Over the past couple of years, I’ve noticed a certain type of post that seems to be unique to the Christian wing of the blogosphere. Though it takes various forms, the post has a odd similarity to the parable Jesus told about the proud Pharisee and the dishonest, but penitent, tax collector. These posts, which are always directed to fellow Christians, reverse the roles and provides a unique spin: Thank God I'm more humble than the proud pharisee.
Let's call it the “Humble Tax Collector” meme.
Take, for example, a recent post by a Canadian friend of mind. Bene is thoughtful, sensitive, and forgiving, so while I’m sure that my using this post as an example might sting, it won’t be taken too personally. I’m sure that if I dug around in my own archives I could find something similar and I'm quite aware of the 2”x 4” that skewers my own vision. But Bene’s post is an especially good example of my point:
How easily one can be dismissed or feel foreign when wandering around the god-blogs. If our faith isn't right, if our logic isn't strong, if our world-view seems simplistic, if our allegiance isn't to certain leaders or ideologies...
That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection. May I love the Lord my God with all my heart, mind, strength and love my neighbour as myself. May I do justice, love mercy and walk humbly before my God. That's all I want. I don't want to make a list of known evangelicals. I don't want to be on the leading edge of a movement, or have a PhD in apologetics. I don't want to prove anything, win debates or participate in flame wars. I don't want to feel stupid because I've never read the top 100 christian classics.
We talk a lot about community in the Christian world. And some of us that talk the loudest work the hardest at shutting others out.
I don't want to do that. So that makes me what? Liberal? Naive? A middle school thinker? Biblically illiterate?
Doesn't matter.
Jesus loves me and that knowing has changed my life.
There are a lot of places I don't fit in. He still loves me and the knowing of that love and the gratitude for it softens life's blows, whether self or other inflicted.
How about you? Do you ever think or feel you don't belong in the tent either?
No, actually, I don’t. Unlike the faux-inclusive “Big Tent” of the GOP, the tent that evangelicals take shelter under is a cross between a sideshow and field hospital tent. It's filled with all manner of cripples, crazies, and assorted freaks. That’s why I always feel right at home.
That’s also why most of the Christians you see under the canvass roof tend to be surly, combative, and have questionable hygiene. But while we always fail to live up to the standard set before us we do tend to be aware of just how profoundly messed up we are. We even, at times, try to listen to what God has called us to do. Sometimes that means we are called to work on a PhD in apologetics, read a Christian classic, or attempt to explain to our fellow man that not all worldviews are equally valid. More often than not, we screw it up. But that’s to be expected; this regeneration business is a tediously slow process.
Taking soft jabs at fellow Christians, however, isn't particularly helpful. If your brother or sister is in need of correction then give them a good smack upside the head and point them back to the straight path. Speak up and tell us where we err and what we are doing wrong. All we ask is that you leave the humility-scented incense at home. It already smells bad enough here in the tent.
And while we are on the subject of bad smells, I have to confess that my olfactory sense was offended when Bene mentioned an admiration for Real Live Preacher. I’ve wanted to say something about that particular blog for sometime now but wasn’t sure I could do so in a charitable way. I feared that I might merely be suffering from a case of blogger jealousy. Stealing a scene from my fondest daydream, RLP was approached by the publisher Eerdmans about recycling his posts for a book. Naturally, I'm envious. But I also recognize the painful truth: RLP is a more talented writer than I could ever dream of becoming.
RLP also has something else most evangelicals envy -- a compelling conversion story. There are few things evangelicals love more than a great tale about their “spiritual journey.” Conversionism is an important element in evangelicalism, which is why we all aspire to have a gripping “testimony” about being run down by the hound of heaven. Pitiable is the poor evangelical who came to Christ as a child; we are the Unstoried. I had the misfortune of becoming a Christian at the tender age of six. How can you spin an awe-inspiring tale out of that? Do I tell of being saved from the debauched bacchanalia of kindergarten?
Along with his writing talent and good story, RLP adds a liberal dose of cuss words and tales of doubt. He has the tongue of Tourette's sufferer and the epistemology of a French Deconstructionist. One of the most telling examples (though lacking the tradmark expletives) can be found in his view of faith:
Likewise, we think having faith means being convinced God exists in the same way we are convinced a chair exists. People who cannot be completely convinced of God’s existence think faith is impossible for them.
Not so. People who doubt can have great faith because faith is something you do, not something you think. In fact, the greater your doubt the more heroic your faith.
I learned that it doesn’t matter in the least that I be convinced of God’s existence. Whether or not God exists is none of my business, really. What do I know of existence? I don’t even know how the VCR works. [emphasis in original]
This mix of fideism and heroic existentialism probably appeals to the same immature crowd that appreciates a preacher who cusses. (“Dude, he doesn't know if God exists and he says F___ a lot. He’s my kind of Christian.”) Personally, I find such dumbing-down morally repugnant. When did Jesus say that we should leave our brains at the church door? Did I misunderstand that part about loving God with the whole mind? RLP's view of faith certainly seems peculiar. Perhaps I'm using an old translation of the Bible and the real conversation went something like this:
Jesus (to Simon Peter): “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter: “That question isn’t really important since I don’t even know if you exist. In fact, I don’t really think its any of my business who you are, is it? Now, what should I do. That’s the question you should be asking…”
RLP is talented and funny and has a way of reaching people outside of the church. So what if his views are a touch heretical? Nowadays that’s an excusable sin. After all, if a softcore heretic like Joel Osteen – my generation’s answer to Robert Schuller – can have a bestselling book why should I complain when another Texas preacher gets a publishing deal for mangling the Gospel?
Who knows, RLP may even be able to reach out to people like Jane Fonda. Fonda says that she began studying the Bible in a “linear, fundamentalist way” before she “discovered that it wasn't what I was -- I thought, this is wrong for me.” Fortunately, turning to old style heresy helped her recover her “faith”:
Q: Did you stop going to Bible study?
A: Yes. Yes, I did. And I went for a couple of years feeling bereft. And I was really very sad. So now I'm on my own (in 2000 and 2001, after separating from Ted Turner) and for about a year, I'm confused. I think I've made a mistake.
And I read Elaine Pagels. I had read "The Gnostic Gospels" years before and it had really impressed me. In fact, I read it when I was first feeling God. And then I read "Beyond Belief," which is a book she came out with recently, and it had a lot of references to early Christians and Gnostic Gospels, and so I read the originals. In fact, I got the whole Nag Hammadi library and through that reading, I began to realize that I am on the right path. That Christianity is my spiritual home. This is where I'm meant to be. And that I have to discover for myself what that means.
Hmmm. So the role of the Christian is to discover for ourselves whether God is, as Fonda says, “God, the Almighty, Sophia, a greater power, whatever”? I guess since we can’t know if God exists – and shouldn’t even bother with such trivial nonsense – we should just choose to worship the greater power known as Whatever.
I started this post complaining about a “humbler than thou” attitude and end by thumping my chest and thanking the Good Lord that at least I’m not like those heretics. Hypocritical? Perhaps, though I really don’t take much pride in being a non-heretic. There, but for the grace of Whatever, go I.
But I’m open to criticism and I’m willing to be shown the error of my ways. If I’m out of line then let me know. Join me here in the tent and we’ll talk about it. If you can stomach the stench of sinners, we can always make room for one more.
1
A challenging post Joe that travels the road of speaking the truth in love.
We can be saved but unsanctified, like children playing in the mud. That isn't God's good and perfect will for our walk and testimony.
We are saved when we confess Christ as our Lord and believe in our heart that God raised him from the dead.
We are sanctified by the blood, look at the root of the word. The tangible and real presence of Christ in our lives.
When we invite the power of the Spirit to rule our hearts, the power of false ways of thinking are broken.
Many of our brothers and sisters in Christ are sitting in darkness, bound with chains of false thinking, and they don't realize how dark and stinky the place is since they have never been in the light.
1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
posted on 05.12.2005 5:14 AM2
Joe,
You are a smart person.
You have committed yourself to promoting the good and serving others.
You would save yourself a lot of agita, though, if you stopped worrying so much about what everybody believes about God and Jesus and salvation. The important thing is to love and respect other people, so that is what we should be trying to get other people to do.
You would probably say that the best way (the only way?) to love other people is to be an orthodox Christian.
If you want to be a Christian apologetic, that's your choice, but you should be aware that you're defending your beliefs, and not necessarily the absolute truth, and that other people's beliefs may be just as respectable as yours even if they're not the same.
It's good that you defend, analyze, and debate your beliefs so vigorously. But there really are more than one way to be a good, loving person. If you could accept that not everyone is going to be an orthodox Christian, I think you would have more peace and would actually be serving others better.
posted on 05.12.2005 5:59 AM3
These posts, which are always directed to fellow Christians, reverse the roles and provides a unique spin: Thank God I'm more humble than the proud pharisee.
Let's call it the “Humble Tax Collector” meme.
All we ask is that you leave the humility-scented incense at home. It already smells bad enough here in the tent.
Stealing a scene from my fondest daydream, RLP was approached by the publisher Eerdmans about recycling his posts for a book. Naturally, I'm envious. But I also recognize the painful truth: RLP is a more talented writer than I could ever dream of becoming.
