But you are exaclty right in saying that “living out the Christian life does not come from having a church member’s head loaded with denominational beliefs.” What is needed is for doctrine to be made practical, defendable, and real…to the point that it changes a life.

I think you are right on. I think the problem is magnified in Bible-belt areas where there is a sense of anti-intellectualism in conservative circles. This is probably due to the fact that pastors don’t teach theology in churches. As a result most people are theologically ignorant. If you were to go to the average person, in the average Baptist church and ask them to explain their view of sanctification, they would just stare back at you. I really think that most people in churches just do what their pastor says. They adopt his theology without even knowing that is what they are doing. As a result they have no basis for what they do or how they live.

I like this post. This is certainly a real problem. However, I wonder if this phenomenon is purely geographical or whether it also stems from theological perspectives as well. I tend to think this kind of Christianity coincides with one’s position on sanctification, in particular I am speaking of Keswick spirituality which is so prevalent in Dispensationalism. This was Chafer’s position and became (and still is) very popular among dispensational churches as well as the Bible conference and Bible church movement. As you know, this is very popular in Chattanooga and other areas in the Southeast but is also attested in the north.

Inherent in this thinking is a Wesleyan theology that presupposes the active role on the part of humans in their own salvation. This interaction between divine grace and human response, if not balanced, leads to something very akin to a works salvation. These people may state that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, yet they are quick to judge the reality of someone else’s faith based solely on their actions (or even their beliefs in peripheral issues, i.e. rapture, Bible versions, etc.). This, of course, suggests that they deem their own salvation based on how they live rather than what they confess.

I remember when I was in Chattanooga and a deacon at our old church (I won’t mention names) called me at home because his son had been out drunk, gotten arrested, and needed someone to talk to him. I asked him why he didn’t confide in one of his fellow deacons or a pastor in the church. I felt it was a matter they may be more equipped to deal with. He told me that he was afraid to do that because of the repercussions to him and his family in the church. He didn’t even want to go talk to his son. He wanted me to do it. He knew I was not judgmental about that kind of thing. I told him I thought it was a shame that we were a church, a group of sinners saved by grace, yet we could not discuss sin or bring up our troubles and struggles. We could not depend on one another to build up and encourage without the fear of reprisal. That’s not church, that’s sectarianism.

I could write scores and scores of pages on this and think it is a real problem. I don’s discount the genuineness of the faith of any of my fundamentalist brothers and sisters. I am not a fundamentalist of any sort. However, I do think they entrap themselves very much in a works salvation, something that they adamantly oppose. It’s kind of like, they say one thing yet do another. I don’t think they mean to, I just don’t think they realize they are doing it!

Good piece, I like this.