As my wife and I continue the enriching journey of spiritual rediscovery, we are finding that our beliefs are frequently changing and growing. Oftentimes these changes are exciting and comforting as they enlighten our understanding of the human condition and the hope we can have in spite of our world’s bleak fate. Other times these changes are scary and uncomfortable as they shift us away from some beliefs that we once thought of as highly important.
It is these ladder changes that lead to a recent conversation with my wife. She expressed a fear of hers. She feared that we might lead people away from the truth by unwittingly teaching falsehoods. I could relate having wrestled with this fear various times in the past. Though interestingly, I no longer felt that same fear, and I knew why.
There are two things I know for certain about my understanding of God. First, seeing that what is limited cannot fully comprehend what is unlimited, my understanding is incomplete. Second, seeing that God is goodness and my sin keeps me from knowing good from bad in every situation, my understanding is flawed. Furthermore, unless anyone should be without limit or be morally perfect, I assume that these two things are true about everyone’s understanding of God.
The thing about an incomplete understanding is that you cannot know in what capacity your understanding is incomplete; same goes for a flawed understanding. Therefore, you can never be certain of the extent of the limits and flaws corrupting any lesson taught by a human. Furthermore, you cannot account for the effect of a student’s own limits and flaws on interpreting the message. In other words, there is no teaching about God without corruption through limited and flawed understanding.
What then separates a false teacher from a righteous one? On these premises you could make a valid argument that there is no difference and then fully embrace agnosticism. Personally, I find little to no hope in doing that. What hope is there in a belief in God who is closed to relationship with His creation, not permitting an extent of Himself to be known and not correcting the misunderstandings of those who will accept correction?
As many atheists like to ask, “What is the difference between a disengaged God and no God at all?” In asking this it is assumed that there is no good answer. I don’t have one, so I’m not about to argue with the point.
There is, on the other hand, a hope to be found in an engaged God, and it is in such a God that I value hope for. What then separates a false teacher from righteous ones? Here are the traits I believe qualify a false teacher:
Someone who teaches what they believe to be false as though they believed it to be true.
Deceivers
Someone who is willfully ignorant, refusing to question the validity of their beliefs; they do not recognize the limits and faults of their understanding and do not seek correction.
Idolaters of limited and faulty understanding.
How this relates to me personally. I have been trusted as a Sunday school teacher in the Wesleyan church yet I have come to hold beliefs contrary to the beliefs of the Wesleyan church. For those who may be concerned by this, be assured, I recognize that Sunday school in this case is meant to be a time to teach/learn about the Wesleyan beliefs, not a time to teach my personal beliefs.
I have no issue teaching the Wesleyan beliefs so long as I have the freedom to make known when I disagree, of course without going into details about my personal beliefs in class. Should I teach on a Wesleyan belief that I don’t necessarily believe, I will teach saying, “Though I personally disagree with the Wesleyan church on this point, traditionally in the Wesleyan church it is believed that…” meanwhile reserving my own opinion for time not dedicated to the study of the Wesleyan beliefs.
If anyone would like to suggest a different approach to how I should handle my teaching situation I would be happy to discuss it. Thank you all for your contributions.
No comments:
Post a Comment