Perhaps Ive missed your point: Do you seriously think 'RLP is a more talented writer than you could ever dream of becoming'?
4
The important thing is to love and respect other people, so that is what we should be trying to get other people to do.
Matthew--Why is that belief any more valid than the belief that I should destroy my enemies, take their wives, and roast their children on a spit?
If you want to be a Christian apologetic, that's your choice, but you should be aware that you're defending your beliefs, and not necessarily the absolute truth, and that other people's beliefs may be just as respectable as yours even if they're not the same.
This really shows a basic misunderstanding of the underlying premise of Christianity, namely that Jesus "is the way, the truth and the life". For the Christian, there is no other truth; there is no salvation through Buddha, Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Ploink-Ploink ,etc. If I tell my Muslim friend that his beliefs are just as valid as mine, I am condemning him to the darkness. How does that show love?
5
"You would save yourself a lot of agita, though, if you stopped worrying so much about what everybody believes about God and Jesus and salvation. The important thing is to love and respect other people, so that is what we should be trying to get other people to do."
Yeah - we would save ourselves a lot of stress by not worrying about whether other people are going to hell. As I think I've said before on this site... If I truly believe, and I do, that people who do not have Christ as their Savior are going to suffer horribly for all eternity - then the best way I can be "good" to people is by trying to help them avoid that fate.
6
Matthew:
If you want to be a Christian apologetic, that's your choice, but you should be aware that you're defending your beliefs, and not necessarily the absolute truth, and that other people's beliefs may be just as respectable as yours even if they're not the same.Just so you know, it's "apologist". The apologetic is the defense itself. Apologist is the person presenting the apologetic.
However, I want to point something out. Christian apologetics (the defense of the Christian faith itself) is nothing, if not a defense of the absolute truth. It is not defense of a certain sect of Christianity, but of the set of doctrines known as "Christianity" - the type commonly found in creeds like the Apostle's Creed, or the Nicene Creed, which are agreed upon by just about everyone that calls themselves a Christian. those who don't, it is often argued, either grossly misunderstand the creeds, or grossly misunderstand the Gospel.
That's neither here, nor there. Christian apologetics is rarely, if ever, defense from other Christians. It is defense of Christianity, opposed to another worldview/philosophy.
It's good that you defend, analyze, and debate your beliefs so vigorously. But there really are more than one way to be a good, loving person.Well, as:
"They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one" (Romans 3:12)
I doubt it.
There are, of course, many ways to be loving, but that wasn't the point of his article. The point was that humility is often something we use to seem to be humble - while, in fact, we are being prideful. Heresy is often looked over as "nothing important" - while, actually, we are always to be on guard against false teachers.
In fact, we are told that "... the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires" (2 Tim 4:3
This is what Joe is talking about. Someone who is borderline (if not fully) heretical, is being given a book deal, simply because he can turn a phrase. We don't see a problem with this? Why in the world not? The world looks at us, and criticizes hypocrisy constantly - are we to give them yet another reason to? Are we to fail to point out error, because it may "make waves"? Why ever would you think that?
If you could accept that not everyone is going to be an orthodox Christian, I think you would have more peace and would actually be serving others better.
I disagree.
"In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following." - 1 Tim. 4:6
It's not orthodoxy he's worried about. It's a "Real Live Preacher" who is preaching something contrary to that sound doctrine Paul speaks of. That verse above says exactly,/i> what Joe, as one of the Godblog leaders, should be doing.
Thank you, Joe.
posted on 05.12.2005 7:07 AM7
RLP is a more talented writer than I could ever dream of becoming.
Speaking words like honey doesn't mean one is speaking the truth. I just glanced over his site and I didn't see much that appeals to me. Who cares if he can write well when there is no meat?
Christianity does involve certain truths and the statement of his that you quoted about faith, shows a distrubing lack of understanding.
posted on 05.12.2005 7:52 AM8
Joe,
Good post and great points all. Like you I have real trouble with RLP's language and a lot of what he seems to be saying. His theology seems to be pretty liberal to me.
I'm happy for him and his book deal, even though it makes me envious as well. On top of that it concerns me because I don't think his theology is all that sound and hate to see "Christian publishers" pushing it.
Man - it's not easy standing for the truth when you're a fallen human being saved by Grace is it?
But I loved the way your post morphed into something different than what it started out to be - I do that all the time myself, nice to know I'm not alone.
God bless and keep up the great work!
posted on 05.12.2005 7:59 AM9
"You would save yourself a lot of agita, though, if you stopped worrying so much about what everybody believes about God and Jesus and salvation."
but some are called to be teachers, and that's exactly what they should be doing.
10
Joe: “…I really don’t take much pride in being a non-heretic.…”
Heh. I wonder what would have happen if I re-compute my infamous list after adding Joe Carter's name to it? (sly grin).
posted on 05.12.2005 8:14 AM11
I concur with much of your post, Joe, and I really appreciate it. The Gospel is truly basic, and truly exclusivistic in its claims, and doesn't admit of the sort of Gnostic nonsense that lets people do God-talk without any more real experience of God than a housecat has of hunting wildebeest. I have much more sympathy for the deconstructive reaction against the modernistic project of epistemology, which seems to me to be opposed to revelation in its very core, but I have even less sympathy for the whiny sort of pusillanimous "heroism" of those who think maundering about in doubt is the mark of the faithful.
Being *honest* about our doubts and confusions is truly part of being faithful--being dishonest in our professions is not a really good mark of our "fidelity" in any way.
Likewise, Joe, true humility is a real virtue, indeed (as Andrew Murray's book on the subject really states very well) it is in many ways an important key to all Christian good. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, here. That a lot of phony "vulnerability" and "I'm the weaker brother, coddle me" nonsense is thrown about doesn't make a lack of humility in our own writing any more right.
Finally, Joe, I do think there is some merit to a *part* of the claims about faith you take issue with, here. I, in my own knowledge, cannot ever authoritatively claim comprehension of the Truth--there is good reason that the Bible conclusively presents knowing (epistemic sense) the truth as a subsidiary, contingent element of knowing (familiarity sense) the Truth, that is, the Christ Himself, and not the facts about that Christ. It is nonsense, however, to know the Christ but pretend that He makes no claims on our fidelity to what He has said.
However, in the sense demanded by *epistemology*, our knowledge is never the certitude the epistemological project was all about finding. It is not true that our knowledge of God is *in no sense* different from our knowledge of the chair. It is, however, true that our knowledge of God is, like *all* of our "properly basic" knowledge, a knowledge that is "as certain as" other things--the facts of consciousness &c.
If I can disengage my perception of the continuity of consciousness, I can disengage my perception of the God-ward intention of my being. You may assert, and I think you'd be right, that you and I and others are equally incapable of these sorts of tasks. I cannot, however, nor can you, *prove* in the epistemological sense that such things are impossible. I can only suggest the incoherence of such an approach, and my own unwillingness to accept that incoherent, nonsense-ridden mode of life.
You err to have faith in the episteme. You do not err, however, to have faith in a particular Christ whose Incarnation is the full bodily expression/manifestation of the particular, personal God Who rules the universe.
Do continue the good work, but do also reflect on the difference between epistemological certitude and faithfulness to the revealed Truth/truth.
Cheers,
PGE
12
Right there with you on the Real Live Preacher rant. The guy is an amazingly talented writer (yes, I'm envious), but why is he so eager to distance himself from his fellow believers and show everyone else how much cooler than "regular" Christians he is? I see an awful lot of ego in his posts, and am deeply disturbed that his message, whether intentional or not, appears to be that one need not leave his old life behind when he accepts salvation.
posted on 05.12.2005 9:27 AM13
Jras,
... but some are called to be teachers, and that's exactly what they should be doing.
If Joe wants to be a teacher, then that is great, it's a noble calling. He is making an important contribution to society.
My point is that the most important lesson of Christianity is to love and respect other people. Joe believes that Jesus and God and salvation are pieces of the absolute truth, but he shouldn't forget the primacy of love, which transcends theological disputes.
Razorskiss,
I agree with that it does not make much sense to be a Christian apologist (thanks for the correction) unless you believe Christianity to be the absolute truth.
But just because you or Joe believes something to be true, that does not mean it is true.
You can believe Christianity to be the truth, even the absolute truth, and still acknowledge that it is possible that you are mistaken. Even if God exists, you may have innocently misinterpreted something or other in your theology. It's no sin to be mistaken -- there is no magic hotline we can call up to hear the secrets of the universe revealed.
It's not orthodoxy he's worried about. It's a "Real Live Preacher" who is preaching something contrary to that sound doctrine Paul speaks of.
Call it sound doctrine, call it orthodoxy, that's not important (orthodoxy is not a dirty word to me). Joe should teach, and teach according to his conscience, but he should realize that other belief systems are valid and people are not necessarily going to abandon them, and it's not always clear that they should, either.
Blestwithsons,
Yeah - we would save ourselves a lot of stress by not worrying about whether other people are going to hell.
If you want to believe that evil people go to hell, that's reasonable. But there is no way that anyone would go to hell simply for being an unbeliever. It's just not going to happen.
