[Note: Since other writing projects took up my time today, I've decided to repost this entry from December 2005.]
Over the past thirty-eight years I've been, at one time or another, a pre/post/a-millennialist, dispensational-covenantal, semi-charismatic, Reformed-Arminian, Wesleyan-Calvinist attending a Southern/Independent/Fundamentalist Baptist/Free-Methodist/Free-Evangelical/Presbyterian (USA and PCA)/Pentecostal/Assembly of God/Bible/non-denominational church.
I've sipped grape juice from glass thimbles and red wine from gold-plated goblets while eating pieces of saltine crackers and chips of unleavened bread, I've had "dinner on the ground" with a pew's worth of believers and shared feasts with a stadium full of megachurch patrons. I've listened to seminary-educated pastors parse Greek verbs and heard semi-illiterate Mexican preachers deliver sermons in Spanish.
Over three dozen churches still have me on the roles as a "member."
With my experience I can talk to any fellow Christian about doctrine and scripture and within ten minutes can tell you a dozen things wrong with their theology. Given another ten minutes I can explain to them in graphic detail where they err. Whether the topic is baptism ("...you gotta dunk 'em down real good to wash away all this sin"), the emergent church ("...let me tell ya what's wrong with that McLaren guy..."), eschatology ("Rapture? The Bible don't say nothin' about no..."), or any other issues that has ever caused a Protestant to start their own denomination, I can jump in with my well-formed, incontrovertible opinion. I'm always willing to look past the mote in my own eye to help a brother get that speck out of his own. That's just the kind of guy I am.
At least I used to be. I find that I just don't have the stomach for those old arguments anymore. I'm still willing to discuss doctrinal differences. But now I'm less sure that I'm standing on the right side of scripture. Is the view heretical or likely to lead someone away from salvation? Then I'll fight it tooth-and-nail. If not, then I'll probably just sit this one out. I no longer have an interest in being what Anthony Bradley calls a "wife beater":
I actually know guys who are primarily concerned with wearing wife beaters not to beat their wives but to beat up on the bride of Jesus: the church. Seriously, I know men, many men, who focus almost exclusively on fighting battles within the church and Christianity. These sick freaks think its fun to fight with other Christians about theology, church practice, etc., just to fight. That's pretty much all they care about. This is the Enemy's strategy to keep many gifted men out of the Great Battle. Ever read C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters?
Hold on, dear contrarians, as I know your fingers are twitching to respond with venom, exceptions, and "yeah, but. . .," this does not mean that some men should not be working hard to keep the church pure in it's doctrine and practice. Paul does commend us to "watch our doctrine closely" and SOME guys are called to this but MOST are not.
"This is slap boxing," adds Bradley, "The guys fighting in the Great Battle spend their time warring for the hearts of real people trapped in brokenness, sin, misguided thinking, destructive habits." Like Bradley, I'm disturbed by the number of Christian men--and it's almost always men --who waste their intellectual gifts fighting with fellow believers. Perhaps we need to have lengthy critical examinations of such issues as paedobaptism or predestination. But how many people truly believe God intends for them to spend a large bulk of their time, energy, and intellect correcting other Christians who might take a different view?
Jonathan Barlow believes that the problem stems from the "critique-culture" within evangelical circles:
We [evangelicals] rarely do anything positive, and when we do, positive just doesn't sell. I don't have a good answer for a way forward, but I think a good first step is trying to lay off of brothers in other Christian traditions for the most part, especially those who hold to Nicene orthodoxy. Secondly, when our bright students are interested in a thinker outside of our circles, we teachers and pastors should model a kind of engagement that praises where it can, and suggests alternatives where it cannot.
There was a time when the issues was merely about the correct doctrine, the acceptable teachers, and the denominationally-approved books. The advent of the blogosphere, though, has not only expanded the reach of the critique-culture but has added new ways in which we can criticize each other's activities. I can't think of a single blogging initiative involving Christians that hasn't been roundly criticized by our own brothers and sisters. This is not to say that any venture should be immune from criticism. But there comes a point when the knee-jerk critiques simply lead to paralysis.
Is there anything that Christians do that will not earn them criticism by other Christians? We complain about both church growth initiatives and stagnation in the pews. We whine about both the conformity of mainstream evangelicalism and the dangers of the emergent church movement. We warn against both the church being too involved in politics and against the church not doing enough prevent state-sanctioned injustice. We even have Calvinists being criticized by Hyper-Calvinists for not holding closely enough to the strictures of Calvinism -- while never having bothered to actually read the works of John Calvin!
