Disclosure: While my personal positions and commitments relative to the two
“movements” in this article should be fairly obvious to those who know me, I
chose to let both appear without comment to communicate the larger point.
It is so easy. Everyone
is subject to it, though some may be more vulnerable than others. We might call
it bandwagon believism, when a
popular writer, speaker, or scholar affirms a particular viewpoint and suddenly
many people rush to jump onboard. The phenomenon is undeniable. Human beings
are fickle creatures. Scripture testifies to how the immature are “tossed to
and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14).
But bandwagon believism is not legitimate or lasting conviction, though it may
often be mistaken for such. The church always needs less bandwagon believism
and more biblical conviction.
The last two
decades have seen a surge in Reformed theology, especially as many young people
have identified with the “Young, Restless, and Reformed.” The influence and
teaching ministry of men like John MacArthur, John Piper, Tim Keller, and Francis
Chan have, no doubt, played a crucial role in the growth of the Reformed
community. Has there been legitimate, lasting conviction of the biblical basis
for Reformed theology and real conversion to it during this time? Undoubtedly
so. Have there also been bandwagon believers jumping onboard? Undeniably. Time
and God’s final judgment will ultimately reveal the fruit and substance, or
lack thereof, of those associated with the Reformed resurgence.
The historical-critical-approach
to Bible interpretation has seen a similar growth in number of proponents
during the last two decades. The work of men like N. T. Wright, John Walton, Christopher
Hays, and Peter Enns has gone a long way to making such methods popular and
accessible to a much larger audience than ever before. Will this growth in the HCA
eventually replace the older historical-grammatical-approach and completely
transform the field of biblical studies, as some predict? Perhaps, at least in
academic and major denominational circles. But have there also been some
jumping on the bandwagon without thinking critically through the issues? Of
course. Time and God’s judgment will also ultimately disclose the fruit and
substance of HCA methods in the study of Scripture.
It is not wrong
to embrace a doctrinal perspective that happens to be popular at the time.
Neither is it wrong to oppose a doctrinal perspective when it happens to be
fashionable to do so. The question is, why?
Why do you believe what you believe? What is the basis for your convictions,
and will you still have them when they are no longer popular? Will you defend
your views on God’s sovereignty or human freedom or biblical inerrancy or
historical errors in the Bible when the tide has turned against you and you
find yourself in the minority? You may be convinced while walking in unison
with a crowd, but the strength of your conviction may one day be tested by how
courageous you are when backed alone into a corner.
New perspectives
should neither be accepted nor rejected uncritically, and all of us should beware
of the temptation either to jump onboard exciting new movements or quickly grab
a pitchfork as others do so. What is truly novel is never good in terms of
theology (Jer. 6:16), but not everything that may be unfamiliar to you is truly
new (Acts 17:11). Let the Scriptures ultimately test new ideas and inform the
faith you confess and practice (2Tim. 3:16-17). The words of Paul are apropos
in this context, “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1Thess. 5:21). May
God give us wisdom and grace to do so. -JME
