Searching for nuance

I am an insomniac. It runs in the family, and I don't have it nearly so bad as some of my family members. So I'm not trying to complain, but I have spent many a night staring at the ceiling.

One thing I have found that helps me fall asleep is listening to an audio book or to a recording of a sermon. There's a delicate balance here: if an audio book is too interesting, then it keeps me awake, instead of putting me to sleep. The solution to that seems to be listening to something many, many times. In other words, I have a small collection of recordings that work for me, partly because I've listened to them so many times already.

Among my go-to recordings is a message on "The Dangers of Calvinism and Arminianism." I have listened to it dozens of times, perhaps even hundreds of times. I refer to it as "the unhinged rant on Calvinism," because it's an excellent example of unhinged ranting. Of course there are some good points in that talk, but they're not very thick on the ground.

So it's fair to say I listen to someone talking about the dangers of Calvinism at least weekly, if not several times every week.

I'm not quite sure what happened, but over the last few decades there has been a real trend for "anti-Calvinism" among "brethren." While I don't want to advocate for (or against) Calvinism, I've been interested to see this trend solidify into what sometimes seems like an obsession. I'm concerned that it has come to approach unhealthy levels.

I bring that up only to say that the anti-Calvinist teaching exemplifies what we might call an asymmetry that seems common when we take up any controversial topic. That is a tendency to look at Scripture texts that seem to agree with us and say, "it's right there in the text!" while at the same time calling for nuance in the passages that seem (at face value) to support the opposite view. So we call for nuance when it's convenient and "face value" when it's convenient.

As an example, in those messages on "The Dangers of Calvinism," a great deal of weight is placed on the number of times the Scripture uses the term "whosoever." But when the speaker mentions 2 Thessalonians 2:13, he launches into a very nuanced discussion of what "salvation" really means. In this context, he says, it can't possibly mean "personal, individual salvation."

I've pondered this a lot over the last few years. It seems there's a danger for all of us to "proof text" on the verses that seem to say what we want them to say, while looking for infinite nuance in any verse we don't like. None of us are exempt: we all do it.

The point is this: if all of us has a tendency to take our proof texts at face value – while looking for an escape from the "other guy's" proof texts in a nuanced reading– then it seems to me we would all do well to apply that same level of nuance to every text. That seems like a reasonable approach to me, especially since we already know can't trust ourselves. 

So I have been trying to make a point of reading every verse in its context, reading every verse as nuanced as though it attacked one of my pet doctrines on its face.  That might mean I am going to lose some proof texts to nuance. 

There is a Sunday School song that summarizes Jeremiah 23:29, 

God's word is like a hammer that breaketh the rock in twain

The song has been playing in my head a lot today. It's worth remembering that of all the rocks the Word of God might break, my own heart is the one that would do me the most good.

We don't need proof the other guy is wrong nearly so much as we need our own hearts broken before God. It's probably better for us to be suspicious when a verse says what we want it to say than for us to be suspicious when it doesn't.

One recurring theme for me has been learning to give the Word of God space to speak. There are plenty of texts that don't say what I want or expect them to say. Those texts seem to pay the most for the time investment I put into them. To be fair, there are "problem verses" for almost any doctrine you choose. Take either side of any debated issue, and you'll find verses that are hard for you to explain. but those verses are the ones that seem to carry the biggest rewards.

If you're a Dispensationalist, for example, it might be worth meditating on Deuteronomy 29:1ff. Yes, there are two Mosaic Covenants in Scripture: what is the impact of that on your understanding of dispensations? If you lean to Calvinism, you might want to spend some time looking at the first six chapters of Genesis. Pay special attention to words like "repent" and "relent." They might surprise you. If you lean to Arminianism, spend some time in John 6 or Romans 9. Really read them, consider carefully why Paul assumes his teaching of election will offend you (Romans 9:19). Does Romans 9? Will you let it?

And whatever you do, don't reach for that pat answer you've adopted to shield your heart and conscience from the Word of God. Let it hurt a bit. Take it in. You might find those become the verses that reward you the most.

And then, when we find ourselves in those passages that seem to say what we want them to, let's try and find some nuance. Are we understanding them in context? Is it possible we are right, but this particular verse really isn't one that supports our view? That happens a lot.

Not every verse supports every truth. I've mentioned Romans 6:23 a lot on this blog: it's an important verse, but it's not a gospel verse. It's not talking about God's just judgment on sins we have committed; it's talking about the wages we as justified believers can expect to be paid when we obey indwelling sin as our master. So let's not rip it from its context, even if our intentions are pure.

So that's my goal: to read every verse with nuance, not just the ones that don't seem to agree with me. I'm not sure I do it very well, but I think it's a worthy goal.