Saturday, July 5, 2008

A Second Attitude-Nature Analysis of Reformation Christianity

I've really enjoyed the A-Team blog. The writers there seem so grounded, so well-rounded, and so reasonable. Their edges seem sharp and properly located, and their allowances seem earnest and also properly located. There efforts seem diligent and aimed in the correct direction. Their voices are distinct and likable.

Recently, "David N." wrote a post about an attitudinal shortcoming he's spotted in some of his Calvinist brothers. I think he's correct and I'm glad he wrote the post. Here's the gist:
The Augustine-Pelagius debate may have meant eternal life or death, but the Augustine-semi-Pelagian debate was an intramural one.

-The A-Team Blog
Devoid of context it seems simple and obviously true. But the fact does remain that many Calvinists don't behave accordingly. Arminians, sometimes almost slanderously called "semi-Pelagians", are sometimes not regarded and treated as brothers, about whom Jesus said that we will be known by our love for.

There are benefits unique to the practice of debating about theology with other Christians, but our motives for debating ought to be righteous, and those benefits that I mentioned ought not be pursued to the detriment of other virtues, such as love and level-headedness.

Let's leave fanaticism to the Liberals ;).

15 comments:

  1. By "Liberals" are you referring to liberal Christianity?

    ReplyDelete
  2. What do you need help with Brandon?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, "liberal" is just so broad, and can be misconstrued in so many ways. When it comes to Christianity, for example, I would think liberal Christians believe something like:

    A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.

    However, I would consider my own faith theologically conservative, but socially liberal: I'll drink, and I think tattoos are okay, and I'll even smoke the hookah *gasp*. But these are social issues. Theologically, I have a very high reverence for the Lord, the utmost respect for the Scriptures, and my views don't deviate much from those of the early reformers.

    Louis, would you mind expanding upon what you mean when you say liberal? I don't find either view above to be fanatical.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David, you're right - "Liberal" may be applied to two domains (or more). In this case I intentionally use the word to apply to both (and the others).

    Also, one of the Oxford American Dictionary's definitions of "Liberal" is:

    3 (esp. of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact : they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation.

    In this case I also use the word "Liberal" liberally. So not only do I mean to refer to a liberal of any kind, but I mean to refer very loosely to a liberal of any kind.

    The winky-face was meant to tip you off however, that I was just joking around. Being immersed in Conservatism (of every sort, and also loosely defined), I'm sure we all often hear scathing remarks against "Liberals" (in such cases, "Liberal" is often undefined and actually unhelpful, vis-à-vis my sarcastic use of the word to parody such situations).

    (As one small example, on the 4th I was out on Hayden lake with Jon and Daniel and a friend of my father-in-law's. He was telling me about a "Bible College" he might go to. I asked if it were a liberal arts university and he just about jumped out of his skin and his posture toward me morphed completely. I was suddenly an outsider for mentioning the term "liberal", and an offensive outsider at that, for suggesting he might affiliate himself with a liberal institution of any kind. I tried to explain what a liberal arts university was, and that Biola is one, but I nevertheless had to sign a very conservative doctrinal statement and take 30 units of rigorous academic and spiritually forming Bible classes. After a while I think we sorted things out, but I relearned my lesson: always use "Liberal" to vaguely describe the bad guys. Pick alternate words and be specific when the term is really thought to be needed.)

    I don't think that being Conservative (by any definition) or Liberal (by any definition) entails being attitudinally fanatical, just like the blog post upon which we are commenting made it clear that I do not think that being a Reformation Christian entails being attitudinally fanatical.

    So the point of the post is that Reformation Christians, regardless of whether given components of their worldviews are accurate, ought not treat genuinely Christian but non-Calvinist brothers and sisters as if they were genuine heretics or even simply unknowing unbelievers.

    Do there remain any open questions? Suggestions? Points of debate?

    ReplyDelete
  5. ///A Completely Unrelated Post-Script///

    An interesting quotation of Augustine:

    Augustine -- God is not the author of the evil a man does though he is the author of the evil a man suffers.

    Evodius -- Is there some other author of the kind of evil which we do not attribute to the action of God?

    Augustine -- There certainly is, for we cannot say that it happened without author. But if you ask who that is I cannot tell you. For there is no one single author. Every evil man is the author of his evil deeds. If you wonder how that is, consider what we have just said: evil deeds are punished by the justice of God. They would not be justly punished unless they were done voluntarily.

