Take a look at this:
Category: Christianity
-
Christian Reconciliation Carnival #1
The first ever Christian Reconciation Blog Carnival is up and running at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength. Check it out!
-
N.T. Wright on Just War
Support for the Iraq war has been largely characterized as a liberal-conservative debate, with lots of negative adjectives attached to each political stream. Supporters are supposedly patriots who support using our military to defend our innocent citizens while opponents are portrayed as weak folks whose only desire is to surrender. There are, however, quite a number of other approaches that have been drowned out in the rhetoric used on both sides.
I believe the war to be a strategic mistake. Even if the war were justified in a vacuum, in the context of the middle east as it really exists, as opposed to the way it’s perceived by some folks in Washington, the war cannot come to a favorable, long-term conclusion.
N. T. Wright is an evangelical theologian, one who believes in the concept of a “just war,” yet he does not believe this war was justified. He gives it less favorable reviews than I do, and I think adds some excellent reasons. I suggest reading his post at World Needs A Strong United Nations, a column on the Washington Post site.
Hat tip: Catching Meddlers.
-
Decisive Verse, Decisive Choice
I was having a conversation with a friend who is a United Methodist pastor a few years back. He was a well educated man with a doctoral degree and Arminian to the core. We got onto the subject of predestination vs free will, and he quoted the following to me (though not in my own translation, which I present here):
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often have I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you did not want to! — Matthew 23:37
“It’s really very simple,” he said to me. “When Jesus said that he would have, but didn’t because they wouldn’t, he was either lying, or he was telling the truth. If he was telling the truth, they had free will, they had a choice. I choose to believe that Jesus was telling the truth!”
Good for him!
On another occasion, I was talking to a convinced Calvinist who was a Hebrew student. I had commented that I didn’t really find the doctrine of predestination very attractive. Of course, that isn’t necessarily a good argument against it. He said that he didn’t find it very attractive either, but he thought it was scriptural, so he believed it. He too had a text to quote:
28 We know that all things work together for goodu for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. — Romans 8:28-30 (NRSV)
“That’s what the Bible says,” he told me, “And I believe it!” Good for him too!
Now I’m aware of the many arguments that can swirl around these texts, and of many ways of reconciling the various positions, but I simply want to comment briefly on each person’s approach. Each of these men was a pastor. Each was determined to follow the teachings of scripture as fully as possible, each of them would have agreed on the broad outlines and most of the details of how to interpret the Bible, and yet they held essentially opposite views on this point.
Arminians, of course, claim to believe in predestination–they just interpret it differently. To a Calvinist, it appears that they don’t really believe in it at all. Calvininsts claim to believe in freewill, and even have an article on it in the Westminster Confessions (it’s Article IX). But Arminians read that article and find that it isn’t adequate to the texts that teach human responsibility and free will.
At another time I was organizing a youth event in which we would have pastors and teachers from several churches and denominations get together to teach high school age young people to defend their faith. There were enormous differences in many areas of theology, from creation and evolution, to church standards. Our staff included United Methodists, Presbyterian Church in America, and Assemblies of God along with a couple of independents. But one issue was brought up to me as one that required guidance on how to answer–Calvinism vs. Arminianism. And indeed students did ask.
My guidance at the time was simply to say that there are texts in the Bible that appear to teach predestination and other texts that appear to teach freewill, and all our disagreements result from the way we combine those texts. The various teachers were quite willing to go with that.
And I think that’s a very good answer. There are substantial investments both of personality and theology in each of these positions. What we hear with each of these texts is impacted heavily by what we bring to it. I believe that the scriptures do not settle this issue, but rather simply assert both divine sovereignty and human choice and responsibility. But that’s very hard for us to live with, so we each feel the need to explain how they work together, and I’m no different from the rest on this point. I’m such a convinced Arminian that I’m no more than a step or so from being Pelagian. Of course, a “proper” Arminian might object to the idea that I could be a convinced Arminian and nonetheless stray into Pelagianism, but I’ll have to leave that for another discussion. Perhaps I’m not as Arminian as I suppose.
But still when I look at it practically, I see a great deal of similarity in how Calvinists and Arminians view the Christian life, even if our theological structure is so different. In exploring with my Calvinist Hebrew student, whom I taught one-on-one for a year, I found that when we went to apply things to real life, we reached very similar conclusions. Discipleship, evangelism, preaching of salvation, even social action were areas on which we could very often agree. We did have some differences on social action that were not the result of the Calvinist Arminian divide, but that is also another topic. Our underlying doctrinal structure had less impact on how we lived and how we did ministry than anyone could expect.