Unbelievers are just as good as believers. You and Joe and many others find your faith to be a source of strength and holiness: good be on you. But others have chosen other paths that are are just as good as yours and are not going to hell.
You are not loving someone by telling him he is going to hell if he is Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, not born-again, atheist, or something else. You are being rather insensitive and demeaning. If you exhort someone to be good and loving, and you explain that you have done so through Christianity, then that is reasonable and loving.
Rob Smith,
If I tell my Muslim friend that his beliefs are just as valid as mine, I am condemning him to the darkness. How does that show love?
I am not telling you or Joe to tell your Muslim friend something you don't believe. If you really believe he is condemned to the darkness, then don't lie about it (although I would strongly recommend not bringing up that particular point, either, unless he is a good friend who is curious about your beliefs).
But the truth is, your friend is not condemned to the darkness. He comes from a different culture than yours, and he is entitled to pursue goodness as his conscience dictates.
You believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. But if someone believes otherwise, you should respect that. You might even find that other religious traditions and worldviews have somthing to offer you, that there is a wealth of wisdom that is independent of Judeo-Christianity.
Why is that belief [we should love and respect others] any more valid than the belief that I should destroy my enemies, take their wives, and roast their children on a spit?
Because if someone embraces the savage ethic, then I will do everything in my power to stop him, and destroy him if necessary. If I can reason him out of evil, or if you or Joe can convert him, great, but he had better watch out, or he will regret it.
Savagery is the law of the jungle, the rule of nature, if you will, but I reject it, and do not tolerate it in others.
posted on 05.12.2005 9:45 AM14
I've seen posts on another Christian site that suggest that "keeping it real" as a Christian involves liberal use of profanity. As if that is somehow supposed to make our message more appealing to the seekers.
As if our Christianity is more authentic because we exhibit a lack of self-control.
It's an extension of the notion that all Christians are hypocrites because we hold to a standard of morality that we can't fully live up to. Rather than maintaining that our speech should be pure while acknowledging that we sometimes let slip an epithet, they attempt to avoid the hypocrisy charge by relaxing their standards.
The net effect is that their "freedom" in use of profanity is held up as a mark of perverse pride.
posted on 05.12.2005 9:46 AM15
Matthew,
Do you realize that there is some serious contradiction inherent in your post?In the beginning of your latest you emphasize that you think Joe -and the rest of us by extension - should acknowledge that we may not have the market on truth and should, apparently, follow everything we think with "I could be wrong". Then you say:
"But there is no way that anyone would go to hell simply for being an unbeliever. It's just not going to happen."
By your own standard that there is no absolute truth - shouldn't you be a little less absolute with that statement? "It's just not going to happen?" And you know this how?
posted on 05.12.2005 9:54 AM16
Matthew: But the truth is, your friend is not condemned to the darkness. He comes from a different culture than yours, and he is entitled to pursue goodness as his conscience dictates.
Ah, but now you've made a claim to know what the truth is, haven't you? And for some reason, you feel that we should accept what you believe to be the truth despite the fact that it contradicts our belief of what is true, as well as most of the other beliefs that you rightly claim we all have a right to hold.
My belief and your belief are mutually exclusive. They can't both be correct. If yours is right, self-contradictory though it is, then ours is wrong along with virtually every other major religion in the world, the vast majority of which hold to some element of exclusivity.
You also said: My point is that the most important lesson of Christianity is to love and respect other people.
That's not an accurate representation of Christianity. It may be the only element of it that you think has value, but it's not the sum total of Jesus' words or His apostles' subsequent teaching.
posted on 05.12.2005 9:59 AM17
He comes from a different culture than yours, and he is entitled to pursue goodness as his conscience dictates.
Ah, but Matthew, suppose his idea of pursuing goodness is to destroy his enemies, take their wives, and roast their children on a spit?
Because if someone embraces the savage ethic, then I will do everything in my power to stop him, and destroy him if necessary. If I can reason him out of evil, or if you or Joe can convert him, great, but he had better watch out, or he will regret it.
Forgive me for poking fun, but I doubt that fear of Matthew Goggins will provide much of a restraint on the typical savage. But if this is the case, aren't you in fact imposing your on version of truth on this savage? Again we get to the question, why is your version of truth more valid than the savage described above?
posted on 05.12.2005 10:51 AM18
If you want to believe that evil people go to hell, that's reasonable. But there is no way that anyone would go to hell simply for being an unbeliever. It's just not going to happen.There is a tone in your position I like, and perhaps some truth - but a fundamental error.
Most (I always hesitate to say all, altho I think that is actually the word here) religions other than Christianity teach that heaven, nirvana, enlightenment, etc comes through some kind of action - that you can be "good enough" to impress a perfect (by definition) God. That is of course if they believe in a personal God.
Christianity is alone in thinking that our goodness or badness doesn't mean much - none of us are capable of pleasing God (maybe for a whole day). CS Lewis posited that though we know the only road to God and heaven is through Christ and we know of one road to Him through scripture. He allowed that Jesus may have other ways to accept people to him than the one we know of. Perhaps the devout Muslim, trying their best all of the life, with no real knowledge of Christ can make it. I can accept that.
I can also accept that it is God that opens other people's hearts, not us. We can only reflect God's love (so we are known) and pray for someone's redemption. Again, show our love for one another, and our neighbor, and God - and let God work on their heart. That is the tone in your statement I like.
The truth is, however, that no one is good - not one. No one is earning their way to heaven on the Goodness Plan. Only Christianity is right in questioning how anyone can think they can please God through their own actions. Don't you know that you fail to live up to your own moral standards for yourself frequently, if not everyday. Is just a little evil better in front of perfection than a lot of evil? Naw, its like saying your a little pregnant.
So, maybe people who do not believe in Jesus can satisfy God's desire for righteousness - but not without Jesus's blood protection. And maybe Jesus will protect those who have never professed him under some other program (we know that "profession" isnt even enough from scripture) - but I do not know what that is. So we are left with loving all, praying for all, and letting all know that we are sure that without Jesus's protection God wouldn't let us (that is not us universally but us personally) anywhere near his presence. Without that last part, you have shown no real love.
posted on 05.12.2005 11:14 AM19
Recently I've been observing flamewars on a Christian genre writer's list re Creation/Evolution, End-time Chronology, and Alien Salvation. (No BS.) My end-of-it-all take:
Faith is the substance of things hoped for.
NOT the denial of observable reality.
21
Joe,
I'm half with you and half not on this one.
Internetmonk.com has its largest responses to some of the pieces where I chronicle my own faith journey. Some of us are writing intensely personally, and that is annoying to those who aren't. There are no rules in the Christian blogosphere, and there are no signs saying how one Christian blog differs from another. When I confess my doubts and my failures, I get a huge response, and I feel the "open journey" blogs, as I call them, are really doing something in realtime that people like Merton did in their journals. I read Merton's journals and know I am not alone, and that is the whole thing. To know we aren't the only one's to have that thought or experience that the writer expresses.
So I would ask for your blessing on those of us who approach Christian blogging not as reporting, but as confession. Augustine was a great blogger :-)
But on RLP, I am also frequently ENVIOUS (He is a powerful writer) and CONFUSED (I too find him cloudy at points where definition is really needed for all of us to be moving in the same diretion.) I am all for realistic language, and don't like it that Christians are so hung up about it, but I am also sensitive about language to intentionally offend or to stake out an identity. I work with kids who swear to appear mature, and I guess there is an alarm that goes off when I read or hear something that sounds too intentional.
Always appreciate you and your work
Michael Spencer
posted on 05.12.2005 12:42 PM22
By your own standard that there is no absolute truth - shouldn't you be a little less absolute...
There is absolute truth.
There is the trivial kind: you have posted a comment, and I am responding to you. This is absolutely true.
There is more interesting absolute truth: people breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. This is also absolutely true.
Joe would say that it is absolutely true that there is a God, that Jesus is our saviour, and that, by the way, so-and-so is putting his immortal soul in danger of damnation for such-and-such a reason. I would disagree with Joe.
It is possible that Joe is correct and I am wrong. If that is so, then Joe does possess absolute truth, and I am the proud owner of some gold-plated error. I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem admitting error, it happens every day with great frequency.
Joe has decided to use his great powers of persuasion and analysis to try to convert people to his point of view. If we assume that Joe is correct about everything, and possesses the absolute truth, that does not mean however that Joe cannot admit the reasonableness of views that disagree with his views.
We cannot perceive the Christian God directly with our senses. So it is reasonable for some people to deny the existence of God.
People disagree about the divine inspiration of the scriptures. So it is also reasonable for people to disagree over how much of the Bible is true. It is reasonable for people to challenge the divinity of Jesus or the reality of his resurrection.
So even if Joe is absolutely correct about all these things, he should still acknowledge that it is O.K. for people to disagree with him. He should respect th
posted on 05.12.2005 1:20 PM23
I don't know, iMonk.
There is a significant difference between openly calling yourself a preacher - someone who preaches, and not doing so.