Where does it end? When will we stop being wife beaters of Christ's bride? And when will we finally heed the exhortation of Titus to, "Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."
You say you stopped because you don't have the stomach for it anymore. Most domestic violence perpetrators stop because they get tired. Until the next time.
Few stop without help, awareness, accountability and a desire for change and maturity.
You work for an organization that teaches you to take trash talk and smack talk to new levels.
It ends in repentence, sorrow and restitution. Walking away from all that is toxic to you and your brothers and sisters.
Each of us doing likewise, one by one as the Spirit does His job.
The Heresy and Dashhouse have touched on parallel concerns this week.
Agreed. I try to relentless focus on the essentials and give a lot of latitude with the non-essentials.
That still leaves plenty to fight for, though. There are countless assaults on the divinity and exclusivity of Christ, for starters.
I've always viewed this passage (and the one similar to it in 1st Timothy 1) as the prime reason to be suspect of rabid creationists, because creationism as preached today is:
1. Based on a long series of genealogies.
2. Causes many arguments and controversies.
and, in my opinion, it often serves to block people from being willing to hear the gospel.
First, does anyone else see the irony? :)
The problem is almost certainly not with the fact that people are discussing, debating and arguing about doctrine a lot, but with the way (abusive manner, caustic tone, lack of love) people carry on these discussion, especially in the public forum. I don't think you'd disagree with this; indeed, I see hints that it is really this point that you are getting at. Love for the Lord must be the root of these things, and to the extent that most conversations today (and most "moral" actions today as well, let's be honest) do not arise out of love for Jesus, your sentiments ring true.
Joe, I don't think you do justice to your brothers who are working hard to preserve true doctrine, nor to the importance/complexity of the truth that requires such intensive study and criticism especially in light of vigorous and brilliant distorters of the truth, disguised as members of the church and therefore within the church (Matthew 7:15, etc.).
You are right that there is certainly more criticisms of the church today than perhaps ever, but that is understandable because it is partially a product of lax and irresponsible regard for church membership in contemporary evangelicalism. Swaths of evangelical leaders and to a greater extent laypeople refuse to define strong boundaries of church membership for themselves for fear of confrontation, uneasiness with church authority and discipline, and patterns of church-hopping rendered plausible by the ease of modern transportation and a consumer culture.
Additionally, it is simply due to the nature of orthodoxy that it generally must be preserved. So we should be disposed to worry about positive, newly created ideas when it comes to doctrine.
Lastly, I take issue with the idea that only "some" Christians are called to watch their doctrine closely while most are not. It is evident that Paul wanted everyone to watch their doctrine closely--probably with more vigor than we do today.
The problem is almost certainly not with the fact that people are discussing, debating and arguing about doctrine a lot, but with the way (abusive manner, caustic tone, lack of love) people carry on these discussion, especially in the public forum. I don't think you'd disagree with this; indeed, I see hints that it is really this point that you are getting at. Love for the Lord must be the root of these things, and to the extent that most conversations today (and most "moral" actions today as well, let's be honest) do not arise out of love for Jesus, your sentiments ring true.
Lutheranism doesn't seem to be on the list. Care to take just a couple more punches?
Lutheranism doesn't seem to be on the list. Care to take just a couple more punches?
Lutheranism doesn't seem to be on the list. Care to take just a couple more punches?
This is hilarious. Joe writes a post about how Christians should set aside their differences and cooperate for the greater good, and before the pixels are dry on the webpage, his fellow Christians are, to borrow a crude-but-apropos expression, "all up in his grill."
Hilarious, but not all that unexpected. Many Christians have difficulty as it is admitting that nobody really knows the answer to many of our big metaphysical questions. Why would they then be able to admit to ignorance about smaller questions such as the proper way to baptize people or the specific way the world is going to end?
I think that exclusivity is at once the glue that binds Christianity together and its greatest flaw.
Joe, this is a wonderful post. Thank you for re-posting.
BD You work for an organization that teaches you to take trash talk and smack talk to new levels.
It's amusing to hear this coming from you, Bene, for you are one of the worst offenders that I've seen. The part where I wrote "I can't think of a single blogging initiative involving Christians that hasn't been roundly criticized by our own brothers and sisters" I had you in mind.
Although you couch it in a passive-aggressive, faux humility, semi-cryptic, writing style, you are one of the most vicious Christian bloggers I've ever seen. How many of your fellow Christians have you slandered and spread mistruths about simply because you disagree with their political positions? So many that I've lost count.
