Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Diversity

  • Civility in Political and Religious Debate

    Joe Carter at the evangelical outpost is going after Ann Coulter. He’s very concerned about civility:

    Our political culture has truly become debased when even conservatives now accept what James Q. Wilson has described as the elevation of self-expression over self-control. (Perhaps it is to be expected, though, of a movement that has replaced the wisdom of Russell Kirk with the soundbites of Rush Limbaugh.) We have heartily embraced the leftist ideal that we have an inherent right to be as stupid and as banal as we want. . . .

    Now I’m not a conservative, and I believe that Ann Coulter is definitely an excellent target, though I would prefer to deal with how totally wrong she is than how rude. From my point of view there are plenty of rude people on both sides of the political spectrum, but I don’t think rudeness or incivility is their primary problem.

    I’m led to wonder whether one of the signs of trouble in our political process is that we’re talking so much about how we say things rather than about what we say. I do believe how we say things is important. There are words and ways of expression that tend to produce dialogue and discussion, and there are others that tend to destroy it.

    At the same time, despite any preference for civil debate, there are people out there who are just plain stupid. In fact I’m pretty sure it was Russell Kirk, whom Carter quotes favorably, and whose prose I truly enjoy despite differing from his positions substantially on many points, whom I heard lecture at an Intercollegiate Studies Institute gathering when I was an undergraduate. One of the students perceived him as being excessively negative about the American people and asked him about it. His response? “But I don’t like the American people. I think they’re dumb.” (This is strictly from memory, and the year was 1975 or 1976, so I could be wrong on my memory.)

    The problem is that there is a point to civility that all political movements need to take into account. There is a big difference between persuading others in dialogue and firing up your own base. I really deal with this more in religious dialogue. Frequently people bring me jokes about various varieties of non-Christians, things that they think are a real killer. “How would a such-and-such answer this?” they ask me. Generally I have to say that they won’t be impressed. Atheists jokes may fire up the congregation by making them feel that they’re smarter than the supid atheist portrayed in the joke, but trust me, actual atheists you meet won’t generally be stupid, and they won’t be impressed with your joke that suggests they are.

    The same thing goes for Republican jokes, Democratic jokes, or for that matter Moderate jokes. If you make the standard “nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead skunks,” I won’t even get offended while I catalog you as stupid and shallow. There’s a whole rhetoric involved in reaffirming our own beliefs and our own side, and assuring ourselves that we’re really smarter than average and better than all our opponents. In general, it fires us up for the fights against all those other people.

    I expect such things will continue, whether I like them or not. When it all becomes a serious problem is when the fight rhetoric, the locker room hype becomes the sole way in which one communicates one’s message. That seems to me what’s been going on in American politics. I see it on both sides. Right now I hear repeatedly from conservatives here in the south (I live in a congressional district that went overwhelmingly for Bush in both 2000 and 2004) about how awful it is that people say the things they do about “our president.” But many of the very same people were saying quite similar things about Bill Clinton when he was president.

    Which sneakily leads to my next point. Criticism is necessary and essential. If I think the war in Iraq is a mistake, it is dishonest and irresponsible for me to pretend it is a good thing. It is right and good to criticize the government and its officials for bad policies. We need to have a vigorous debate, but target that debate in such a way as to persuade. I could suggest attacking policies rather than people, but I think that misses the point. What I need to do is attack people for specifics if I want to persuade people who can be persuaded.

    That is the distinction that I’m looking for: We need to express ideas with vigor, but use ways that have a chance to inform and persuade those who are in any sense open to it. From outside the conservative camp, I can say that Ann Coulter’s rhetoric is not all that helpful. It may stir up the conservative troops but it alienates even the “slightly less conservative” crowds. But at the same time I don’t want to see conservatives or liberals fail to express their viewpoints vigorously. Too frequently we see the alternative to rude attacks as being watered down statements that are practically meaningless so they won’t offend.

    I appreciate vigorous statements of opposing postions. I expect to make vigorous statements of my own positions. Nonetheless, for the most part, I view the advocates of opposing positions as decent and sincere people who do believe that their policies–stupid as they sound to me–are for the good of their community or country. That is what I’d like to see in American politics–vigorous, clear debate on specifics, along with the acceptance that most of us want what’s best for the country.

    I’m not sure that balance can be maintained, but I try. 🙂

  • PERFECTLY SQUARE Fun in Pensacola

    I talk quite a bit on this blog about diversity and the importance of dialogue and making the most of our differences, so it’s a pleasure for me to highly recommend a program here in the Pensacola area by someone from whom I have learned a great deal on unity in diversity, Dr. Dolly Berthelot. If you are in range to travel to this event, make it a point to do so. You will find it both entertaining, challenging, and practical.

    I would particularly like to recommend that pastors and church leaders attend. As my wife Jody and I teach in various churches, I find that whatever the theology of a particular congregation, the difficulties that the leadership has in engaging the various personalities and gifts of a congregation in service are very similar. We can accurately describe some churches as two or three congregations using the same building. The differences seem small and petty, but actually they usually result from differences in personality and taste and not from some profound, irreconcilable differences of belief.

    PERFECTLY SQUARE (the book and the program) points the way to a solution to this problem. Learn about who you are, and why you prefer certain things, and then how you can turn those differences into assets instead of liabilities. There are reasons some of you like loud music with lots of drums, very little “preaching,” and a great deal spontaneity in a church service, while others prefer a firm order and lots of words, and the reason isn’t that some of you are inherently evil. 🙂

    You will have an opportunity also to sign up for two seminars that will help you carry on. I was surprised by the excellent price for these. Dolly’s time could go for a much higher price. So take advantage of this excellent opportunity and learn to make the most of your personal assets, and those of your congregation.