    -From Augustine's "On Free Will"

    ReplyDelete
  6. The only reason I asked was because you seemed to be implying that being divisive over doctrinal issues is fanatical, like liberal Christians. If that is what you intended, then I just wanted to note that liberal Christians are not divisive but are whole hearted compromisers. If that is not what you meant, then please disregard my comments.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is ironic that you have enlightened yourself to the humanist aspect of the emerging church but you don't see the danger in armenianism. I am in full agreement with Bill Hornbeck's rebuttal to the A-team's post (hyperlink in your post - I won't rewrite it here).

    First) the new age man values nice over truth. It is not nice to say there is only one way to God, Jesus Christ. But it is the truth. It is not nice to say man does not come to God but that God draws man, but it is the truth.

    Second) the new age man views God and the world as revolving around man. That is also the armenian view.

    Third) Jesus Christ's commission to us is not to feed and clothe the poor. That is a different topic but not to be confused with doctrine or commission. Jesus Christ said, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given unto Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising . . . and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." [Mat 28]

    Fourth) the new age man conforms man into his own image. Christians have their place within this domain as long as they abide by the rules of man. Whenever they stand up for the truth, they are marginalized and labeled fanatical and hateful. This is the same within the humanistic church.

    That said, I do not ascribe to the view that those who have mixed humanist doctrine in with Biblical doctrine are going to Hell. We all hold on to some aspect of humanism - it is unavoidable. Where God draws the line, only He is judge. On any doctrinal argument we must remember to argue in love but not to confuse love with standing down or compromising the truth.

    When you have fought this on the front lines, you will understand it better. If you are forceful to stand for the truth, your turn at the front will come.

    ReplyDelete
  8. PS: fanaticism belongs to those who follow Christ - unless we are not willing to die for Him. Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven is forcefully advancing and forceful men lay hold of it." [Mat 11:12]

    Not one of the prophets or apostles were killed for being nice. They were imprisoned, tortured and murdered for being fanatical. I want to be counted with them - not with those who are nice.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @cominus

    First of all, I am ashamed of you. How dare you make such scathing remarks against ArmEnians - most of whom are Christian brothers and all of whom, as a people, have been frequently and often systematically oppressed throughout the last 2000 years.

    There seem to be three main issues in your post. One is a thrust to highlight some problems latent in Humanism/the Emerging Church/ArmInianism vaguely and abstractly, another is to equivocate between a humanistic aspect of the Emerging Church and one of Arminianism in order to show the absurdity of what you perceive to be my admitting to the danger of one and not the other, and the last is to demonstrate the necessity of fanaticism.

    With respect to the various points you made on the first count I largely agree with you, although you excursus is a bit incomplete.

    Regarding your claim that I do not see the dangers of Arminian theology I cannot help but ask how you presume to know my position! I can't find any post on my blog that treats the details of either Calvinistic or Arminian theology whatsoever. I do happen to have a well though-out position on most of the matters Arminian theology regards, and would be happy to discuss these things with you at length if you wish. But I am a bit taken aback by your harsh words about my ignorance and lack of front-line experience.

    Now about the nature of fanaticism. It seems our disagreement is due to a mere semantic misunderstanding. I basically agree with your point about standing up for the truth, and even forcefully when necessary. However bound up in the term "fanatic" is a negative connotation that usually implies a lack of propriety, which is why I made the throw-away comment about leaving it to the liberals.

    The point of the original post was that we should treat one another with love (something Jesus instructed us to do so well they we become identified by it), and that this behavior is often lacking in many Reformation Christians (regardless of how accurate their theological system may be on the whole and regardless of how dangerous that of the Arminians may be on the whole). Now, what part of that do you take issue with, and why?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Louis - your marginalization I accept. If you think I have misinterpreted your premise, then compare once again what you said, compare that to the link you rendered to support your premise and now compare your rebuttal to me and tell me how your views are consistent and where I misunderstood you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @cominus

    Since you are the one making a claim (namely, that my position is inconsistent), the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate such.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Louis - Once again, I apologize for the misspelling. It was not my intention to impune any ethnicity whatsoever. Especially our good brothers and sisters, among whom are some of the staunchest Calvinists.

