Monday, February 06, 2006
A Game of Let's Pretend: The Unconditional Surrender Edition
Anybody else remember Mr. Rogers' world of Make Believe? Let's all go there for a moment and live a little fairy tale. Let's pretend that Every Tribe Entertainment and the New York Times (does it really deserve the italics?) apologized for irrationally insinuating to the FBI and the cultural elites who read the Times that Kevin Bauder is a crazed lunatic. Let's pretend that ETE offered a public apology for casting someone as the lead character in The End of the Spear whose worldview is diametrically opposed to that of the martyrs. Let's pretend that ETE promised never to minimize the gospel and always to cast only evangelical Christians whose lifestyles stand up against extensive investigations. Let's pretend that they pulled the movie, burnt all the copies, and started over, producing instead a movie with a clear presentation of the gospel.
Exactly what would we have accomplished? Someone please edumicate me.
Seems to me that Shakespeare wrote a play with an appropriate title. Just replace "Nothing" with "Very Little of Any Eternal Consequence" and I would be satisfied.
I will now hang up and listen to your answers.
Exactly what would we have accomplished? Someone please edumicate me.
Seems to me that Shakespeare wrote a play with an appropriate title. Just replace "Nothing" with "Very Little of Any Eternal Consequence" and I would be satisfied.
I will now hang up and listen to your answers.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Halftime Blogging
I'm sure some fundamentalists and even perhaps some of the most hardened of you non-fundamentalist evangelicals may be basking in smug superiority at the fact that your church didn't cancel services tonight or even abbreviate it in some subtle way. Well, I'll see your smug superiority and raise you some overt self-righteousness by proclaiming that our church had a pretty standard-length service and then tacked communion onto the end. Ha! Take that.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Televangelical
Occasional poster Michael Riley e-mailed me yesterday to ask me if anyone had ever told me that when you Google "paleoevangelical," Google asks you if you meant "televangelical." I had noticed this before, but he was the first person to point it out to me. So for your Saturday reading pleasure, here are the results of a Google search for "televangelical," just in case you arrived at Paleo by mistake.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
A Three-Dimensional Approach to Ecclesiastical Cooperation and Separation
This is a theory, not a proclamation. I am not the one to offer a robust exegetical or philosophical defense of this paradigm, but I'm going to propose it just the same and let better-equipped folks tear it apart. Also, every idea you are about to read is unabashedly stolen from someone else. If there is anything original, it is simply the way in which the ideas are being tied together.
Enough of the caveats.
It seems to me that just about everyone who discusses biblical teaching on ecclesiastical cooperation and separation recognizes several unavoidable factors that affect how much we are able to cooperate in gospel ministry with other professing believers, how much we are compelled to withdraw from such fellowship, and when we are required to expose and rebuke error. I believe these factors include at least three specific dimensions:
To me, at least, it seems that denying the need to evaluate differences in light of these three factors will lead to complete separation of all professing believers from every other professing believer. In other words, demanding unanimity on any of these points precludes all Christian fellowship and cooperation with everyone who does not believe and behave precisely as you do, which I am pretty sure is everyone. If all doctrines are equally necessary, all forms of cooperation are equivalent, and exegetical certainty is irrelevant, then we must withdraw from everyone who does not agree with us on every possible issue in every possible pursuit.
I really need a graphic for this, but try to imagine a cube, obviously possessing width, height, and depth. Consider point #1 above to be width, #2 to be height, and #3 to be depth. Scenario 1: If a doctrine is essential to the gospel, the level of cooperation is quite high, and the exegetical certainty is likewise high, you have an issue that falls in a remote corner of the cube. Scenario 2: When a doctrinal difference has little to do with the gospel, the level of fellowship is minimal, and the biblical support for the doctrine is unclear, this issue falls in the opposite corner from Scenario 1.
A necessary corollary to this approach is some measure of independency. By that I do not mean that individuals or churches are islands unto themselves with no accountability to any other part of the body of Christ. I do mean that no individual or church is likely to possess precisely identical understandings of how to evaluate every issue of orthodoxy and orthopraxy and where it falls in the three-dimensional grid. These diverse understandings should be subject to discipleship and edification within and among local churches. On the other hand, the forces of shrewd maneuvering should not be used to foster control or to cultivate lording leadership of one local church (or para-church institution) over another local church. Similarly, a local church certainly should not abdicate its own autonomy in favor of blindless sycophancy to a church, institution, or movement.
I'm chewing on a potential fourth dimension. For lack of a better term, I'm calling it "the spirit of the age." This means that a doctrine might rise in importance because of its prominence in a contemporary groundswell against sound doctrine. An current example might be egalitarianism, the belief that both genders should share equally leadership roles in the local church and the family.
Some excellent and relevant discussions:
Enough of the caveats.
It seems to me that just about everyone who discusses biblical teaching on ecclesiastical cooperation and separation recognizes several unavoidable factors that affect how much we are able to cooperate in gospel ministry with other professing believers, how much we are compelled to withdraw from such fellowship, and when we are required to expose and rebuke error. I believe these factors include at least three specific dimensions:
1. Proximity to the gospelProximity to the gospel means that some doctrines are so essential to the nature of the Christian gospel that to deny the doctrine is to deny the gospel itself. The nature of the cooperation in view recognizes that different levels of fellowship and joint gospel ministry impose different demands on agreement. To serve as an elder-pastor in a church, I would need to have a very high level of agreement on most (but not all) issues with the other elders. My level of agreement with non-elder members of the church would be less. We could permit a person to speak in our church who might not qualify for membership. We might even be able to support other churches or ministries in some specific venture whose leaders we would not permit to speak in our church. Finally, exegetical certainty means that we do not possess equal certainty on all biblical doctrines. "Baptism for the dead" is not as clear as "Jesus is Lord." A more relevant example might be some matter of soteriology that could be very close to the center of the gospel, yet be less clear in the understanding of some than of others.
2. Nature of the cooperation in view
3. Exegetical certainty
To me, at least, it seems that denying the need to evaluate differences in light of these three factors will lead to complete separation of all professing believers from every other professing believer. In other words, demanding unanimity on any of these points precludes all Christian fellowship and cooperation with everyone who does not believe and behave precisely as you do, which I am pretty sure is everyone. If all doctrines are equally necessary, all forms of cooperation are equivalent, and exegetical certainty is irrelevant, then we must withdraw from everyone who does not agree with us on every possible issue in every possible pursuit.
I really need a graphic for this, but try to imagine a cube, obviously possessing width, height, and depth. Consider point #1 above to be width, #2 to be height, and #3 to be depth. Scenario 1: If a doctrine is essential to the gospel, the level of cooperation is quite high, and the exegetical certainty is likewise high, you have an issue that falls in a remote corner of the cube. Scenario 2: When a doctrinal difference has little to do with the gospel, the level of fellowship is minimal, and the biblical support for the doctrine is unclear, this issue falls in the opposite corner from Scenario 1.
A necessary corollary to this approach is some measure of independency. By that I do not mean that individuals or churches are islands unto themselves with no accountability to any other part of the body of Christ. I do mean that no individual or church is likely to possess precisely identical understandings of how to evaluate every issue of orthodoxy and orthopraxy and where it falls in the three-dimensional grid. These diverse understandings should be subject to discipleship and edification within and among local churches. On the other hand, the forces of shrewd maneuvering should not be used to foster control or to cultivate lording leadership of one local church (or para-church institution) over another local church. Similarly, a local church certainly should not abdicate its own autonomy in favor of blindless sycophancy to a church, institution, or movement.
I'm chewing on a potential fourth dimension. For lack of a better term, I'm calling it "the spirit of the age." This means that a doctrine might rise in importance because of its prominence in a contemporary groundswell against sound doctrine. An current example might be egalitarianism, the belief that both genders should share equally leadership roles in the local church and the family.
Some excellent and relevant discussions:
- Fundamental Doctrines
- Cooperation in the Church
- Essays on the relative weight of biblical truths (1 2 3)
;-)
"Real men do not use smiley faces on e-mails."
I generally agree with Mahaney, except for just a couple exceptions. One is when you are communicating with a female. My opinion is that sometimes when you are trying to be funny or excessively rational, you can get yourself in trouble when you do not give a non-verbal expression of tone (not that I speak from experience). The other exception is when you are communicating with men who, well, just read the previous sentence again.
I generally agree with Mahaney, except for just a couple exceptions. One is when you are communicating with a female. My opinion is that sometimes when you are trying to be funny or excessively rational, you can get yourself in trouble when you do not give a non-verbal expression of tone (not that I speak from experience). The other exception is when you are communicating with men who, well, just read the previous sentence again.
Fundamentalism, Politics, Irony, Marsden, Fuller
Friend David reports on a lecture delivered by George Marsden at Fuller Seminary. I fear we may have lost him when they bought him off with that free book, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
His report follows the theme of church, culture, and politics (particularly the recent, ironic fundamentalist obsession with it) that's been beaten (seemingly) to death in recent days. I still have a few licks to get in though. The horse is definitely still breathing.
His report follows the theme of church, culture, and politics (particularly the recent, ironic fundamentalist obsession with it) that's been beaten (seemingly) to death in recent days. I still have a few licks to get in though. The horse is definitely still breathing.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
"Debaters Are the New Missionaries"
Interesting article on debate programs in evangelical-fundamentalist colleges.
Debaters are the new missionaries, having realized they can save a lot more souls from a seat at the top—perhaps even on the highest court in the land. "Evangelicals have always wanted to persuade people to the faith," says John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "The new thing is that evangelicals want to be more involved in the world now.Ugghhh.
You Are Being Robbed
I have never recycled articles before, but the State of the Union address reminded me how much our current Social Security system ticks me off. Here I describe a fairly simple approach that will help you analyze your annual statement of "benefits" (i.e. how long you have to live to get back what has been stolen from you).
A Question for the Serious, Cultured Fundamentalists
Is this serious?
Dr. Bauder's at Heart Conference. I think that leaves you, Aniol, unless someone wants to send the Snowmobile Express after him.
[Update: After some technical difficulties with the link, we are back online. Apologies for the inconvenience. If for whatever reason you cannot access this link, Google "maestro.wmv" and you should be able to get it somewhere.]
Dr. Bauder's at Heart Conference. I think that leaves you, Aniol, unless someone wants to send the Snowmobile Express after him.
[Update: After some technical difficulties with the link, we are back online. Apologies for the inconvenience. If for whatever reason you cannot access this link, Google "maestro.wmv" and you should be able to get it somewhere.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)