By calling himself a preacher, he has thus identified himself as someone who is teaching. When you are teaching, you are thus responsible. Anyone, actually, is responsible for what they say as a disciple of Christ - but teachers are held to Paul's standard, and are subject to a more critical judgement.
I am more than a little wary of quite a few "Christian" bloggers, in the sense I outlined in my last comment. I consider them straight-up false teachers. I also get annoyed when people fail to call them on their theology, you know?
posted on 05.12.2005 1:21 PM24
Sorry, my computer seems to have sent my comment while I was still typing it!
[He should respect th]e views of others, and the rights of others to hold those views. Even if he is right and they are wrong.
"But there is no way that anyone would go to hell simply for being an unbeliever. It's just not going to happen."
And you know this how?
This is how I know it:
Consider two people who are very good and upstanding, the kind of people you would love to know, the kind of people you would be proud to have in your family.
If the first person is a believer, and the second
posted on 05.12.2005 1:26 PM25
Sorry, my computer did it again.
[If the first person is a believer, and the second] person is an unbeliever, is God going to send the first person to heaven and the second person to hell?
Of course not. And I know many unbelievers who are just as deserving and good as believers, so that is how I know nobody would ever go to hell simply for being an unbeliever.
posted on 05.12.2005 1:36 PM26
You really know nothing of the Christian concept of God do you Matthew? Your analogy is so deficient and silly that it deserves no comment. Go back and do your homework befroe you come here to snark on Christiantiy.
posted on 05.12.2005 1:39 PM27
Matthew--I will echo JCHFleetguy's post, you can't good your way into Heaven. Even the smallest sin is enough to keep you from God's present. We are only acceptable because of Christ's saving grace. Neither of the very good and upstanding people you describe can make it to Heaven by their own works; they are no more worthy in God's eyes than the savage I described. God may choose to save both or he may choose to save one, but not the other, but it will be through Christ's works, not theirs.
posted on 05.12.2005 1:52 PM28
Matthew-
"So even if Joe is absolutely correct about all these things, he should still acknowledge that it is O.K. for people to disagree with him. He should respect the views of others, and the rights of others to hold those views. Even if he is right and they are wrong."
Ok. Point taken. People have a right to believe whatever they want.
"And I know many unbelievers who are just as deserving and good as believers, so that is how I know nobody would ever go to hell simply for being an unbeliever."
I don't know if you consider yourself a Christian or not, but this is not an orthodox Christian belief. Is it "O.K. for people to disagree" with you? Or is disagreeing with you on this point too rude and unloving?
Who gets to disagree besides Matthew?
posted on 05.12.2005 2:09 PM29
PGE: "I have much more sympathy for the deconstructive reaction against the modernistic project of epistemology, which seems to me to be opposed to revelation in its very core, but I have even less sympathy for the whiny sort of pusillanimous "heroism" of those who think maundering about in doubt is the mark of the faithful."
Your comments gave me an idea of why people are attracted to something like RLP. I think it's because people tend to have two extremes in how they display their level of doubt. Either they glory in doubt, or not admit to any doubt.
I admire people who have such a gift of faith from God that they never seem to doubt, and maybe they never actually do. But some of us (many?) do have moments of doubt. I think the key is to always see doubt as an opportunity to stretch our faith, to grow to the point of having no doubt if we're not there yet. When God puts situations in our life that cause doubt, I won't go so far as to say that the doubt itself is good, but the situation is, as it's an opportunity for growth. However, when we have doubt, perhaps we're often afraid to reveal that to anyone because we look at the Christians around us and no one else seems to waver. "Oh no. What's wrong with me?!?!" Then when they see someone like RLP, it's a huge burden lifted..."Whew, I'm not alone. This guy's speakin' my language." However, people who wear doubt or cuss as a badge of pride carry it too far. The solution, I think, lies primarily in being transparent with those closest to you. Not saying public acknowledgement of doubt is never appropriate, but the better place is in a smaller group. Not, "maundering about in doubt" as you put it so well, but from time to time confessing our doubts to each other. I guess this is where the virtue of prudence comes in. Winston Churchill showing courage and faith to the British in their darkest hour is what they needed, despite any personal doubts WC may have had. It wouldn't have been prudent to worry aloud to the people.
So the problem we're identifying isn't too much humility, we can never have too much of true humility. In addition to false humility, it is also perhaps a lack of prudence.
But, on certain occasions, it is also appropriate for leaders to share their weaknesses publicly.
1 Tim 4:15 Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress.
I heard a preacher once observe that for Timothy to let everyone see his progress, he had to show his imperfections to begin with.
A helpful analogy may be struggles in marriage. Everyone has their ups and downs, many struggle especially in their first year. What does everyone ask you in order to make small talk when they first see you in your first year? "How's married life?" You may be having a terrible week but you say "Oh, it's great! I love it." cuz that's what good blissful Christian newlyweds are supposed to say. Now, I don't think it would be helpful to always spew out your latest problem, but it's important to share those struggles with one or two of your closest Christian confidants (same-sex confidants only if you want to avoid other problems). If they can then privately share with you that they had the same problems, it's like a pressure valve being released. It takes away the fear (often planted and nurtured by the enemy) that...we're the only ones having this problem, there must be something fundementally wrong with our marriage. It frees you up to say, 'yeah, we have some problems, but nothing we can't work through. Jim & Jane did, we can too.' However, what spouse would be honored by you publicly airing all your problems from the pulpit, a book, a blog, etc. all the time? Maybe someone who doubts God aloud in public disproportionately more than they encourage in public is doing similarly.
So - the moral: Reject a zero tolerance policy on doubt, but also reject a carnival of doubt.
30
Joe, thanks for this.
While I frequently appreciate the sites you mentioned, and though I consider Bene a good blog-friend, I feel consistently "judged through the side door" at some of these sites. I think of it as passive-aggressive Phariseeism: "Thank you Lord that I am not aggressive and absolutist like those sorry jerks."
Don't know how else to put it than that. But thanks.
31
"You really know nothing of the Christian concept of God do you Matthew? Your analogy is so deficient and silly that it deserves no comment. Go back and do your homework befroe you come here to snark on Christiantiy. "
Isn't that a perfect example of what Bene was complaining about? I disagree with Matthew, but come on. If he's wrong, isn't this dialogue supposed to help him see his error?
Bene: "How easily one can be dismissed or feel foreign when wandering around the god-blogs. If our faith isn't right, if our logic isn't strong, if our world-view seems simplistic, if our allegiance isn't to certain leaders or ideologies..."
posted on 05.12.2005 2:21 PM32
Matthew: "[He should respect th]e views of others, and the rights of others to hold those views. Even if he is right and they are wrong."
But I think Joe does respect the right of others to disagree with him. Your critique may be more rightly directed at other blogs or posters.
Also, I agree with your statement but only to a point. Would you agree that there are limits to this respect? I do not respect the right of a mob boss to think it's all right to put a hit out on someone. Or for an adult sexual predator to advocate for the repeal of statutory rape laws so they can fulfill what they believe is their right to have sex with children. If I had a blog like EO and they started posting there, I'd delete their comments immediately, having no respect for their right to air their view.
posted on 05.12.2005 2:34 PM33
SCPanther,
"My point is that the most important lesson of Christianity is to love and respect other people."
That's not an accurate representation of Christianity. It may be the only element of it that you think has value, but it's not the sum total of Jesus' words or His apostles' subsequent teaching.
Christian love is not the only element of Christianity that I think has value. It is not the sum total of the teachings of Jesus or his apostles, but if you had to choose one thing to pick out, it's not a bad choice.
... you feel that we should accept what you believe to be the truth despite the fact that it contradicts our belief of what is true
You should not accept anything I say unless I can convince you that I am correct.
If I contradict any of your beliefs, I am not going to claim I have divine revelation on my side. I am not going to appeal to an authoritative source and claim it is unerring.
I am going to marshall evidence and logic as best I can, and hope we can find some common ground.
[you contradict] most of the other beliefs that you rightly claim we all have a right to hold.
If I really contradict most of your beliefs, I wouldn't rush to conclude that I am right and you are wrong (or vice-versa).
It's also possible that you see a side of the truth that I am not familiar with. Like a bird talking with a fish about the sky, and a fish talking to a bird about the ocean.
Rob Smith,
... why is your version of truth more valid than the savage described above?
If a savage rejects love and goodness, then I have every right to stop him, and to reject his ethics.
I don't really care very much if his ethics are "valid". I'm sure the savage feels that his ethics are completely valid, and like I said, he is following the rule of nature, so I would probably grant the "validity" of his ethics, especially if he were willing to subject himself to the same predations he imposes on others.
But I could also make the case that his savagery is inferior to my own morality. To you and me, this is self-evident. But if you find someone who disagrees, I would be happy to put the case to him.
JCHFleetguy,
Thank you for the complimentary tone of your response.
I don't think there is a God who demands righteousness, with or without Jesus' blood protection. I think we will probably just have to agree to disagree about that.
I believe that in general, you should love the sinner and hate the sin. So if there is a God, I don't think he would push anyone away from his presence merely for being a run-of-the-mill sinner and/or unbeliever.
