Restoring Apostolic Faith

Why the Bridge Between Theologian and Layperson Is Often Untraveled

Theologians and scholars tend to argue theology.

Laypeople tend to argue identity.

And that difference explains why so many conversations about faith collapse into frustration, defensiveness, or quiet resentment.

Because when identity feels threatened, facts don’t land — they bounce.

The problem in these situations is rarely that either is necessarily wrong in content. More often, it is that the collision was never:

• theology vs. theology

It was:

• formation vs. belonging

Formation and Belonging Are Not the Same Thing

For the average churchgoer, the church is not simply a theological framework. It is a lived system of meaning:

• friendships

• routines

• moral identity

• “I’ve been faithful all these years”

• a quiet assurance that they are okay with God

Belonging answers emotional questions:

• Am I in?

• Am I safe?

• Do I matter here?

Formation answers different ones:

• Am I being shaped by truth?

• Do I understand what I confess?

• Is my faith aligned with its original form?

These two goals are not enemies—but they are often treated as interchangeable. And that confusion is costly.

Why Honest Critique Feels Like a Personal Attack

When someone in theology says—accurately—

“Most modern believers don’t actually understand the faith; it functions more like a social club”

What many hear is not a critique of systems or structures, but a verdict on their life:

“Your faith is shallow, and you may have wasted decades.”

That is not an intellectual disagreement.

That is an existential threat.

No one processes that calmly—especially those who have been part of the faith a long time, deeply invested, and formed within the system being questioned.

Two Different Operating Systems

This is where the bridge collapses.

Theologians tend to operate within:

• historical continuity

• textual literacy

• covenant categories

• first-century contexts

Laypeople often operate within:

• sincerity

• loyalty

• emotional certainty

• “I believe, therefore I understand”

Both are human.

Only one is sufficient for discipleship.

And here is the uncomfortable truth that often triggers resistance:

Sincerity is not the same thing as understanding.

Belief can be genuine

and still be malformed.

That is not elitism. That is the entire purpose of formation—and the thrust of the majority of apostolic teaching.

Why the Critique Is Necessary—and Not New

The idea that confidence can replace formation is not a modern invention. Scripture confronts it repeatedly.

Jesus spoke to people who belonged deeply but were poorly formed.

Paul acknowledged zeal that lacked understanding.

Hebrews rebuked believers who had stalled in immaturity despite years of exposure.

The earliest Christians assumed something modern Christianity often resists:

Faith requires instruction, discipline, and growth—or it collapses into self-assurance.

The church did not exist to protect identity.

It existed to form allegiance.

This critique is not novel.

It is inherited.

Where Conversations Inevitably Break

There is a sentence we have all uttered in our own way—accurate, but volatile—that often ends productive dialogue:

“You believe sincerely and think that means you understand.”

It is true.

But it strikes ego before conscience.

Once ego is threatened, learning stops. Dialogue becomes:

• circular

• defensive

• emotionally driven

• subtly hostile

Not because truth was absent—but because identity felt endangered.

Rebuilding the Bridge (Without Compromising Truth)

Formation cannot begin by diagnosing others. It must begin with humility.

A better starting point might sound like this:

“I realized at some point that I believed sincerely for years without actually understanding the framework of the faith I was part of. That realization pushed me to ask how the earliest believers actually understood it.”

Same truth.

Less threat.

More invitation.

Some will lean in.

Some will step back.

Both responses are informative.

The Hard Reality Few Want to Name

Some people cannot afford to examine their faith deeply—not because they are dishonest, but because doing so would destabilize too much of their life.

Formation requires:

• loss

• humility

• unlearning

• rebuilding

Not everyone is prepared for that cost.

That does not make them evil.

But it does mean they are not your audience.

And that is not a failure.

A Final Word

Critiquing the modern church system is not an attack on people.

It is a call back to formation.

Reformers, prophets, and teachers have always done the same work:

• calling people from belonging to allegiance

• from assurance to faithfulness

• from feelings to formation

But not everyone wants to be taught.

Some only want to be affirmed.

And those two groups will always react very differently to truth.

The bridge between theologian and layperson remains untraveled not because it does not exist—but because crossing it requires letting go of something familiar and comfortable. 

And not everyone is ready for that journey.