I recall attending a lecture by John Blanchard, a Presbyterian evangelist. Now many Arminians have told me that they are shocked that there are such things as Presbyterian evangelists, though Blanchard is hardly alone. Someone asked him a question during the question and answer time. “How can you believe in predestination and also be an evangelist?” I suspect the questioner was a mischiveous Presbyterian rather than a Methodist interloper such as myself. He said this: “Predestination is a doctrine, and I believe it. Evangelism is a command and I obey it.” (Quoted from memory.) In practical terms, how can I argue with that?
I have two points right now. First, how we develop our doctrinal structure on this and many other points depends on what text(s) we make the key to our theological structure. Each side can find proof-texts, and each can find whole proof chapters. One of my favorites is Jeremiah 18, and it’s also a favorite of many of my Calvinist brethren. We just look at different parts of the chapter! Second, our theological framework is not necessarily the most decisive factor in our diligence and effectiveness as disciples. If we can overlook some theological disagreements, we can often find common ground in obeying the commands of Jesus. I would suggest that a great deal of Christian division could be quieted by emphasizing those two points.
-
Conservative Political Deception
Ben Witherington has a good post today about political deception with a brief intro on parthenogenesis. On the latter, I would simply note that I see no particular benefit to Christianity in proving that a virgin birth is possible. The value of the doctrine stems at least in part from the fact that it is not possible, and thus, if it happened, it was a miracle.
The other portion is certainly worth reading. His comments on his interview on the O’Reilly Factor are quite interesting. The only thing I have to add is that liberals are equally capable of such shenanigans, and that we should decry them wherever and by whomever they are perpetrated.
-
New Carnival: Christian Reconciliation
Weekend Fisher at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength as announced a new blog carnival, Christian Reconciliation Carnival: Call for Submissions, to be published monthly. This month’s topic: setting the record straight for strawman arguments made against your group. Submissions by midnight on 1/30/2007.
-
Great Post on Gifting
In preparing the Christian Carnival CLVIII, which I hosted this week on my Participatory Bible Study Blog, I found a real gem of a post on gifting. Dana, of Dana’s Avenue, wrote about Gifting, and the experience of discovering excitement in the gift of accounting.
This really strikes a cord with me, because in my own classes on spiritual gifts I tell people that the church is filled with people who want exciting gifts like prophecy, miracles, or leadership, but very few want things like wisdom, hospitality, or helping. The church, on the other hand, needs those gifts in reverse order. We need lots and lots of helpers!
-
The Problem with WWJD
One of the primary objections that conservative Christians have to the work of historical Jesus scholars is that they often have a tendency to create Jesus in their own image, or at least in an image congenial to them. This is said particularly of the scholars of the third quest, and of the Jesus Seminar in particular. It’s not entirely a false charge, either. With the use of historical criteria one can quite easily tilt the results in just about any direction depending on what weight one gives to each historical criterion, not to mention the weight given to the various sources.
Now this isn’t an essay on the historical Jesus quest, as interesting as that subject is. But what struck me recently was how easy it is for any of us to create a Jesus in our own image, whom we can piously follow. Conservatives can get in on the game, simply by placing more weight one one text than another. Do you need a more violent Jesus? Try the cleansing of the temple. More gentle? “Love your enemies.” If you’re dispensationalist, at least of the older variety, you can simply disregard whole swaths of the teaching of Jesus because they apply to a different dispensation.
In the person of his followers, Jesus is both for and against the war in Iraq, both for and against capital punishment, eager to help every immigrant or determined to move them out as quickly as possible, interested in more or less government regulation (I’m really not sure where this comes from, but there are those who invoke “Christian principles” on the matter), and so forth.