Dana,
You can be a very civil and loving person, but in most circumstances, if you tell someone they're going to hell because of their religious beliefs, then you are committing a rude and unloving act.
If you are trying to save that person from hell, you may have good intentions, but the act itself is still rude and unloving.
Who gets to disagree besides Matthew?
I'm defending the right to disagree. If you disagree with that, you may be right, but I am still going to disagree with you.
Foppa21,
You really know nothing of the Christian concept of God do you Matthew? Your analogy is so deficient and silly that it deserves no comment. Go back and do your homework before you come here to snark on Christianity.
I look for the good in everything, and I reject the bad. Christianity is not perfect, but I do not snark on it because I respect Christians and the good in Christianity.
My analogy was not an analogy. I know unbelievers that most of us would love to know and/or be proud to be associated with. There is absolutely no way God would ever consider damning them or withholding salvation from them.
35
Well Matthew, we are not talking about ethics, we are talking about Truth, but nice try at changing the subject. But again I ask (without much hope of an answer), why is your concept of Truth, or for that matter love and goodness is any more valid than our savage's? You talk of other's beliefs being just as valid, but you draw the line at what you approve of. Who set you up as the arbitor of love and goodness? In reality, when you talk of truth, love, and goodness, all you are talking about is your personal preference.
posted on 05.12.2005 2:48 PM36
Joe--I thought when you started you were going to talk about the ones your Canadian friend was talking about, but you were actually talking about the ones who talk about the ones your Canadian friend was talking about--right? I was a little surprised your friend's comments got you going so much.
And praise God for your spectacular conversion story! Saved from years of going down the dark lonely road, being a blind prisoner of sin! Saved from having an art gallery in your mind filled with scenes of years of fulfillment of past passions and pleasures! Saved from years of living in malice and envy, being hated and hating others! Saved from years of being in the habit of gratifying the cravings of your sinful nature and years of following its desires and thoughts! Saved from all those years of sexual immorality, lust, and greed, and being an object of God's wrath! What an awesome display of God's power and mercy and grace that you did NOT have to go through ALL THAT! What an awe-inspiring tale you have of the kinds of things that surely would have happened were it not for Jesus saving you. What a great and merciful Lord Jesus Christ we have in that He often chooses to glorify Himself in what He prevents as much as He glorifies Himself in what He redeems.
posted on 05.12.2005 2:48 PM37
It's okay Joe, I am not offended, and I'm glad you were able to use something I wrote to make your point. This is a divide we'll never bridge. It's fun trying.
Jared says something we've talked about before that I've thought a great deal about.
I was asking about feeling, not thought.
Jared feels judged through the side door, I feel that too. We are able to talk about it.
It doesn't change the who Jesus Christ is.
We are trying to converse across a huge cultural divide and I find it very difficult at times.
For some a smack across the head might do it?
You go ahead, I can't. I've been smacked once to often.
If you believe I took a soft passive aggressive jab at you, I can't say yes or no. That's for you to own. If it needs to be discussed, we'll dicuss it.
I wasn't saying you were erring. I said, 'it is not a world I live in and am a part of.'
First person, personal.
I think that's why this conversation thread has been about RLP. He's on your turf.
Anyone from any country or palce that read my post can understand the conflict I express as a believer. But I'm here:^) Blog on!
38
I think it's fair to say that if you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he had historical existence, that he he died for our sins and was ressurected on the third day you are a Christian.
Since by my definition, looser even than the Apostle's creed, I am consigning a significant number of people to outer darkness, to wail and gnash their teeth, etc, etc, it's only fair that I describe the times when I feel that I am pushed out of the tent:
1) When Christ's immanent return is dwelled upon with all its surrealist imagery.
2)Excessive dwelling on the terrors of Hell.
39
Matthew: And I know many unbelievers who are just as deserving and good as believers, so that is how I know nobody would ever go to hell simply for being an unbeliever.
No one goes to hell for unbelief, Michael. They go to hell for sin. Those who don't go to hell are spared not on the basis of how good, loving, and tolerant they are, but on the basis of their faith in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Their sin has been applied to the sinless Christ, allowing them to be declared sinless in the sight of God.
Naturally, you are free to disbelieve this. That doesn't mitigate the fact that, just like me, you will be held accountable for your sin at the end of your life. If you have rejected the forgiveness available in Christ then what is God to do with you but consign you to judgment?
posted on 05.12.2005 2:51 PM40
Matthew: Christian love is not the only element of Christianity that I think has value. It is not the sum total of the teachings of Jesus or his apostles, but if you had to choose one thing to pick out, it's not a bad choice.
No, not a bad choice at all. ;-)
The important thing to remember about Christian love, however, is that it is predicated on the example that we have of God's love. And our assurance of God's love is that He sent His Son to pay our debt.
So, you see, without the threat of condemnation implicit in Christ's sacrifice, there is no example of an act of self-sacrificing love on the part of our Creator and, therefore, no basis for what you call Christian love.
If I contradict any of your beliefs, I am not going to claim I have divine revelation on my side. I am not going to appeal to an authoritative source and claim it is unerring.
If I really contradict most of your beliefs, I wouldn't rush to conclude that I am right and you are wrong (or vice-versa).
It's also possible that you see a side of the truth that I am not familiar with. Like a bird talking with a fish about the sky, and a fish talking to a bird about the ocean.
There is something to be said for listening to the beliefs of another and weighing them for truth. And one thing that I can guarantee you is that I am not absolutely correct in everything that I believe.
Many of those things I will qualify as opinion or conjecture when discussing them with someone. On those matters about which I am certain, however, while I acknowledge the possibility that I may be incorrect in my belief, I can only act and argue as though they are the truth.
If I do otherwise, it merely shows that I don't truly believe them.
So, understand, if I discuss the need for repentance and faith in Christ with a devout Muslim, it is not because I lack respect for his sincerely held belief, but rather because I believe that his view is false and mine is true.
You appear to believe that there are worthy elements in every major belief system, and doubtless there are. I submit, however, that those elements are worthy only insofar as they correspond with what is actually true.
If Christ is actually raised from the dead, I further submit that His word is proven true and all of the things He said are true. No matter how sincerely held, that renders Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, and every other belief system in contradiction with Biblical Christianity false. And if the fundamental core of the belief system is false, those bits of truth they may possess are not sufficient to save a man's soul.
posted on 05.12.2005 4:07 PM41
Joe,
I too have been deprived of a testimony to former wickedness. In fact, I once thought I'd put my testimony into song, but wound up with an instrumental.
posted on 05.12.2005 4:40 PM42
btdhguy:
That last comment... was awesome. You got blogged.
posted on 05.12.2005 4:41 PM43
I believe that in general, you should love the sinner and hate the sinAbsolutely, and I truly distrust "fire protection" evangelism. However, I disbelieve the "Religion and water" of CS Lewis - a good God who will have no consequences for unrepentant disobediance and sin. It feels good, but it doesn't match the world I see. There would also have been no point for Jesus's sacrifice if "Religion and water" is correct. No need for a sacrificial lamb if the blood wasn't needed to cover sin.
Again, the truth in what you say is that we are not to judge - particularly whether someone is heaven- or hell-bound. God knows the heart and makes this decision; and we do not have the right to second guess that. Period. We have a testimony and a light; and we profess our beliefs.
Those who point their finger at someone else and say "You are bound for Hell" are likely to have a conversation with God someday they are not going to enjoy. We can only say "I was bound for Hell, but now Im not - and this is why". This is not to say we do not point out sin - only that we shouldn't presume what judgement that sin will bring to the sinner.
posted on 05.12.2005 5:02 PM44
Seems to me the stench of the big tent is not simply from that of (moral) sinners, but also from the faulty doctrines -- you know, the one's who don't yet have it. Then there are all those annoying habits, those betrayals of the Gospel by our words.
Just at the point where I'm sure God isn't at work, or where I'm offended by the apparent idiocy or worse of a poster, I remember that God isn't in the business of snuffing out smoldering wicks or bruised reeds.
Sniff. sniff. Smell it? I'd hand you the soap, but I think I need it first.
45
Like you I have real trouble with RLP's language and a lot of what he seems to be saying. His theology seems to be pretty liberal to me.
Jesus had a liberal theology, too. Maybe this RLP guy isn't too far off the mark in that case.
From my reading of the Gospels..Christ was never especially fond of the wealthy and of church leaders of the day who thought they knew it all...and spurned people who they said couldn't make the cut. Sounds pretty liberal to me.
But I'm just a humble Deist who grew up steeped in Bible study. What do I know?
46
The tent stinks not because we are sinners but because we are proud that we don't own any soap and water.
posted on 05.12.2005 9:43 PM47
I followed a trackback on this. It never would have occurred to me that I might have been implying in my post that a higher education was an inhibitor to humility and love.
Duh.
If that is the impression I left, please accept my apology. I wasn't understanding why that post may have bothered you Joe, or others who have spoken here.
I'll say what I said at broken messenger.
I think higher education is a gift.
48
Several persons have posted thoughtful comments in reply to my comments, so I am going to answer you now.
I want to thank everyone up front first off, because we all know that God and religion are very sensitive subjects, but the responses I have gotten have been remarkably civil and respectful. The civilized discourse on this thread speaks very well to the good nature of Christians.
