusions.

We bring our theological presuppositions to our exegesis.

Unavoidable.

2. I MADE A DECISION

We will disagree on every major point. You are

correct. I moved through a maze of issues (their number

was smaller in 1968-71, when I was at university,

and 1971-75, my MDiv years), and have come to

some conclusions by 1979 (I was 28).

I decided that I would be Reformed. Not because Jonathan

Chao, Wilson Chow and a few other CGST-founder men

taught me Calvinism when I was at university, i.e., not

because I blindly followed others.

But because, until proven otherwise, I will settle on

the covenant/Reformed system of doctrine as the

best framework for interpreting Scripture.

So I joined a Reformed denomination. (As you well

know, the word "denomination" presupposes the

Body of Christ, of which the denomination is merely

a type, or denomination.) I acted

out of conviction, not convenience. Nobody in

the PCA knew me, and I didn't know them. I

started from scratch. Since then, I made lots

of friends.

3. IS MY SYSTEM "TRUE"?

Does this mean that I think the Reformed system of doctrine

is "true"?

Yes. Not in an ultimate sense. I do not think that Reformed

theology equals the view of the universe as God sees the

universe from his vantage point.

But I would confess that it is very close to the "system of

doctrine taught in Scripture." And I believe such a system

exists, even though we as finite, sinful humans can never

get a perfect knowledge of it.

Well, I took the fiinal step in 1979 and joined the Presbyterian

Church in America (PCA - not to be confused with other Presbyterian

denominations). When I was licensed, and again when

I was ordained, I signed my name on a piece of paper, which

said that I owe it to my presbytery to believe in, and to preach

and teach, the system of doctrine taught in Scripture

as understood by the Westminster Confession (as revised

by the PCA). And if I change my mind, I am obliged to

tell my presbytery, or else I will stand trial.

I have chosen to submit to the PCA in the general/total

area of doctrine. Actually, one cannot become a PCA

minister if one were Arminian or Dispensationalist. (That

is only fair and reasonable: there are other denominations

to join, for people of other convictions!)

I have found my denominational identity to be very

convenient, and actually contributes to my effectiveness

in participating in theological discussions/debates. I

would also say, that God did not appoint me to settle

every doctrinal dispute with every doctrinal adversary!

I can witness to my theology in a joyful, humble,

confident way. And I am content within my

limitations.

I believe in the unity, sufficiency, authority, and

perspicuity of Scripture. I understand the perspicuity

of Scripture within my doctrinal framework.

About 20 years ago, Rev. Wally Yew (Dallas graduate)

asked me a poignant question. I was gung-ho about

having just joined the PCA. He said to me, "Sam,

how can you be so sure?"

I have not forgotten that question. Today, I am not as

sure as I was 20 years ago. There are plenty of

problems in my denomination. It is NOT heaven!

But I am more confident, though more humbled,

in my convictions. My newfound, more mellow

confidence does not make me an obnoxious

crusader (at least I try not to be one). Rather,

it makes me a witness who takes every opportunity

God gives me to teach, speak, witness, share,

persuade, converse, as an ambassador of

my doctrinal system -- ultimately, as an

ambassador of God's revelation in Scripture.

4. ARE OTHER SYSTEMS "WRONG"?

Do I think therefore, that Arminians and Dispensationalists

are wrong?

Yes, but again not in an ultimate sense. I need to maintain

my humility; I have no monopoly on truth (nor does

my denomination.) But I am loyal to my beliefs, and

my church's.

My church's constitution says that godly men can

differ in conscience. I hold on to my beliefs in good

conscience, and in good conscience can say that

other theological systems are not consistent with

what I see as the system of doctrine taught in Scripture.

There is plenty of theological and practical problems

which Calvinists and Presbyterians need to work through.

To start with, we are certainly not perfect in our

sanctification. Then there are intellectual (logical,

if you will) issues -- "contradictions"

as you call them; JI Packer calls one such "an antinomy"

(in EVANGELISM AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD).