    Regarding your statement, "I cannot help but ask how you presume to know my position": You have disclosed your position (or positioning for argument) in your writings:
    First) "I've really enjoyed the A-Team blog. The writers there seem so grounded, so well-rounded, and so reasonable. . . [and further statements that implied your complete agreement in their arguments]" You linked to their article, which said, "Since I am a Calvinist . . ." Guilt by affiliation and affirmation.
    Second) ". . . wrote a post about an attitudinal shortcoming he's spotted in some of his Calvinist brothers. I think he's correct and I'm glad he wrote the post . . . the fact does remain that many Calvinists don't behave accordingly." Here, you are rehashing well-worn arguments, which cast the mold for Calvinists using the template of the extreme minority who are spiteful (not zealous, not fanatical) toward all Arminians. This template is used by another minority of self-deprecating, do-gooder Calvinists who cast this mold in their efforts to appear above shallow and low-ball tactics. Guilt by imitation.

    You wrote a sentence that I misinterpreted. "Devoid of context it seems simple and obviously true." From that, my mind red-flagged and I perceived some inconsistency. However, looking at the sentence again, I can see my first judgment does not apply. So, I retract, in part with apologies. However, upon several re-reads of the sentence, I cannot understand what it could possibly mean in the context written. Oh well.

    This point aside, where you are strongly inconsistent is in your overall foundation. This is why I made my four points (not three). In your rebuttal you state, "The point of the original post was that we should treat one another with love. . ." However, in your article, you do not state it as clearly, except in the context of the debate. In the article you wrote, ". . . our motives for debating ought to be righteous, and those benefits that I mentioned [ed note - could not find benefits mentioned] ought not be pursued to the detriment of other virtues, such as love and level-headedness." So we can assess you want Calvinists to treat Arminians with love. If we are going to treat each other with love, especially if we are talking about treating each other with love in the context of debate, we should be arguing our point from a balanced position. Whenever this subject comes up, it is always about the mean-spirited Calvinists and almost never about the mean-spirited Arminians. If you and the A-Team wanted to make your case, it would have been more convincing if the burden were equally applied.

    In your rebuttal, you stated I had three points and you referred to them as vague, abstract and equivocating. They may be abstract, but they are not vague and I did not equivocate.
    First) the new age man values nice over truth. . .
    Second) the new age man views God and the world as revolving around man. . .
    Third) Jesus Christ's commission to us is [to declare everything revolves around Him].
    Fourth) the new age man conforms man into his own image. Christians have their place within this domain as long as they abide by the rules of man. . .

    In every spiritual battle, there are three armies. Three because one side always splits - the good side. There are those who stand against God. This can be a stand for evil or a stand for man, which are the same but they have different faces. There are those who stand for God without equivocation and then, there are those who are on God's side but desire to appear fair and balanced. This last group believes they have the right motive but they do not understand the war.

    Often they do not understand how to test the spirits (1John 4). On a first reading, John's statement is simple: does the spirit confess Jesus Christ has come in the flesh? But the deeper matter is, does the spirit acknowledge Jesus Christ fulfilled what God spoke through the prophets, the angels and Jesus Christ himself. In the argument between Calvinism and Arminianism, there are some hard sayings in the Scripture that Calvinists hang on to and Arminians try to explain away through human logic. Paul warned us in First Corinthians against using human logic and he made further hard statements regarding the nature of predestination. The basis for the debate comes down to the nut: does man serve God's purposes or does God serve man's need.

    So, I lend to you my four arguments, once again. From the first point: Even the church has bought into the new age, Tower of Babel, man's rule that the attitude is more important than the message; or, that it is more important to be nice than to stand for the truth. In this, I do not promote in-your-face confrontations but I state this as such because of point four. Point four is new age man has put Christians in a box. If we conform to the box, that is, if we are nice we are accepted. However, if we are mean-spirited, which applies not only to those who are hostile, but even more so toward those who stand for the truth and will not bend, they are marginalized and labeled. These points apply to all areas of spiritual warfare; I am not talking exclusively about the debate between Calvinists and Armineans.

    The premise for point number two is new age man views God as revolving around man, serving his needs. This is true whether man is a stated atheist or a humanist Christian. And, once again, even the best of us have humanist elements we cannot shake (Rom 7). That is the reason for point three: Christ has declared He reigns - that we serve Him (Mat 28:18, et al). God said this would be so (Gen 3:15), the prophets declared it and the apostles affirmed it. Christianity is not about living a good life, having a better life or any such thing. Christianity is about receiving Christ and joining the battle for the kingdom. To fight in the battle, we must understand the warfare.

    You are my brother and nothing I have said is meant to demean you but I hold to my statement, "When you have fought this on the front lines, you will understand it better. If you are forceful to stand for the truth, your turn at the front will come." You may have engaged in some debates but your arguments do not demonstrate that you have fought at the front.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.