Theological Ramblings

I have a new job for you, my faithful readers. Well it’s really the same job, but I have additional instructions. In general I expect that you keep me honest and call me out if I’m making arguments or statements that are incorrect. I invite you to argue against me, because it’s in the iron sharpening iron of debate where truth is clarified - when debate is done correctly, that is. Debate can be done incorrectly, however, and when it is done incorrectly it can have devastating affects on relationships and on the clarity of truth. But when debate is done in which both sides respect each other, and do legitimately try to listen to the other side, generally they both come away with a greater understanding of how they can clarify and improve their respective views of truth. I’m very much in favor of this kind of open minded discussion. That’s why I try to hear all sides of an argument. That’s why this blog is hosted on the domain “Open Dialogue”. Because of this, I want you to specifically keep an eye out for something: Imbalance.

Michael Patton, co-teacher of the online lay-seminary program The Theology Program, wrote an article about this on the blog Parchment and Pen. He discusses three characteristics of imbalance: Overstatement, Unqualified Superlatives and Non-contingent Propositions. In other words, statements like “I am absolutely certain that…”, or “This is the only explanation for…” or “There is no doubt that…” or “Everyone knows…” or “The Scripture is obviously clear on…”, etc. These kinds of statements for me are usually just by products of the writing process - not quite so intentional injections of eloquence, which really aren’t eloquence. It’s actually really a detractor, because it makes me sound all clichéd. But it’s also a detractor because it makes me unbalanced. It makes me at least appear that I haven’t considered the other side of the argument. I don’t want to forget to consider the other side. I don’t want to appear that way either. So if I do this, call me out. Seriously. And if it appears that there’s another side I haven’t considered, tell me about it.

You may wonder about my Calvinism series. Remember that the Calvinism series started as a bit of an outworking of my own frustration at not being able to discuss these things with anyone other than my wife (and Strugill). As I went along I tried to become more balanced with it, and will try to even more in the future. In that one, the circumstances that caused me initially to start it up pushed me toward being more apologetic - arguing for the legitimacy of the position - instead of irenic - considering all sides in an attempt to find the best explanation and refine my truth. I will try to be more balanced as we go. It’s for this reason that I think I might try to post a series of articles at the end (either in another series or as an epilogue to the first) defending my opposition (or have someone else do it so long as they play fair. Any volunteers???)

I hope that I can avoid making the kinds of mistakes that I abhor. I really detest when people try to color their opposition as unintelligent or evil. This is one of the things - quite honestly - that has initially leaned me toward Rob Bell over MacArthur in my Emergent Church issues. I’m still reading for that one, by the way. I haven’t yet come to any major conclusions worthy of cataloging. But for now, suffice it to say that Bell’s attitude generally seems to be one of humility. If you read Patton’s blog, you’ll see where he points out that in the world we live in (yes Postmodern), people look for someone who is humble. He calls it “epistemic humility”. It’s basically an acknowledgment that there’s a possibility that you could be wrong.

And that’s OK, but it’s also the rub. Postmodernism isn’t about denying absolute truth. Not really. Many many people think it is. The Emergent Church isn’t about denying doctrine for the sake of a wishy washy liberal gospel. Not really. John MacArthur thinks it is. One of the primary characteristics of postmodernism is that postmoderns are skeptical of anyone who would say “I have the answer don’t look anywhere else.” Why does that fly in the face of conservatives? Well, we believe we do have the answer. We believe that Jesus is the truth. We believe that the Bible is the truth. But the problem is that while Jesus is truth and the Bible is truth and both are infallible, we often make the illogical jump to that meaning that our interpretation of it is also infallible. This turns people off majorly. So Bell and others try to engage people in an irenic fashion, maintaining epistemic humility, which to those on the right appears to be an abandonment of truth.

But Patton has a very interesting comment that might enlighten us. He says

Please note, this is not a postmodern concession to relativism, for I am not advocating that people hide convictions or not take stand for what they believe. Neither am I saying that you cannot have great degrees of certainty and assurance about many of your convictions. I am simply telling people that if you overstate your case, no matter what it is, I will have a hard time listening to what you have to say, and I think I speak for many.

It’s not about denying the truth, it’s about modifying the way we communicate our truth so that it doesn’t turn people off. This is the problem I have with many conservatives. One of Patton’s commenters mentioned pastors who take an approach of “let me straighten out your theology”. I’ve met these kinds of pastors. The poster says, “It presumes a level of perfectionism that an honest examination of our humanity and fallibility should reject”. I as much as the next guy is as guilty as any of these people of considering ourselves to be more smart or right than we may be. We could all do with a little sharpening.

To be fair I also liked the Chesterton quotes a couple of the other commenters posted. It’s important to remember that while we are being epistemically humble, that we not throw out our convictions, and that we don’t do it just because it’s cool or a ploy to artificially create credibility, because honestly the tools of Overstatement, Unqualified Superlatives and Non-cogent propositions are all modernist credibility tricks. But true genuine humility is a good thing for the discussion.

Which is why when the Mormon’s came to my door the other day, I talked to them. I listened. I couldn’t quite divorce my roots enough to actually invite them it, but I asked them questions - ones I hoped were tough. And we left in a spirit of peace. I didn’t bash them, they didn’t bash me. And I think I might have learned something about Mormonism, because all I’ve ever known about it is what my conservative friends have told me, and I hope they learned something about Reformed Christianity. Hopefully this gives me a better understanding. Hopefully I planted a seed in their lives that God can use to bring them to greater knowledge of him.

Ultimately that’s what my goal is: to proclaim Christ’s truth however I can. Whether it’s by my attitude or actions or articulation (like the alliteration?), whenever and wherever possible, without using clichés and without worrying about trying to make sure this one gets saved, or gets right, because ultimately that’s God’s job.

My heart breaks for the people who’s only view of Christianity and God comes through the lens of closed-minded judgmental people. I’ve seen the other side and it’s beautiful and I wish they could see it for themselves. Don’t allow anyone to condemn people who try to show them. I think there might be an analogy somewhere I could draw on, but for now I’ve done about six paragraphs of digression and need to close this out. I do want to point out that I’m not all in favor of Bell and against MacArthur at this point. I think MacArthur has some great things to say and his primary concern (namely preserving the authority of Scripture) is genuine, valid and important. And Bell is not without his weaknesses. But I’ll get to that discussion later.