Most Commented

Recent Comments

Subscribe

  • Subscribe

The Box Effect

Posted by Chris Case | October 16, 2007 .

Maybe there’s just two kinds of people. Two kinds of people that lead to two different versions of epistemology. Two kinds of epistemology that leads to (what Doug Pagitt calls) two versions of Christianity.

In a recent Christianity Today article on Mark Driscoll, regarding the differences between himself and Mark, Doug says “I think much of our difference comes from the fact that in many ways we are telling different stories of Christianity.” Maybe its not even that. Maybe, at the heart of it all, there’s just two different kinds of people. Box people and non-box people.

Largely based upon cultural and experiential upbringing, there are people who love for things to fit in boxes and those that don’t. That is not to say Doug Pagitt doesn’t like concepts in boxes and Mark Driscoll doesn’t think outside the box, but a large part of their disagreements exist in these two streams.

Box people like the logical order of things. Systematic theology appeals to them as an emphasis of study. This leads to a larger emphasis also on historical practices within the church, stating that if the model has worked in the past, we can still tweak it for the current generation and keep going. They are the ones who drive their cars to 200,000, as long as it still gets them from point A to point B. They are not necessarily opposed to change, but there better be a dang good reason to do it… no point in needlessly experimenting.

Non-box people enjoy controversy. The messy world of practical theology becomes way more interesting to them. Hence why they like talking about ecclesiology way more than doctrine (even though doctrine informs ecclesiology). They care little about the ‘way its always been done’ and are interested in being the trailblazer for new forms. They are the entrepreneurial individuals, who like starting with novel and creative concepts.

The problem exists when both these people types approach the Bible. I think both camps can suffer from what Paul tries to warn Timothy about in 2 Tim 4.3. “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

In my experience, individuals that connect the most with Reformed theology are box-type people. They enjoy that the doctrine is clear and established. There is respect paid to the historical giants who have thought and written about God for thousands of years.

The Emergent/emerging folks I know are mostly non-box individuals. They are the artists of the world, cynical about just about anything, particularly established systems and status quos. They still want to know absolute truth, but are skeptical towards others telling them what it might be (even if they are correct).

Most people are not overly committed to one of these types or another, least of all, myself, but everyone still has tendencies towards one or the other. This causes the rise of uncertainty for individuals. I connect so much with my understanding of doctrine in the Reformed tradition. I admit, I like my Pipers, Spurgeons, Owens, and Edwards’.

But maybe doctrine has room to be a little more messy than what the tradition teaches. In no way am I advocating errancy in Scripture, nor am I stating that Scripture is like a trampoline, as Rob Bell suggests.

Then again, is it possible that God does give us His word so that we can form a deep, doctrinal understanding. What’s the point of giving us insight into his foreknowledge, power, grace, atonement, etc. in written form if we aren’t supposed to try are hardest to figure them out, instead of throwing up our hands saying “Only God knows, we’ll figure it out when we get to heaven.” If God wanted that reaction from us, He probably would have just left said subject matter out of the Scripture.

So, let us strive after sound doctrine. With a open top box. With a bottom to help us set a foundation, but a top that allows for the miraculous and wonder-working God and allows to be humble about our certainties.

Posted under Church, Theology | Like this article? Subscribe to our RSS feed.

Leave a Comment

If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Comments

5 Comments so far
  1. joanna October 16, 2007 3:34 pm

    Is it possible that the box/non-box people are another way of describing modern/postmodern thinking? The modern way of thinking includes finding definitive answers through logic and considering the evidence/facts. Postmodern thinking includes living in a gray area, and being skeptical of absolutely-sure answers. Or do the box/non-box people just tend toward the modern/postmodern views?

    And, I agree with your conclusion- an open-topped box, a foundation with room to grow and explore.

  2. Out Da Box October 16, 2007 9:43 pm

    [...] Case suggests there are box Christians and unbox Christians. I’m not quite sure what I think about his recommendation: an open top box, with a bottom to [...]

  3. Dan Ra October 17, 2007 8:20 am

    I dare not say that we leave Scriptural interpretation up to God and then live our lives “how we please.” The very fact that emergents care about justice, church forms, missional living, etc., are based upon, at the least, some Scriptural study and hermeneutics. But reformed folks also care.

    As Joanna mentioned above about modernism/postmodernism, I think that’s a natural progression. We should be careful about our modernistically constructed language and attitude about how to approach scripture.

    I’m with you on having a firm base. But we need to define what that base means, because reformed christians, eastern orthodox christians, coptic christians, emergents, etc., will all differ on what the nuances of the base might be.

  4. Sarah Lynne March 6, 2008 3:31 pm

    I agree with Dan… There is definitely a foundation, and I have very specific beliefs about what they are, but the open top part of the box, and my understanding of my own limitations means that I must be willing to consider other people’s viewpoints. Some I will reject completely (and have), but others continue to inform and cause me to reconsider my foundations. I understand that for “box” people this is a bit scary… but I don’t think understanding God will ever be simple, easy, or definite. He reminds us that we only see in the mirror dimly, and my realization of that was so incredably important to my faith, that I would never want to lose it for the sake of perfect stability. We seek to build our house on the rock, but our humanness means that there will always be the possibility of sand.

  5. Tony Jones and Steve Brown on the Radio | Reformergent May 7, 2008 2:14 am

    [...] I once talked about Christian doctrine being like an open box, where you are surrounded on four sides by the stead and supportive wall, but to allow for doctrine [...]