Elwood,
Your first long comment, where you make an analogy between the troubles of newlyweds and the doubts of a believer, is very strong. It's full of useful ideas and distinctions.
It's good to be honest about our doubts, and to have some close confidantes that we trust enough to share our doubts with.
It's also good to have a Winston Churchill to rally us around our shared values, to push us into meeting lofty challenges.
So thanks for sharing that.
I think Joe does respect the right of others to disagree with him.
Joe is definitely a very respectful person.
He respects everyone by creating and maintaining this blog. By allowing comments and discussions on his comments threads, he demonstrates his respect for those who disagree with him. He also respects those who disagree with him whenever he goes to the trouble of responding himself to views that are different from his.
In his original post, "A Tent Full of Tax Collectors", Joe uses a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor and displays genuine humility. But when someone disagrees a little bit too much with him, he playfully uses the word "heretic" to describe that person.
It's true that he uses the words "heretic" and "heresy" in a joking, cautious manner. But he uses those words for a reason: if you deny some core absolute truths about God and Jesus, then you are indeed a heretic. And if you deny too many core absolute truths about God and Jesus, then you are in danger of losing God's gift of salvation.
I disagree with Joe, and respect his good faith and strong intellect. And we all agree that Joe is very respectful.
But Joe's civility, his personal respectfulness, does not translate into intellectual respect for heresy itself. He does not bring himself to admit the reasonableness of positions that clash with his version of the absolute truth.
While I respect his faithfulness to his ideals and the strength of his convictions, his failure to acknowledge the reasonableness of folks who are not born-again, not Christian, or even not theists, is a serious failing. It is an intellectual failing, but it is also a failure of moral imagination, a failure of Christian love.
If he really believes that unbelievers are likely to go to hell, even if they are good people, then he should be ashamed of himself, and not proud.
Would you agree that there are limits to this respect? I do not respect the right of a mob boss to think it's all right to put a hit out on someone. Or for an adult sexual predator to advocate for the repeal of statutory rape laws so they can fulfill what they believe is their right to have sex with children. If I had a blog like EO and they started posting there, I'd delete their comments immediately, having no respect for their right to air their view.
I agree with you 100% about this, Elwood. I am respectful of the good and the just and the loving, but I reject everything that is evil.
SCPanther,
No one goes to hell for unbelief, Matthew. They go to hell for sin.
I am glad to hear you say no one goes to hell for unbelief. But I think there are some on this thread who might like to push you out of the tent for believing that.
Naturally, you are free to disbelieve this [sinners are only redeemed by their faith in Jesus' sacrifice]. That doesn't mitigate the fact that, just like me, you will be held accountable for your sin at the end of your life. If you have rejected the forgiveness available in Christ then what is God to do with you but consign you to judgment?
If I am free to reject the forgiveness of Christ, but only to be judged harshly by God as a result, then I am not really free to reject it after all.
... without the threat of condemnation implicit in Christ's sacrifice, there is no example of an act of self-sacrificing love on the part of our Creator and, therefore, no basis for what you call Christian love.
Perhaps Christian love is predicated on something slightly different. Perhaps a good person, who loves his neighbor as he loves himself, has implicitly accepted the teachings of Jesus, even if he is otherwise an unbeliever.
That is the official teaching, or magisterium, of the Roman Catholic Church, as it happens: a Hindu, a Jew, a Buddhist, or an atheist can be rewarded with the presence of God the Father in the after-life, provided he is a righteous person.
No matter how sincerely held, that renders Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, and every other belief system in contradiction with Biblical Christianity false. And if the fundamental core of the belief system is false, those bits of truth they may possess are not sufficient to save a man's soul.
I have just pointed out that the Pope himself disagrees with you.
But there is a way in which I do agree with you.
Where I live, in New York City, there is strict gun control. Many people believe that the Second Amendment renders such prohibition un-constitutional.
When I visit my in-laws in rural Pennsylvania, I am free to shoot a rifle with them at some targets on the hill above the old barn. Many people believe that such rifles should be tightly regulated, and wouldn't mind too much if they were outlawed altogether.
I myself am very skeptical of any law that restricts important freedoms, like the right to bear arms. But I am glad that the New York City Police Department has the right to stop someone who jumps a turnstile in a subway station, the right to frisk him for weapons, and the right to arrest him if they catch him packing heat.
And you know what, my in-laws in Pennsylvania are probably happy about it too, to the extent that they care at all.
My point is, I'm against gun control in principle, but if someplace like New York decides in a democratic fashion that it works better than not having gun control, then that's O.K. too.
You and Blestswithsons and Joe have decided that believing in orthodox Christianity is right for you. It is right for your families, and you couldn't imagine trying to raise your kids without the righteous anger of God the Father to keep them toeing the line.
And this is where I agree with you. Maybe you do need your version of Christianity to guide you, to guide your families. If you don't want to experiment with a different version, then I don't want you to experiment either.
But the least you could do is extend the same privileges to other people. You shouldn't assume that other people need to accept redemption through Jesus if they have made it clear that that is not what they believe.
JCHFleetguy,
I agree with you that we shouldn't be judgemental, but that we shouldn't be wishy-washy either.
Rob Smith,
I appreciate your tenaciousness, but I disagree, I was not changing the subject. I am glad to answer your question further.
... why is your concept of Truth, or for that matter love and goodness, any more valid than our savage's?
Valid can mean different things. In common usage, it can mean true and/or appropriate. It also has a more narrow meaning: logically consistent, internally sensible.
I have made clear that I think the savage's savagery is likely to be valid in the second sense. By the savage's own moral premises, the savage finds his savagery to be valid.
I have made clear that I think savagery is invalid in the first sense: it is bad, inappropriate (to say the least), and untrue to objective principles of good and justice.
Your complaint seems to be that I have not established the basis for the objective principles of love and goodness.
Here is the basis:
Savagery is not good for the savage, for it makes him a savage. The savage would probably disagree, and I might not be able to convince him that I am right. And maybe I am wrong, maybe it is better for the savage to be a savage. But that is not the only basis for condemning savagery.
The other basis, and probably the stronger basis, is that savagery is bad for society. If everyone lives by the rule of the jungle, then life is nasty, brutish, short, and miserable. Society, if for no other reason than self-defense, has the right and the duty to crush savagery and eliminate it.
You talk of other's beliefs being just as valid, but you draw the line at what you approve of. Who set you up as the arbitor of love and goodness? In reality, when you talk of truth, love, and goodness, all you are talking about is your personal preference.
Every adult is the arbitor of their own standards of love and goodness by default. Even if somebody is an orthodox Christian, he is Christian because he chooses to be one.
I do not describe your version of truth, love, and goodness to be a mere personal preference, because I know that it is not. I hope you can see that my choices are not a mere personal preference either.
posted on 05.13.2005 11:44 AM49
Matt,
Thanks for the civil discourse on your part as well. Exposing one's core beliefs in the public arena all too often leads to the vitriolic flame-wars described above. I confess that I've been guilty of lashing out rather than calmly reasoning.
I was an athiest for 33 of my 39 years. I have a college degree & a high IQ (Mensa-level) - I don't say this for any other reason than as a basis for saying that I did not come to believe in Jesus Christ through "blind" faith. I actually spent years studying the facts supporting the life, death & resurrection of Jesus Christ. In addition, I began studying (as opposed to reading) the bible. For me, the rock-solid truths concerning human behavior are themselves, life changing.
I've had the privelege to travel throughout Central & South America on mission trips where I've literally seen thousands of people who's lives have been transformed by the truth of God's word & the power of Jesus Christ. Many of these people have been severly abused or neglected & have no hope in their lives. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, repeated thousands of times over, I probably wouldn't believe the complete & utter change that comes from believing & receiving God's love.
There is a common mistake made in generalizing other's beliefs. It is a mistake to believe that one side or the other has a corner on the intelligence market or the compassion market for that matter. To generalize all Christians according to the views of a few "high-visibility" leaders is to grossly underestimate the power of God in their lives.
I still get frustrated when people casually dismiss Christianity as the realm of the unintelligent or the weak-minded. It's a sign of my spiritual immaturity, that I don't trust God completely in these situations.
I've seen too many lives transformed & too many broken hearts filled with God's love, to sit by & watch the Lord our God so casually & condescendingly dismissed by people who don't know Him & aren't interested in finding out.
posted on 05.13.2005 1:08 PM50
Matthew,
I appreciate your kind words. Like you, I am grateful that we can discuss these issues in a civil and respectful manner. Ultimately, we may never come to the same conclusions but at least we will have gained a better understanding of how our fellow man thinks.
Normally, I prefer to sit back and allow others to have their say in the comments section. Most of the time one of my fellow Christians will respond to a point better than I would have been able to do. That is likely to be the case in this thread also but I still wanted to provide my personal view on a few of the points you raised.
He does not bring himself to admit the reasonableness of positions that clash with his version of the absolute truth.
While I probably wouldn’t have put it that way myself, you do have a point. Ultimately, the reasonableness of a proposition depends on a subjective acceptance of what an individual considers to be "true."
