Small movements create big errors over long trajectories

If you ever go rifle target shooting you'll quickly learn how small movements at the tip of the gun barrel amount to huge distances at the target.  Let me try to give you an idea of the precision required to hit a one-inch target 100 yards away:  If you remember your geometry, a circle has 360 degrees in it.  So imagine taking a pizza and slicing it into 360 equal-sized slices.  That's a small slice of pizza!  Now imagine taking a pizza and slicing it into 21,600 equal-sized slices.  If you are aiming for a one-inch target 100 yards away you'll miss that target completely if you aim 1/21,600th of a pizza too high or too low (see http://www.snipercountry.com/articles/mildot_moa.asp for more on this).  The same error at the gun would miss a 10 inch target 1,000 yards away.  The further the bullet travels the more "off-target" it becomes.

This is as true in theology as it is in rifle shooting.  That is, a pastor's teaching today has a trajectory that will have some effect in the future.  The effect can be positive or it can be negative.  It can be Biblical or it can heretical.  Which is why pastors spend a good deal of time refuting ideas they view as not Biblical or trying to clarify ideas that, while not in error themselves, have a trajectory which will eventually result in erroneous belief.  To the layperson it may have the appearance of grumpy old men or women arguing about things that don't matter, but to the theologian/pastor these issues have eternal kingdom consequences.  Not just in the future "salvation" sense but in shaping our worldview today.  Knowing this, when I hear one pastor or theologian critique (constructively) another's teaching I will try to discover the underlying erroneous belief the critiquing pastor is attempting to prevent.

One example is a back-and-forth between John Piper and N.T. Wright on the doctrine of justification.  At this point in time, each has written books responding to the other's views and it has at times becomes quite difficult to understand the differences between their views.  I began to wonder why they would spend so much time writing books when the differences between them seem so minute.  Of course, their chosen vocation is to write books and teach, but surely they have better things to do than write volumes that essentially only tweak the other's ideas.  In fact, when I read Wright and then go on to read Piper my immediate response is, "I agree with both of these guys!"

I did not understand their motivation until I read this explanation from John Piper on what he thinks is at stake:

"Therefore, the very thing that N.T. Wright and others are wanting to accomplish, namely an engaged, bold, loving, sacrificial, mission-oriented church will cease to be that, just like the mainline churches have ceased to be dynamic forces in the world, because they threw away the essence of certain crucial doctrines. You don’t see it now, because N.T. Wright himself is such a good embodiment of engagement, but I’m saying that some of the things he says have the trajectory that if they’re followed out, are going to in fact undermine the very thing he wants to accomplish, namely, a sacrificially loving church." (John Piper, "Interview With John Piper About The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright")

Whether you agree with him or not, it's important to see that Piper's concern isn't so much about what N.T. Wright himself believes, but rather where he thinks Wright's teaching will lead the church.  Consider for a moment that today's Christian pastors are profoundly influenced by the teaching of the pastors and theologians who wrote hundreds of years ago:  people like John Wesley, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Augustine, Jacobus Arminius, Charles Spurgeon, C.S. Lewis, John Stott, and on and on.  Some denominations even carry the name of a theologian--like Lutherans or Wesleyans.  The writings and teachings of Piper, Wright, and other pastors have long-lasting implications for the church which is why they take doctrine seriously, and why we should too.