Recently I read an excellent blog post on the patriarchal movement, (Women Who Drive and the Men Who Let Them, which led me to this patriarchal article). There is much that one could comment on in an article such as this, but there were a couple of sentences that inspired this post:
But at the same time, our culture is at war with this masculinity. This means that the men who are equipped to maintain peace in their homes will be men at war beyond the front door. A man who has what it takes to provide peace, stability and security in his home will be just the kind of man who is embattled outside. Our world system is hostile to the kind of masculinity which is capable of guiding and protecting the godly home. Centuries ago, in the great battle over the Trinity, Athanasius was told at one time that the whole world was against him. Then let it be known, he said, that Athanasius is contra mundum against the whole world. In the same way, the biblical man should know that his scriptural hardness, the necessary protective fence for his family, will always provoke a hostile response whenever he is out in the world.
Jesus the controlling masculine he-man! This shows how far in one direction some people will adjust the image of Jesus in order to make him fit the way they want to view the world. Elsewhere in this patriarchal movement we have advocacy of harsh corporal punishment and an ungodly level of control, all practiced in the name of Jesus. (Hey, the guy ought to at least apologize to Athanasius!)
And then there is the ultimate sign of the blessings of Jesus–opposition. Because Jesus was crucified for who he was, and because he said that his followers would be persectued, many see opposition, ridicule, and persecution as a sign of how right they are. But you can awaken opposition and persecution in two different ways: 1) Your life might be a rebuke to others because you are living so well, but much more likely, 2) You could just be a person who is obnoxious! Many, many Christians are rejoicing in opposition (persecution is too strong a word for what goes on in the U.S.) as a badge of their righteousness when it is really an indication of how little like Jesus they are.
The problem with asking “What would Jesus do?” is that you have to be willing to look openly at the things that challenge your own way of living and of doing things. It has to be a sincere question that looks for a challenging answer, otherwise it’s just another form of excuse.
-
Doctrinal Statements and Bible Use
A friend e-mailed me about a post which caught my attention. It seems that a blogger wanted to use the feed of the ESV Bible from the official web site, but found that the terms of service required him to accept a doctrinal statement first (relevant links are in his entry).
Personally, I think that the blogger, Kevin Wilson, was pretty nice about the whole thing. He’s correct, of course, that they have the right to make any terms of service they wish. But the fact that they do have a doctrinal statement in their terms of service does lead me to ask something about the priority of doctrine over scripture–or the reverse.
Personally, I’m convinced that getting people to read the Bible for themselves is a good thing. For one thing, there’s nothing like exposure to actual Bible passages in context to convince one that inerrancy isn’t a very viable approach. (Yes, I know that intelligent, educated people agree with me. They’ll say that I’m wrong, and I say that they’re wrong, which is as it should be.) Further, however, I do believe that the Holy Spirit works through the study of scripture in reaching individual minds. So I’m not even content with Wilson’s acceptance that one might not want the service used on a site that mocked the Bible.
What better benefit could a site have than to have multiple links back to their own work from sites that opposed them? Who do they want to have reading their Bible? Perhaps this is the true confirmation of what I keep hearing from some defenders of the ESV–it was not really designed to be understood by unchurched people, so the doctrinal statement makes sure that readers will know the language into which the ESV is translated.
But I suspect it’s more likely simply that this is an attack of random exclusivism. The site provides a translation for people who agree with them. Surely people who don’t believe in inerrancy and the several other doctrines they list will not even be able to comprehend the Bible anyhow, so what good would it be to them?
Personally, I’m going to keep advocating easily read translations that are made as widely available as possible. It just seems like the Christ-like thing to do.
This leads me to ask something about the priority of doctrine over scripture.
-
A New Baptist Covenant
Former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are both tied to the formation of a new umbrella group of Baptist denominations in an article in the Washington Post. I should point out what could easily be missed–Clinton described himself as a cheerleader and refused to be interviewed. Carter is apparently more involved. This is not the formation of a new denomination, but more of an alliance of denominations that want to see a different definition of “Baptist” than is presented by the Southern Baptist convention.
Though I’m Methodist and have no plans to become Baptist, I certainly would welcome such an organization simply because the voice of the large number of members represented by the individual denominations is often not heard. In addition, if successful, the organization will combine the voice of predominantly African-American denominations with that of predominantly white ones.
One of the issues that is bound to catch the eye of the press at least, is the fact that two former Democratic presidents are involved. It certainly caught the attention of the Washington Post writer. These churches should be careful not to get tagged with a political label any more than they must. While having former Democratic presidents involved in any way increases the political visibility, I would certainly not suggest they reject such involvement. I believe in separation of church and state, not church and statesman, and certainly not church and ex-Presidents.