For example, most of us would agree that it is unreasonable to kick a dog. Certain circumstances, however, could change it into a reasonable act. If the dog were viciously attacking you it would be unreasonable for you not to fight back. A less clear area would be when a person believes that an attack by the dog is imminent and the only reasonable act is to kick first in order that you might have a chance to escape.
A person whose noetic functions were working properly would likely be able to tell by observing the dog whether an attack was “imminent.” For example, if he rolls over on his back and wags his tail he isn’t likely to be on the offensive. But what if a person suffered from paranoia and interpreted such acts as evidence that the dog was attempting to lull a victim into a false sense of security before he made his move?
Imagine if we saw such a person kick the dog. We would clearly think that he was being unreasonable. But within his own interpretive system he would believe that he was justified since for him it was “true” that the signs indicated the dog was ready to attack. Unless we hook the dog up to a lie detector and ask him about his intentions we can’t really know the objective truth of the matter. We simply have to judge the reasonableness based on what we understand as truth.
So you may be right that when viewed from my own interpretive system or worldview that I would find some people's beliefs to be "unreasonable" (i.e., contrary to rational examination of the evidence). Of course I also tend to believe that certain worldviews are self-referentially incoherent and so it would be unreasonable for anyone to accept them.
If he really believes that unbelievers are likely to go to hell, even if they are good people, then he should be ashamed of himself, and not proud.
I think we have some obvious fundamental differences that are unlikely to be resolved. You seem to think it is possible for people to be sufficiently “good” and therefore deserving to be let into heaven. That, in my opinion, is completely at odds with the Christian view that claims that no one is good much less deserving to be allowed to spend eternity in God’s presence.
I would also add a few more points: First, God is a personal, relational Being and we are creatures who have chosen to reject that relationship. Our natural state is a state of rebellion against God. Second, our natural inclination is that we don’t want to reach out to him. Therefore, God had to act in order that anyone could be saved from spending all of eternity apart from him. Third, God doesn’t force himself on us. He allows us (to some extent) the option to reject having a relationship with him.
To put it as concisely as possible (which is to say, too simplistically), heaven is the ultimate physical location where those who have accepted the option of having a relationship with God will exist. Hell, in contrast, is a place where those who choose not to be in a relationship with him exist. Those who are in hell have chosen to be there. I suspect that even if it were possible to choose God after death that the same people would still reject him.
For me to be ashamed of myself for believing that unbelievers are likely to go to hell would require that I be ashamed of the Gospel. I believe the Bible is the true inerrant word of God. And the Bible if very clear that being “good” (by human standards) is insufficient for eternal life.
posted on 05.13.2005 2:08 PM51
Matthew -
A couple of questions if I may.
You write, "[w]hile I respect his faithfulness to his ideals and the strength of his convictions, his failure to acknowledge the reasonableness of folks who are not born-again, not Christian, or even not theists, is a serious failing. It is an intellectual failing, but it is also a failure of moral imagination, a failure of Christian love."
Are you saying that reasonableness is a good thing, even if a belief reasonably held is wrong? How is it loving to let other people believe a lie (especially when believing that lie leads one to reject freely-offered grace)?
"If I am free to reject the forgiveness of Christ, but only to be judged harshly by God as a result, then I am not really free to reject it after all."
Can you explain this? I don't see how your freedom of choice is impacted by knowing one of the potential consequences is rather bad. You still can choose to be judged harshly (though why one would want to is beyond me.)
And one comment:
"You can be a very civil and loving person, but in most circumstances, if you tell someone they're going to hell because of their religious beliefs, then you are committing a rude and unloving act."
This would be true only if my beliefs are false. If my beliefs are true, it would be extremely unloving to not warn others of the risk they're taking. It may be rude to tell this to someone, in a social/cultural sense, but it is in no way unloving.
posted on 05.13.2005 2:21 PM52
This is my first time visiting here.
I am overwhelmed with the rationality of the debate. I did my must best to read slowly and for the most part, I think I kept up.
Joe, when there is a rule violation and we require an interpretation, you're our guy.
Matthew, if I ever have to stand before a court, accused of rule violations, I hope you are the judge.
As for the ecclesiology of it all, I doubt but the few would get it. Respectfully, I think Jesus is more easily accessed then he would appear to be here.
Therein I think rests the appeal of RLP. His catechetics, feel before they think, just like me. Just like most people I've met. (Except for when I was of a more charmingly insecure age and was insistent that reason trumped all my thoughts and actions...I digress.....)
He tries, I think, to meet Jesus in his heart. If in his own mind, he can resist the temptation to become infatuated with his writing skills, (won't be easy, the man is a literary "babe"), he will and does have much to share with us that is good and from God.
posted on 05.13.2005 3:04 PM53
Joe -
You could probably pull more than one paragraph out of my blog and deem it heretical. I think that part of the divide between you and RLP here has quite a bit to do with the way one views the Christian faith. Is it primarily a world view and belief system or is it a spiritual journey of personal transformation with ups and down and confusion and contradiction? You seem to place a very high value on rationality, and rationality has its place, but I don't think it's the main thing. There is usually a pretty big gap between what we intellectually assent to and what we really believe way down in our gut. I think that RLP tends to write more about the way down deep part.
Right now, my faith involves a lot of contradiction and uncertainty and occasional atheistic feelings. There was a point when I had a lot more things figured out than I do now, but that was more about being afraid to be honest with myself than it was about strong faith. It's been liberating for me to realize that God is beyond explanation and that if the best I can do is say, "I believe, help my unbelief.", that's okay.
posted on 05.13.2005 6:47 PM54
Personally, I find such dumbing-down morally repugnant. When did Jesus say that we should leave our brains at the church door? Did I misunderstand that part about loving God with the whole mind?
It's sad that I have to explain this to you, but most of us, regardless of religion, have doubt, not absolute certainty.
If you are not using your mind of doubt to love God with your whole mind, and are instead denying your doubt, you are hardly following God's command.
The visceral recoiling from the paradox is interesting to me, but you cannot wish the paradox out of existence. Thomas said, "I believe, help me in my unbelief."
You, instead seem to be saying, "Help me pretend that I have no unbelief so I can pretend I'm in tighter with You than..."
Really.
And ease off on Fonda. While I recoil from the triteness of what comes from her, she's referring to an experience of holiness that any words uttered would be trite, especially those of absolute certainty.
posted on 05.14.2005 6:10 AM55
Our natural state is a state of rebellion against God. Second, our natural inclination is that we don’t want to reach out to him. Therefore, God had to act in order that anyone could be saved from spending all of eternity apart from him. Third, God doesn’t force himself on us. He allows us (to some extent) the option to reject having a relationship with him.
That doesn't make a great deal of sense. Not the description of the attitudes of humans toward God but rather the definition of those attitudes as "Natural". It says that God purposely created us to reject him. That would be rather unlikely. I think that what is "natural" or inherent to humans is the ability to choose, aka free will. That is at the very least a neutral quality. It can be the source of good or evil, but like all of God's gifts, its what you do with them that count. If it were man's natural state to reject God, then why does the majority of the world believe in one?
posted on 05.15.2005 10:06 AM56
Doesn't seem so strange - you cant be rebellious against what you do not know. Paul hit it well with the "more I wish to do something the less I am able to do it" line.
Good is God's nature and all of his creation reflects that, but while human's know what good is, we do evil anyway. I think most people really do feel and sense the presence of God. Believing and obeying are two different issues.
CS Lewis has some great examples: We see a burning building and know someone is inside - the good and right thing is to risk all to save whoever is in peril (the angel on one shoulder); while our own natural desire for self-preservation and life says there is nothing to be done (it is too late) and stands back and watches (the devil on the other).
Doing the right thing is hardly ever the easiest. It is much easier to enjoy sex rather than wait for marriage; etc. I think our natural tendency is to do whats easy and benefits us; rather that what is right and pleases God.
posted on 05.15.2005 5:59 PM57
Hello everyone.
Thanks to everyone for the latest comments.
When I digest what everyone has to say, and filter it through the perspective of my own life experiences, I find myself learning new things and re-learning some old things.
I'm still a little surprised sometimes at how the internet can bring so many different people together into the same conversation. People who would otherwise never meet, or who might superficially seem not to have much to say to each other.
Rocketman, your mission journeys sound quite fascinating. I wish I could sit down with you and talk about the power of believing in God's love. It truly is a privilege to witness such power and transformation.
Ron, you asked me some questions.
Are you saying that reasonableness is a good thing, even if a belief reasonably held is wrong? How is it loving to let other people believe a lie (especially when believing that lie leads one to reject freely-offered grace)?
It is not a lie to doubt the existence of God, it is not a lie to disbelieve the Gospel narrative of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
If you say it's raining, and John Doe says it's not raining, that doesn't mean one of you is lying. It means one of you is mistaken, but both of your beliefs could be reasonably held.
God doesn't step down from heaven and knock on your door. He doesn't call you on the phone or write you a letter. Any knowledge a person has of God is strictly indirect. Such knowledge only comes through prayer, scripture, meditation, the witness of others, and so on. It is reasonable for people to be skeptical of such evidence, even if you know that they are wrong to be skeptical.