     

     

    O R I G I N A L , E N T E R T A I N I N G

    S T O R Y , M U S I C A L M I X

    March 9, 7-9 pm, Free

  • Diversity, Tent Ropes, and Tent Pegs

    I have mentioned before that I’ve been writing some of the devotionals for my wife’s devotional list, and yesterday I wrote one that relates closely to some things I’ve written here about tolerance for diversity and yet having identity and anchor points. It’s titled Extend Ropes, Strengthen Stakes.

    For those who may be interested, Jody’s devotional goes out every weekday morning. It used to be an e-mail list, but now it’s a blog with the option to subscribe via e-mail. Being a blog, it now also allows RSS subscriptions. We keep it clear of administrative and personal things, we go very light on the advertising material in the sidebar, and likely no more than once a quarter we might mention an event where she is speaking or a book by one or the other of us, so it’s a pretty safe subscription. You get just a devotional in the morning. Speaking of diversity, as fair warning, it’s distinctively Christian in tone.

  • Christian Reconciliation Carnival #1

    The first ever Christian Reconciation Blog Carnival is up and running at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength. Check it out!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Grudem and Church Leadership

    In part 9 of Adrian Warnock’s interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem the subject turns to church leadership. While I disagree with much of what Dr. Grudem says about church leadership, I could wish he would show some similar sensitivity to different points of view on male-female authority issues that he does on church leadership. Certainly the Bible says at least as much about leadership among God’s peopple as it does about women in teaching or leadership positions.

    The problem comes down to the process of application. Those who claim a “clear teaching” on a particular topic in scripture, generally ignore the very serious process of determining just how one command becomes applicable and another does not. Because of this, while we can often agree on Biblical exegesis (in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 there is an instruction for women not to teach), we often tend not to be able to agree on whether and how such a command might apply in another time and place. Our explanations can be ad hoc, and are based on how we want to understand the passage rather than on how God would want it applied in our lives and churches. Dr. Grudem thinks this is true of egalitarians. I think it’s true of complementarians. Dr. Grudem thinks that slavery is a bad trajectory, and in fact is generally unhappy with looking at trajectories (see part 4), and yet we do, in fact, have to look at the direction in which scripture is going on a particular teaching, else we will apply scripture inappropriately.

    (more…)

  • The Most Annoying Theologian I’ve Never Read

    . . . is Wayne Grudem. Well, not quite true. The most annoying theologian is Peter Ruckman of the Pensacola Bible Institute, and I have read some of his stuff. I’ve also read articles by Grudem, and I wouldn’t come close to excluding him from Christianity, so I guess I have read him and he’s not the most annoying. So how about I wanted a provocative title?

    When there’s someone I really don’t want to take the time to study seriously, it’s nice to have someone else, whose reading ability I’ve come to trust in the blogosphere, take a look. And that is what Dave Warnock has been doing. The first item was Responding to provocation, and the second Starting to understand connections. I am substantially in agreement with Dave on these things. It might also be a good idea, of course, to read the original interview, starting here.

    Like Dave, I believe the connections can be broken at any point. I discuss inerrancy here and I have some thoughts on gender language and translation here.

    Later today I will be posting on salvation and particularly on the question of who will be saved and whether we can know. I’m also going to respond to one point in the third part of Adrian’s interview with Wayne Grudem, [update] which I have now posted here. Three recent posts of mine are also relevant, The Danger of Unchanging Truth, And I’m not . . . , and Truth, Pluralism, and Absolutism. None of these respond directly to Adrian Warnock (not to be confused with Dave) and Wayne Grudem, but they do relate.

  • We Killed Less People than They Did

    I am often annoyed by the things that the Traditional Values Coalition does. When they call for a boycott of Walmart I don’t expect much damage to be done except to the general reputation of Christians.

    But today I got an alert e-mail from them that strikes me as celebrating Christmas by stirring up hatred. This alert, available online and titled Atheism Has Fueled Greatest Mass Murders In World History is apparently a reaction to some recent comments from various people who object to religion in general and Christianity in particular.

    The response, however, is less than constructive. It appears to be largely an attempt to smeer atheists by linking them with militant Muslims and blaming them for various historical slaughters. After quoting some of the attacks on Christianity, Sheldon says:

    The Christian-haters should turn their attentions to militant Islam and Atheism as the most serious dangers to the world.

    One of my many questions is simply which group of atheists right now is behaving in a manner at all similar to militant Muslims? This strikes me as simply striking out at people one would like to hate without any consideration for the facts or the consequences. (Note that at the same time as I am opposed to demonizing atheists, I would suggest watching out for demonizing Muslims.)

    The attacks to which this alert supposedly responds are a collection of the rather standard attacks on Christianity–responsibility for the crusades, the inquisition, and the Salem witch trials, for example. And what is the response to this? Apparently it is that not nearly as many people were killed as some people claim were killed.

    (more…)

  • Bad Teaching and Abuse

    Al Johnson has posted a story about an abused wife on Recovery Poetry blog.

    Before I comment on this particular story, I want to note that a site like Johnson’s blog can be an important tool for people who are suffering abuse, no matter what the cause or the background. In working in ministry in various churches I’ve found that one of the most damaging problems, if not the most damaging, is a feeling of isolation.

    There are many causes for this feel.  One factor is the “faith face.”  We know we’re supposed to be doing well, because good Christians are happy people, so we paste a smile on our face and charge forward.  Another factor is gossip.  Churches are often small, closed (unforunately) communities, and gossip is a besetting sin.  As soon as someone’s personal story is repeated, trust is lost, and that person will become more isolated.  Judgment is also a factor, usually cloaked in a guise of simply protecting the reputation of the community.  But the more people any individual has heard condemned, the less likely that person is to share any problem they may have.

    (more…)