1

re rearing violent children: RIGHT ON!!!! I am so amazingly sick of "God is nice" culture. grrrrr

Give me "Aslan is not safe" any day.

re Baptists can't be Calvinists: Well, I am both a Baptist and *not* a Calvinist, but I hate to tell Josh: Baptists as we know them were originally a Calvinist splinter group. Of course, in the 16th-17th century "Calvinist" meant a lot of things beside TULIP: there were quite a few "Calvinist" sects that were not so much Dortians as, well, radical anti-episcopal types of one stripe or another. Brownists, Ranters, Levellers, etc. all were called "Calvinists" during the same period as the Baptists were emerging.

Of course, General and Particular Baptists arose in the UK/Europe over just exactly such matters, and the divisions spread over here, but generally speaking the revivalism of the late 19th C and the dissolution of Puritanism into Unitarian Universalism, and the reaction against that in the Presbyterian camp, tended to send the serious Calvinists into the Presbyterians, while the Baptists and Methodists tended to be the more "conservative" and "liberal" branch of the less-than-TULIP evangelicals.

It *is* a bit surprising to witness the resurgence of Calvinism in SBC circles, and though I'm heartened that it has come with a somewhat conservative trend (my background is in the kind of Baptists who don't mix with those "liberal" and "new evangelical" SBC types), I'm also concerned in that the result at the seminary level seems to be a wholesale adoption of neo-orthodox teaching. At least, that's my experience as a grad student at an old SBC bastion, long pretty much secular and now going quasi-Christian again.

Cheers,
PGE

2

re: raising violent sons.

Moore says that the battle between Christ and the dragon includes all who follow Christ. Why then the emphasis on violent sons. Does Moore have only sons, or are daughters not included among those who belong to the child of promise? The trackbacks suggest that some of his readers do interpret him to mean sons specifically, not children in general (e.g. "raising men without chests").

Moore also acknowledges that Christians are to forgive their enemies and that vengeance does not come from their hand. Remind me again why followers of the Lamb should be violent, if God, not them, is the warrior? Since all of the violent imagery used by Moore refers specifically to God, what exactly does it mean for his sons to be violent?

Moore has some vivid description going there, but his argument doesn't hang together very well.

3

It's worth noting, at least, that when Jesus says that we are to love our enemies, we shouldn't forget that some folks simply are enemies.

4

The overuse of the word "just" has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. I'm glad I'm not just the only one! :D

5

@Nick--

Say we substitute "morally realistic" for "violent" in the above. That is, realizing that the natural state of the world we are born into is one of sharp conflict, that pockets of "peace" are transient or even illusory, and that only when God has won the victory in the Consummation of all things will there be true peace.

Point being, we will not merely look up to God as He Who makes the tea sweet at the Lace & Doily Society, but as Him Who Fights For Us. If we have truncated senses of the moral reality of our plight, we have truncated respect and love for God, too.

I wrestle with this, myself, because my inclination is to want to pick my own fights. Being able to acknowledge the fight is there, then to hand it over to God, is a boon to my spiritual walk. Having to pretend that all "negative emotions" are somehow invalid or shameful, though, is emasculating.

Take care,
PGE

6

PGE,

Morally realistic sons makes a lot more sense than violent sons.

The only quibble I have with what you have written would be to argue that God already won the victory in Christ's sacrifice and although the final consummation is not complete, the church should be modeling God's Kingdom. So, we should raise peaceful sons, trusting God to defend us in this violent world.

7

Ugly as a Thinklings photo album?!

Grrrrr!

8

@Nick--

I think that those who truly recognize the nature of the conflict will, as they grow in maturity, become progressively more "peaceful." I find that our efforts to teach "peace," however, are usually misguided and make it hard to understand why the God of Scripture is so violent.

I would prefer to teach a hearty realization and awareness of violence and its uses, including those we must be prepared to undertake, as the best possible preparation for authentic peace.

Cheers,
PGE

9

Re: Violent Sons
I, too, would prefer the notion of "morally realistic." Taking on evil in the world takes all that we have, above all requiring discernment even if the reasons are not always obvious to guys. Violence is incredibly spiritually seductive, seeming to offer a shortcut to problems, a finality that the facts may not support. (E.g. consider the parable about the field sown with weeds. The servants ask Jesus if they should go and tear up the field -- something like a violent response-- but the word is for them to wait, to discern). Let's face, there is something fun, dark fun, about breaking apart something or some one else, whether it's shooting the glass bottles with the .22 or enjoying the satisfying crunch of a hard block on the field, or the "glories" of seeing our enemy fall (think how you responded the first time Indiana Jones whipped out the gun and shot dead his veiled whip-bearing attacker in the first movie).

I think the man's heart wants to go to the easy, direct solution -- a little thumping --- a little too easy. That's why we need a greater moral realism, and some true discernment tossed in as well.

As to the abortion cite:
If you read what Sen. Clinton said, especially, it's hard to see how she had her facts wrong. She admits the data shows mixed results, that for some states abortion rates were down, and in others, pretty horrificly up (14% increase IIRC.). Moreover, FactCheck is playing a little loose here, in holding people responsible in 2004 for mistaking the data that was only released mid-May 2005. For further developments, you may want to check out Glen Stassen's response (link at http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.home#5)

Oh...
and "eating bugs..." uh-huh sounds like some of the Calvinists I know up here in Dutch Reformed land.

10

Evangelicals use “just” in prayer” about as often as teenagers use “uh” and “like.”

Before I became Catholic, I was part of a non-denominational Protestant group and witnessed the overuse of "just". Recently, I went to a mass at my in-laws' parish celebrated by their new pastor. Afterwards, I told my wife that I'm almost certain the pastor's an Evangelical convert. "How could you possibly know that without talking to the man?" she asked. I told her his prayers were full of what I call "the litany of the justs". ;)

11

Hmmm. I used to be a Calvinist. Now I'm Orthodox. We have saints (Alexander Nevsky, Demitrius, Vladimir, Constantine, etc.) who are well known for their use of the sword. Dude raising violent children has nothing on us.

12

I don't know of statistics on the Calvinist/Arminian breakdown among Southern Baptists, particularly among clergy and those lay people who are educated formally or informally in theology, but I do know that there are a great many Arminian leaning Baptists, such as Billy Graham and Rick Warren. Further, except for some differences on "total depravity" (Wesley for instance taught that we are totally depraved save a spark of grace) and eternal security (perseverance of the saints) much Baptist preaching sounds more Arminian than Calvinist.

As an aside, I'm not sure it makes sense for Southern Baptists to keep "Southern" in their name. They exist widely outside the South and further didn't the original "Southern" designation come after endorsement of slavery, a view that has long been repented of by the church?

13

As far as Calvinists in the SBC goes, just walk on campus at Southern Seminary. You can't throw a rock without hitting a Calvinist -- and that's just the faculty!!

I haven't noticed any "neo-orthodoxy" there, either. Since Danny Aiken took over at Southeastern, and Southwestern is in conservative hands now, I'm not sure which seminary pgepps is talking about.