If you say to someone, "Well, I don't know if your beliefs are reasonable or not, but if you don't accept the love and forgiveness of Jesus in your heart, you will not be saved," you may in fact be judging someone falsely yourself.
Do you really believe that all the billions of people who have never heard the Gospel preached are condemned by God just for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time? Do you really believe that of all the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who have died in the line of fire, only those who profess faith in Jesus as their saviour are the ones who will be allowed to enjoy the presence of God? And if you answered yes to these two questions, do you really believe it is unreasonable for someone to disagree with you?
"If I am free to reject the forgiveness of Christ, but only to be judged harshly by God as a result, then I am not really free to reject it after all."
Can you explain this?
The word "free" means someone is allowed to do something.
Saying we are "free" to reject God's grace, but we will judged harshly by God for doing so, is like saying we are free to critcize Stalin, but we will sent to the gulag for five years, or perhaps shot. It is like saying we are free to dance naked in the street: that's true, until the police come along and throw a blanket over you.
It is true that if you choose to reject God's grace, then God is not going to stop you. But if you are convinced that God is going to send you to hell for rejecting Him, your freedom is actually severely circumscribed and truncated. I would say you are actually not free at all.
It may be rude to tell [someone his religious beliefs condemn him to hell], in a social/cultural sense, but it is in no way unloving.
I think there may be some circumstances where it is possible to tell someone in a loving way he is going to hell, but it is probably easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle.
Paul Johnston,
Matthew, if I ever have to stand before a court, accused of rule violations, I hope you are the judge.
I laughed when I read this.
I don't think of my myself very often in terms of being a judge, but as it so happens, one area of my responsibilities at work is to make rulings on violations and to adjudicate disputes. Since I don't spend a large amount of my time doing that, I can forget that I do it at all.
Christy,
Right now, my faith involves a lot of contradiction and uncertainty and occasional atheistic feelings.
Uncertainty can be a mark of intelligence, of a healthy mind at work. Atheistic feelings are nothing to be ashamed of. If God exists, he loves you no matter what you believe. Searching honestly after the truth is a noble endeavor.
Mumon,
"Personally, I find such dumbing-down morally repugnant. When did Jesus say that we should leave our brains at the church door?"
This quote of Joe's that you highlighted is very interesting. He does seem to be saying that uncertainty is intellectually inferior to certainty.
RealLivePreacher is a very, very smart person, and a very good person. He definitely approaches religion very differently than Joe. But rather than compare them and rank them, I would tend to think it's good there's a variety of religious styles out there.
People with different backgrounds, or at different stages of their lives, can pick and choose and see what works best for them.
I personally have very firm beliefs about the world, possibly just as firm and certain as Joe's beliefs. But it's pretty unlikely that Joe and I will ever be members of the same congregation.
JHCFleetguy,
Good is God's nature and all of his creation reflects that, but while humans know what good is, we do evil anyway.
[...]
CS Lewis has some great examples: We see a burning building and know someone is inside - the good and right thing is to risk all to save whoever is in peril (the angel on one shoulder); while our own natural desire for self-preservation and life says there is nothing to be done (it is too late) and stands back and watches (the devil on the other).
CSLewis' example is great.
It's very provocative. In the comfort of our normal daily existence, it's easy to forget the sharp moral challenges of our world. It's easy to assume that each of us is just a great guy, and the world would be better off if there were just more people like us. It's easy to be complacent.
But I also think his example is potentially misleading. I think that when push comes to shove, there are a lot of heroes out here. There are a lot people who are willing to risk their lives in a burning building to save others.
Some of these heros love God, and some of them don't. I don't think there's as much evil in human nature as Lewis' example might lead one to think.
Joe,
This weekend I went to a beautiful wedding. The church was filled, and some people had to stand in the back. The celebrant was a cousin of the bride, and he gave a moving homily. He related several jokes and anecdotes, and lovingly teased the bride and groom. It was very special.
The church itself was a very old-fashioned edifice, with lots of old, dark wooden beams and detailing, and sunlit stained-glass windows that looked like they were borrowed from a medieval chapel.
There was a lot of orthodox Christianiy in the service, and in the exchanging of the vows. A lot more orthodox Christianity than my wife and I had at our wedding, and it made feel a little uncomfortable, a little apart from the group. But it was a privilege for me to be there and participate, and quite a refreshing change from our normal weekend routine.
Even though I felt apart, and felt that my truth did not correspond to the truth of most of the guests, it didn't occur to me to dismiss the beliefs of the worshippers around me as false or unreasonable. The wedding mass was intellectually foreign to me in some important ways, but I accepted it as the dignified and beautiful event that it was.
The problem with treating religion as an intellectual enterprise is that it is not. It is not just a framework of beliefs, a blueprint for proper thinking. It is a way of life, often a distillation of centuries of traditions, and a mysterious blending of the personal, the family, and the social.
Being a Hindu or a Mormon or an atheist is not like kicking a dog. It's nothing like kicking a dog.
Kicking a dog is very simple. Either you should be kicking a dog, or you shouldn't. Occasionally it might not be totally clear whether or not someone should be kicking a dog, but most of the time it's pretty straightforward.
Figuring out what to believe about the universe, and about humanity, and about your place in it all, is just about the most complicated, exhilirating, and exasperating project a person could tackle.
To presume that God wants to withhold, or would be justified in withholding, his love, mercy, presence, or blessings because someone disagrees with the latest doctrinal orthodoxy promulgated by a certain branch of the Christian church is a very interesting notion.
It's a notion that helped fueled the truly devastating battles of the Thirty Years War of the seventeenth century. It's a notion that led directly to the savagery and inhumanity of the Spanish and Roman Inquisitions. A similar notion lies behind the fanaticism of the Islamist terrorists that our country has been fighting.
Joe, you wrote,
Ultimately, we may never come to the same conclusions but at least we will have gained a better understanding of how our fellow man thinks.
I think I am more optimistic than you. We both have a tremendous faith in the power of rational inquiry to probe the mysteries of the universe and to lead us to the ultimate truths that we seek. We have reached different conclusions, but maybe they are more complementary than contradictory.
After all, if someone, in your opinion, is going to want to reject God even after he finds himself in hell, then maybe your version of hell is not that far off from my version of paradise.
posted on 05.16.2005 3:15 PM58
Matthew
Some of these heros love God, and some of them don't. I don't think there's as much evil in human nature as Lewis' example might lead one to think.You misunderstand. Lewis quoted this at a point where he was saying that the almost universal knowledge of good (right behavior) was an outgrowth of God's nature - whether we recognize God or not; and bravery comes from God's good nature whether the brave person understands it or not. Hence, the majority of the world believing in a creator. What free will does is give us the chance to choose selfish, cowardly, brutal, etc actions even when we know that it isnt right (again whether we know God exists or not). More importantly, for humans, what societies everywhere consider right behavior may be at odds with our natural self-interest and comfort - which we naturally tend to choose. Lewis would also say pure evil (which is only good twisted) is hard to find - just people doing the wrong thing in opposition to the right thing (which they knew but did otherwise)
Hence, our attraction to and belief in God while we "naturally" reject and rebel against what he asks us to do.
posted on 05.16.2005 3:39 PM59
JCHFleetguy,
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for the explanation.
It certainly takes strength and discipline to consistently do the right thing.
I agree with you that man is not doomed to be sinful. It's certainly easy to be a sinner, but people are capable of rising above natural weakness and vice.
posted on 05.16.2005 7:18 PM60
I agree with you that man is not doomed to be sinfulOh, I didn't say that - I think most people have a hard time (I do) doing what is right, 100% of the time, for even one day. I actually think sin is inescapable for everyone. posted on 05.16.2005 7:28 PM
61
JCHFleetguy,
If everyone is sinful, then why would God care whether someone is Christian or not, or whether someone believes in God or not?
Why wouldn't he be more interested in whether people overcome that part of their natures which is sinful?
Perhaps sin is inescapable in some sense, but do you acknowledge that some people reach a certain level of control over their lives and can be considered good people?
62
Matthew
The true essence of the question. Good people in whose eyes - mine or God's? Im good in mine - I think (dont know you) that you are good in mine. What does God think of either one of us?
Step back a step though: Let's assume for a second that some are able to become "good" enough for God and some aren't. How should God react to sin that is not overcome? Or, should God punish unrepented and uncorrected sin?
posted on 05.16.2005 11:50 PM63
"faith is something you do, not something you think."
I know we have to be cautious about "proof-texting" or taking single verses in isolation, but Hebrews 11:1 certainly does seem to contract RLP's thinking:
Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
posted on 05.17.2005 10:55 AM64
Elwood, thanks for the comment-on-the-comment.
I think we agree on the bottom line. Humility is a virtue, doubt is a humiliation, but while we may have to confess our sins and to discuss with those we trust the trials from God and/or weaknesses in ourselves that humble us, we need not recapture our pride by turning our humiliation into a badge. There is, of course, the Pauline, "let him glory in affliction"--but even then, it is in the magnification of God's greatness in our weakness, not the weakness as the glory of our "authenticity."
Authenticity