Protecting & Preserving
Most times, you hear people talk about the great Councils of the early church in terms of (obviously) "right" versus (obviously) "wrong". They tend to forget or ignore that, with the exception of people like Marcion who were quite heretical, the various parties involved were all sincere, devout followers of Jesus who were quite serious about being true to Him and His teachings.
This prof focussed on each group in terms of "what they were trying to protect"; he wanted us to more fully understand that the reasons behind some of the debates were based on concerns of entering a "slippery slope" towards false teaching if certain emphases were not protected (sound familiar?). The intent of many of these people was to preserve Truth from being watered down or hijacked by heretical fringe groups with an agenda to grind. Our prof's approach was very grace-based, and probably more historically accurate.
When we approach different church structures and theological emphases, I think it only makes sense that we adopt a similar approach: working to understand what people are trying to protect when they react against what they perceive as a "slippery slope" of postmodernistic relativity and subjectivity. Instead of writing them off as "hopelessly modern" and hyper-religious people who simply "don't get it" (which I still hear too many times), why not work a little bit harder to understand what they're trying to protect, and either:
(A) help them understand that the outcome they fear isn't necessarily a sure-fire thing, or
(B) realize that pomergent people are no less prone to wandering into (unintentional) compromise and error than any other generation, and that some warnings we're getting from people are both justified and helpful.




