Your posts and comments have become rather predictable. You attack someone (like now) and then when they respond you'll answer with a woe-is-me, how blogging tends to lead to hurt feelings, blah, blah, blah, written in the third-person.
I'd have much more respect for you, Bene, if you were just more upfront. Why not just admit that you have no stomach for anyone who doesn't support a liberal version of Christianity? Why not just admit that you despise people who think the Bible contains more than the "social gospel?" Why not be more upfront about your disdain for "fundamentalist" (i.e., those who believe the Bible is inerrant)?
(And while we're at it, why not clarify whether you are a male or female so that we can start using he/she when we refer to you. I know which it is but have refrained out of respect. I also know the reason you do it and I think its a bit paranoid.)
"when our bright students are interested in a thinker outside of our circles, we teachers and pastors should model a kind of engagement that praises where it can, and suggests alternatives where it cannot."
Hello, I think he's on to something-if we engaged other Christian denominations at this level, we might actually move closer, as opposed to pushing each other further away...just because, as Nichole Nordeman wrote, "somebody somewhere decided, we'd be better off divided"...do we have to keep following like blind sheep? Peace, Elizabeth
I think one of the key reasons for so much infighting among Christians is the very fact that so many issues are considered "matters of salvation." I can only speak from my own experience and knowledge, but a large percentage of members of the Church of Christ honestly believe that members of denominations (they consider themselves non-denominational since they are the true church) are going to hell.
Just recently the Pope made clear that anyone who is not a Catholic is not part of the true church. Al Mohler wrote a respectful reply that anyone who listens to what the Pope says is not a member of the true church. He followed up with a series of articles explaining why Mormons are not Christians. So who is a Christian? Are 7th Day Adventists true Christians? What about Jehovah's Witnesses? Or Christina Scientists? Or Quakers? Or members of the United Church of Christ? Or Episcopalians?
I know Arminians who think Calvinists are lost and Calvinists who insist that Arminians are not among the "elect." Even on this board, I've been told that I never was a true Christian because true Christians can never deconvert. So I guess anyone who attacked me in my 15 years of ministry was not attacking a fellow Christian.
If you're attacking people you don't think are really Christians (or at least Christians in good standing), then you don't think you are wife-beating. Instead, you are whore-beating. If really smart, honest people who claim to be Christians can figure out who's really saved and who's not, shouldn't God send a clarifying memo? Of the 30,800 denominations last counted, how many are true Christians? Is only one of them the true bride? Or is Jesus a polygamist?
Cheers!
I've recently read "The Great Evangelical Disaster" by Francis Schaeffer. The "disaster" he refers to is (parts of) the evangelical church flirting with abandoning inerrency. But he makes the point that, in ourselves, we can have love and acceptance of others, along with doctrinal compromise, or we can have doctrinal purity, along with lack of love. Only in the Spirit can we both love people and uphold doctrinal purity.
The appendix of that book is "The Mark of the Christian", which was published as a separate (small) book by InterVarsity Press back in 1970. I don't know if you can still get it, but it's well worth reading if you can find it.
What about Pastor Jim Hagee who calls for war with Iran and whips up political supports for far right organization by getting people all worked up with wild/irrational "Left Behind" type scenarios?
Joe's good buddy, Max Blumenthal has a video on his blog, Rapture Ready, which shows his recent visit to Christians United for Israel’s Washington-Israel Summit.
Should extreme christian zionists like Pastor Hagee be critized? Or should we let it go or actually applaud what he is doing?
maxblumenthal.com/
Joe
Remember we are "protest-ants" by nature. Most protestant movements are born from the need or desire to critique and correct.
To paraphrase Dr Phil, "How's that workin' for us?"
I prefer egg beaters.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
Thought you might find this post interesting.
Steve C
You'll never stop, its in your intellectual DNA. I just got done reading "The Reformation" by Diarmaid McCulloch. Once vernacular Bibles became readily available, Christendom's irrevocable fracture was inevitable. What else do you expect from a worldview that gives all primacy to creeds?
Your laundry list of past "isms" just proves the point. Christian theology is an unstable particle which splits along strange and unpredictable dimensions on a regular basis. Synergism or Monergism? Millenialism or Amillenialism? If millenialism, pre or post millenialism? Cessationalism or non-cessationalism? Has there ever been a more divisive belief system than Christianity?
Good article.
In our quests to "defend the faith", we need to remember that sometimes the Holy Spirit is saying, "Shut up."
Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues
Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues
Contrary to popular belief, the end of the year is one of the best times to look for, awesome descion
aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf
aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf