Getting to the Particulars: What This Christian Designer Believes and Why
April 22nd, 2009 in Web Design Worldview
by: Matthew Griffin
"Tell me in detail what you believe and why." This is the request I received from an old high school friend a few weeks ago on Facebook, and I have to admit it locked me up. After looking over my profile, this friend expressed surprise that I was attending a liturgical church. We went back and forth a little and finally she asked me if I would please explain in detail what I believe and why. "Oh, that's easy." I thought, and I started typing out my response. After all, I write a blog about worldview. Every week I go to great lengths researching topics, searching for truth, examining historical Christian positions on a myriad of topics. This will be a breeze. But instead of the free-flowing response I expected, I found myself in an intellectual stutter. I typed and retyped the first sentence several times and eventually found myself at a total standstill. Finally, I responded, "Let me think about it and I'll get back with you."
What's the Problem?
What was the problem? It wasn't a matter of substance or content. I could easily give a several hour impromptu lecture on the historical Christian view of reality. I'm submerged in it constantly; I eat it for breakfast. My problem was where to start. I immediately thought of Chesterton's illustration of the man who lives in civilization being asked why civilization is preferable to barbarism. "Well, uh... there's peace you know and, uh... you know... music." The problem is that when someone becomes fully convinced of a thing and assimilates it into his being as the very structure upon which all other ideals rest, it becomes difficult to discuss it from particulars. Or rather, it becomes much more complicated to discuss from particulars.
This is one of the reasons worldview thinking is essential for the Christian. Not only does it provide a true, cohesive, all-encompassing, fully Christian intellectual structure for us; it affords us the opportunity to step out of our own structure and into others in order to better understand and answer the questions of the culture around us. But, ironically, this is also the the key reason for my hesitancy in responding to the request. I am lucidly aware of the sway of other philosophical systems and I want to make sure I'm telling the story from the right starting point—with the right worldview in mind.
Telling the Ancient Story
The story of Christianity is amazing in that it can be told in an almost inexhaustible variety of forms. And depending on the culture and, more particularly, the worldview of the individual receiving the story, one form may be preferable to another as a starting point. Should I jump into Aquinas' rational proofs for the existence of God? Should I use historical narrative to lay out the covenants of the creator? Maybe I should start with the existential dilemma, or appeal to the poetic wisdom of Ecclesiastes. Rarely is there an opportunity for me to tell God's story in even two or three of the forms developed in the Bible and Christian history, much less all of them. Most of the time, I only get to tell it one way, so I want to make it count.
But In this particular case, I wasn't dealing with an unchurched secularist, or a pure existentialist. My friend grew up in a modern American evangelical environment and, admittedly, that's a worldview noticeably absent from the Mirificam Press archive of articles. I have spent a lot of time comparing and contrasting "mere Christianity", as C.S. Lewis called it, with overtly unchristian worldviews, but I haven't spent much time on the doctrinal particulars that make me the particular Christian that I am. I have told the story of God as compared with overt rebellion. And, for sure, that is an important story to tell. Our hearts have been initially pricked by some general summary of the story of God. But it's the particulars of the story that spur us on to greater holiness. I mentioned earlier that discussing Christianity from the particulars becomes increasingly difficult for me, and this is absolutely true. It's true because Christian understanding is deepened by particulars, not ignited. It's meant to begin with a simple story but it was never meant to eternally stay a simple story. On Mirificam Press I've told a lot of general stories, deconstructed a lot of worldviews, but It's time to break out the particulars, at least briefly. So, at the risk of losing friends and alienating people. Here is what I believe as a Christian and why.
On second thought, please refer to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and the Nicene Creed. Why say what's already been said so well, so humbly, and so completely? If you'll excuse the sharp turn, I'll end with a bit of personal advice. If you don't know what these creeds and confessions are, or you go to a church where they're never mentioned or used, it's time to find a church that does. Our Christian heritage is too precious to sacrifice to the god of "relevance". I didn't fully understand this until one day I was sitting at the dinner table with my family. I asked my little girl, Emma (almost two years old at the time) the first question in the "Children's Catechism". "Emma, who made you?" She looked up at me with her big brown eyes ( that I'm told look a lot like mine), and half a smile and announced, "Gawd."
- 72 Comments
- 8792 Views
Comments
Posted By: Eric on 04/22/09
<em>If you don't know what these creeds and confessions are, or you go to a church where they're never mentioned or used: it's time to find a church that does.</em> Never thought that I'd find anything to disagree* with you about, but in my opinion, the litmus test for a church is whether they teach the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Everything else is gravy. All of those creeds, catechisms, statements of faith, etc. are simply man's reworking of Scripture, and as wonderful and meaningful on a personal level as they may be, we should take care that they never distract from the focus on the Bible. I submit that regular attenders of a church that has a laser-focus on the Bible will never suffer spiritually from the lack of recitation of a creed. *OK, "disagree" is probably too strong. I'm pretty sure we still see eye-to-eye on this issue.
Posted By: Eric on 04/22/09
Oops. I apologize for the tags. Didn't realize you didn't allow them.
Posted By: Matthew Grffin on 04/22/09
Thanks for the comment, Eric. I agree with you that the only rule of faith and life--the only document with the authority to bind the consciences of men is the Bible. Coincidentally, that's one of the first questions and answers in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Creeds and confessions should not supplant the Bible in this role of authority but, rather, clarify and set boundaries for its interpretation. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a "laser-focus" on the Bible. But their interpretation puts them outside the boundaries of historical Christianity. Are creeds and confessions infallible sources of authority? No. Are they sources of some authority? Yes. By this I mean that they carry weight because they have been formulated from the Scriptures by the men and women who make up the institution that God has ordained as the minister of the word. We have taken this institution, the Church, too lightly and now we are reliving a microcosm of the rampant heresies of the church of the first few centuries. Not only that, we are leaving our children with no covenant, no tradition, but rugged American individualism. So, I would say we agree on the most central issue, the primacy of the Word of God, but we may disagree on the issue of church authority and tradition. Thanks, again for commenting.
Posted By: on 04/22/09
This was well-done! Yes, that rugged individualism is dangerous, one of the reasons I cling to Catholicism. I think Jesus' words about judging a tree by it's works and James' amplification of the point, apply not only to us individually but also collectively in our churches. My guess is that we all know people who are very familiar with Holy Scriptures, creeds, etc. who do not live by them. We are what we do, not what we merely say.
Posted By: George on 04/22/09
It pays to proof-read! Make that fruit of the tree, in my comment.
Posted By: RobertPowell on 04/23/09
Matt; love your writing. But now, I must agree with Eric; the litmus test for a "church" (i.e. assembly) should be whether they teach the Bible as the inerrant word of God and as the final arbiter of truth. (Rom.3:4 - "let God be true, but every man a liar".) And I would go beyond Eric�s point to say the litmus test whether an assembly was then a �new lump� or doctrinally �leavened� (1-Cor.5:7,8) is whether they recognize �the gospel of the uncircumcision� committed unto Paul (Gal.2:7) for us Gentiles as different from �the gospel of the circumcision� committed unto Peter (Gal.2:7) for Israel, and due to their subsequent fall (Rom.11:12), Paul�s gospel is therefore the only authorized gospel containing the power of God unto salvation for all men in our present dispensation today.
Posted By: RobertPowell on 04/23/09
Ooops; I'll try 'plain text'. Matt; love your writing. But now, I must agree with Eric; the litmus test for a "church" (i.e. assembly) should be whether they teach the Bible as the inerrant word of God and as the final arbiter of truth. (Rom.3:4 - "let God be true, but every man a liar".) And I would go beyond Eric�s point to say the litmus test whether an assembly was then a �new lump� or doctrinally �leavened� (1-Cor.5:7,8) is whether they recognize �the gospel of the uncircumcision� committed unto Paul (Gal.2:7) for us Gentiles as different from �the gospel of the circumcision� committed unto Peter (Gal.2:7) for Israel, and due to their subsequent fall (Rom.11:12), Paul�s gospel is therefore the only authorized gospel containing the power of God unto salvation for all men in our present dispensation today.
Posted By: john on 04/23/09
well.. GOd + design = time to unsubscribe
Posted By: Jim Bob Howard on 05/14/09
Matt, I am new to your blog (introduced by Robert Powell, above) and I want to say that it is a distinct privilege to read it. For a long time (not sure where/when it went) my Amazon "Interests" said something along the lines of: "I'm interested in theology and web design. If there's a book that combines the two, so much the better." :) My bride and I were discussing last night how much richer our lives are because we have studied the history of our brothers and sisters in the faith. Knowing that we are singing the same hymns (though the tune may vary slightly) and speaking the same truths as our fathers of the 1st, 3rd, 16th, et. al. centuries is very humbling AND unifying. Ours is an ancient faith. It didn't begin with us; we are standing on the shoulders of generations of faithful believers. Since we are all in agreement that the Bible teaches to "let God be true, but every man a liar," consider that the creeds help us know which men are "liars," in a sense. Just because we adhere to the "inerrancy of God's Word," doesn't mean we all have the same orthodoxy ("right believing" about WHAT the Bible teaches) or orthopraxy ("right behaving" according to that teaching). As Matt pointed out, Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints both "agree" that the Bible is God's word. But, they don't agree with much of what it says and/or they have their own interpretation of it and add to or take away from it. The creeds were written by fallible men, and were mostly a result of some sort of democratic process as to wording. So, YES, and again I say, YES, they do NOT hold sway over God's Word. But, remember too, that the canon of the New Testament was also agreed upon by men. The chapter divisions in our current published version were also "uninspired" and can lead to disruptions in the thought process of a passage, making a division where there orginally was none. The fact that we read the Bible in English, again, is due to the work of men... fallible, yes, but (as far as we can tell) attempting to be faithful. So, what we believe and understand ontologically and soteriologically all comes from what "our fathers have told us" when they uttered "dark sayings of old." I'm not saying creeds and confessions are above Scripture. I'm saying: "I believe the Bible" is as much a creed and confession as the rest, but there are other "churches" that say they agree with that and yet we would judge by their words and deeds that they are outside the "Church." I don't adhere to the WCF or the Nicene Creed because they're inerrant or on par with the Bible. I agree with THEM because I believe THEY agree with the Bible. Blessings, Jim Bob
Posted By: Matthew Grffin on 05/14/09
Thanks, Jim. Very well put.
Posted By: Skythe on 06/26/09
Oh wow, too much religious nonsense in here. ^^ Time to say good bye to this (nice) blog.
Posted By: Bluestone on 09/04/09
Very interesting insights into your faith.
Posted By: Sharpe on 10/20/09
Shame that some of you guys are scared of faith. It wasn't preached it was jusy talked about. I think you need to look at the chips on your sholders
Posted By: headsets on 10/20/09
Eric, do you think 'sola scriptural' is scriptural ? The NT clealery speaks of three fold revelation. The scriptures The traditions of the apostles and the teacning of the church And the inspiration of the Holy Spirit To deny any of these in preference to scripture is to dent scripture itself. Cults like the JW's believe in the innerancy of scripture, but are in error because they have left the tarditonal understandings of the church.
Posted By: Annie on 10/27/09
I agree with Matt that it would be best for every church to read the creeds and confessions, which sysmatically summarized major Biblical teachings through the studies of theologians past. Though creeds and confessions cannot replace the Bible, no doubt God continues to work through His servants to make His Word understandable to all believers. In a sense, creeds and confessions are like Bible's work books. Every believer, especially ones who have a hard time piecing concepts together, would benefit from receiving an overarching view of God's teachings as the Bible is studied.
Posted By: Annie on 10/27/09
BTW, Matt, I am a designer myself. Thank you for posting a site that combines design and faith - one that values reform traditions.
Posted By: Matthew Griffin on 10/27/09
Thanks, Annie.
Posted By: Game of Thrones on 11/10/09
what do you mean my the modern american evangelical movement? Its a phrase loaded with potential meaning which i am not sure you meant to unleash?