But, I will say that the Reformed system of doctrine

is more consistently biblical. Put it another way, I

am indebted to, and grateful for, Calvin, the Puritans,

the Dutch such as Abraham Kuyper, Berkhof and

Van Til, and the Americans such as Francis

Schaeffer, RC Sproul and Canadians such as JI

Packer. I have chosen them to be my teachers.

I certainly acknowledge that most Arminians and

most (if not all) Dispensationalists believe in the inerrancy,

inspiration and authority of Scripture. And there are

plenty of godly men and women in their communions

who can taught me a lot. (And they have.) So I will continue

to befriend, work with, debate, and disagree with them

as friends -- more than friends, actually; in this postmodern

age when deconstructionism, neo-orthodoxy is flooding

the Chinese church, Dispensationalists and non-Calvinists

who believe in inerrancy are actually my bed-fellows and

fellow-soldiers.

JVN Talmage, a Dutch/American Reformed missionary

in Amoy, China, made a speech in 1877 in Shanghai.

He said that, if we act in interdenominational cooperation

and union, based on the light already given by the

Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit will grant us more light.

I think he is right, and quite a prophet.

5. OTHER CHURCHES ARE CHURCHES

The PCA Constitution (the Form of Government of the PCA)

states that other churches are churches, and can declare

their own terms of membership. So I can go to Baptistic

and Arminian and Dispensationalist churches and preach,

and even serve, so long as they accept me and grant me

the freedom to teach as I understand the system of

doctrine taught in Scripture. The bounday

which the PCA sets for me is: I can labor out-of-bounds (not

in a geographical sense, but in the sense that I am out

of the boundaries of my presbytery's ecclesiastical authority)

in an independent church, or in a parachurch agency/missions

agency. I cannot go and serve in a non-Presbyterian

denominational church (Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, etc.).

In that case, I should change membership/credentials.

Now there are churches which are apostaste in their

beliefs. Are they churches? As long as they claim

to be churches and have the marks of the church (preaching,

sacraments, discipline). But they need to be sanctioned.

By whom? Well, that's what denominations are for. The

very existing of Bible-believing denominations (of all types)

is a witness against apostasy.

6. LEARNING TO LOVE

I have learned, the hard way, to really love Baptists, 4-point

Calvinists, Independents, Arminians, Trichomists,

Pre-mills, and Dispensationalists from my heart. (It seems

that I have less problems loving Lutherans, Anglicans and

Vineyard-type mild Charismatics; I don't know why; perhaps

the doctrinal differences with Bapts., Arms. and Disps. are

more pronounced, the battlelines drawn more clearly in

US church history in the 20th century).

Give you one example: A brother-pastor has become a

good friend of mine, since I moved to Los Angeles. He

told me one day, "You need friends." And he invited me

to be part of his friendship circle of young pastors.

One day, I asked him, "What seminary did you graduate

from?" He answered, "Dallas." You see, I had forgotten.

I knew the answer, but forgot it. I had enjoyed his

friendship so much. There are real, serious theological

differences between us. But we are friends. Actually

there are 5 of us -- one is PC-USA (Presbyterian),

two are Alliance (C&MA), I am in the PCA, and the

other belongs to an "independent Chinese denomination"

(bad choice of words on my part).

7. LEARNING TO SERVE IN

OTHER THEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS

I served in an independent, Baptistic church in Chicago

(800-1000 people) as their senior pastor, 1992-95.

I now serve in an independent, fairly dispensationalist

church, as a teaching pastor. I have been here since

Sept. 1997 -- three and a half years. Which is longer

than the period of time I stayed in the Chicago church.

So I have found it possible to teach Reformed theology

as I understand it, without waving banners and

critiquing other theologies. I have learned to respect

others' (other churches') positions and not break up

their unity.

By the way, my life-goal is no longer to start Reformed

Chinese churches. Only to teach Reformed doctrine.

There is a difference between these two goals, as I have

come to realize. The course of action is very different.

My course of action is: I do not aggressively persuade

people to change their views/denominations. I witness

by my ministry, my teaching, my writing, my

conversations with others.

8. WOMEN IN MINISTRY

I take the Grudem/Piper approach on women's role

in the ministry. Actually my views are even closer to

James Hurley and Susan Foh's (Grudem, Hurley and

Fohs were all at Westminster when I was there).

I do find feminist hermeneutics problematic. (We

can talk about this on another occasion.)

9. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STANDARDS

In conclusion, I find that there is a way to resolve

the seeming CONTRADICTIONS in theology. That is,

our first loyalty is to the "Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture"

(Westminster Confession chapter 1). But there are

secondary standards; mine are Westminster Confession

and Catechisms.

So I have a hierarchy of issues in my mind, which comes

first. The primary issues are those in the Confession

and Catechism, with exceptions: civil magistrate;

how to observe Sabbath (playing or watching ball

games OK or not OK); the number and nature of

church offices; worship style and form and content;

mode of baptism; millennium.

I think most confessing Presbyterians (and Baptists who

subscribe to the London Confession of 1689, and

Congregationalists who subscribe to the Savoy

Declaration) would agree that there is a fairly

standard, agreed-upon list of "secondary issues".

10. I WELCOME TRADITION/INTERPRETATION

Have I resorted to tradition? Yes of course! Is

tradition part of interpretation? Yes of course!

I realize that I used to belong to a very small, narrow

creek which is part of a river system.

I feel that I now see the whole river and the ocean, but

I have chosen to belong to a particular branch of the

river. And I am happy here.

One advantage is: The Reformed faith is fairly

consistent (there are problems, of course). And

it is very strong on the Lordship of Christ over all

dimensions of life.

11. COMING TO KNOW

WONDERFUL PEOPLE AND HOMES

(AND CHEFS!)

I have also had the wonderful opportunity to

observe WONDERFUL Baptist families (Illinois,

Pennsylvania) and WONDERFUL Presbyterian

families (in the Deep South states of Alabama,

Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, and in urban/

suburban Florida), and enjoyed their hospitality.

I see real differences and yet real similarities

as to how each type of Christian home works

out its beliefs, values, family traditions. Both

denominations LOVE TO EAT ! And they

eat well! ( :-) )

I am sure Lutherans, Charismatics, Anglicans

and Methodists love to eat, too!

12. THEOLOGY IS IMPORTANT;

THEOLOGY IS GOOD

The above is offered not to convince you to adopt

Reformed theology (though you are invited to do

so if you feel led and convinced), but

more importantly to say:

It is better for one's clear thinking and

effective ministry,

to have a system of theology,

than not to have a system.

And in a multi-denominational context,

it actually is more helpful to have

a denominational/theological identity,

than not to have one.

13. THEOLOGY CONTRIBUTES

TO INTERDENOMINATIONAL UNITY

Case in point:

Presbyterians, Congregationalists and (Dutch)

Reformed missionaries in China -- they all

come from confessing denominations --

were the MOST eager to achieve interdenominational

union (esp. in Amoy), China, 1860s. Why?

I think it is precisely because,

they have a theological system as well

as convictions about the Bible.

So they felt free to move on to talk about

unity, merger, etc.

If we don't have a system,

merger talks can become a mess.

14. WHERE BATTLE LINES ARE TODAY

Meanwhile, I will work with all who subscribe

to inerrancy, and find the larger battles:

(a) neo-orthodox view of revelation / Scripture

(b) postmodern, deconstructionist hermeneutics

(c) compromise with Taoism and Confucianism

(d) importing secular psychology and marketing

presuppositions

Well, if I don't stop, my letter will become

16 pages! (No offense -- I KNOW I am verbose.)

Very cordially in Christ,

Sam Ling

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download