Subscribe to Posts
the problem with cheap worldview talk
Thirty years ago, evangelicals started talking about “worldviews.” I first remember hearing it from Francis Schaeffer. It began innocently enough–as an attempt on the part of evangelicals to become a little more thoughtful about the faith. But a hundred years of separating the head from the heart, as if there are two homes within which to house your faith–and we know which one is superior–had taken their toll. Soon “worldview” was reduced to another piece of the evangelical apologetic armor, a little pop anthropology to go with our pop psychology. People sent their high school kids away for a month to learn about “the Christian worldview” and its nemesis “the secular humanist worldview.”
Oh what folly!
As though there is a seamless garment called the Christian worldview and a seamless garment called the secular worldview. And a seamless garment called the Muslim worldview. And on and on, ad nausuem. If you are a Christian, well then, by golly you have a Christian worldview, especially if you have learned what the seven marks of the Christian worldview are. Once you do a little homework, you see the world through the eyes of Christ! And if you have a secular worldview, you see the eyes through the eyes of a consistent, pure, unalloyed secularity. Boo. Hiss.
Why can’t we just admit it? We don’t know what we’re talking about. Most of us avoided anthropology like the plague because that’s where you learn about human origins, and that means the “e” word. We’ve picked up our anthropology third hand, like an STD. You could learn more about anthropology from one Wikepeia article than from a whole course on the Christian worldview.
the downside of glib worldview talk
But because we think we know what we’re talking about when we talk about worldview, we blind ourselves to one of the great marvels of the universe and the object of God’s incomprehensible love: people. Messy, inconsistent, internally inconsistent, self-contradictory, surprisingly wonderful and maddeningly foolish people. Who have, if anything, a patchwork worldview that defies description.
We distrust people if we sniff out something that might not be part of the mythical Christian worldview. For example, environmentalists are people who have a secular worldview, or so we’ve been taught. They are concerned about exploding population, so they are generally inclined to say, “Mission Acomplished!” when they hear the command to multiply and fill the earth. Many of them support “abortion rights.”
Now are hackles are up, because we see the tell-tale signs of a secular worldview. When the environmentalists tell us that human activity accounts for the recent increase in average global temperatures, we’re not buying it, because we don’t want to swallow that evil secular worldview whole and entire. All these things are connected, you know. So we turn a deaf ear to people, real live human beings who bear the image of God people because of this poppy-cock worldview talk.
we baptize our patchwork worldview as the christian one
By assuming that there is a single Christian worldview we naturally assume that if we are really earnest Christians then we must have one. Our American, Republican, White, Suburban sensibilities get baptized and come out smelling like a rose. But it’s not the rose of Sharon, I’m afraid. It’s “eau de somethin’ else.” I’m not saying it’s bad. I’m just saying it ain’t a Christian worldview, because there’s no such thing. There are only people who let Christ into their messed up inner worlds and he sits somewhere inside of that disaster area and says, “Where do I begin?” while we go around thinking that we have the worldview of Christ–the worldview of an itinerant preaching rabbi during Second Temple Judaism.
And it’s a shame because we could learn a thing or two from cultural anthropol0gy, which is the study of human culture, about their diversity and complexity and marvels and dangers.
We could learn a thing or two about the lenses that shape our perceptions. This might, if we let it, humble us about our perceptions. We might understand that brains are not like a roll of Kodak film—God speaks or acts or influences and it shows up on the film just the way it happened as though we capture his word like your camera captures a sunset.
Instead we hear a thing or two about worldviews from someone who has heard a thing or two about worldviews from someone else and then we use our knowledge to keep a safe distance from people who are different than we are. So as not to be hoodwinked by their worldview.
Don’t drink the kool-aid!
Tags: christian worldview, cultural anthropology, environment, francis schaeffer, secular worldview, worldview
June 15th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Thanks, Ken.
Imagine if Christians constructed a new worldview based on one simple principle: God loves people (as messed up as they are), and so should we.
He made mankind in His image.
He even took on mankind’s image, clothing Himself with human flesh (the Incarnation).
And He didn’t just become a “holy man.” He became the friend of sinners. And by becoming the friend of sinners, He became identified with them.
Can we as Christ-followers try to do the same? Try becoming a friend of a gay or lesbian person. Try defending their dignity or their rights.
You will, like Christ, then become “identified” with “them.” People will think you must be “one of them.”
That’s OK. That’s what people that about Jesus. They thought he was “one of them” sinners too. After all, he hung out with them. And loved them. And defended them.
And they hated Jesus for it. You do the same, and the doctrinal police will hate you for it too.
Then, you will be “one step closer” to being like Christ.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I’m with you on this one. Well said.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
ken, have you read charles taylor’s book: a secular age?
this post so reminds me of it. also, i was just reading a short review by another person, who said this: (and in saying the follow, totally reminded me of your comments on the culture wars, et al.):
“Thus, a point not directly argued by Taylor, but which can be solidly inferred from the story Taylor tells in his book, is that the secular world in which we now live in Europe and America is irreversible, at least under the present circumstances. Thus, attempts at “fighting the culture,” “winning the culture war,” “taking back America for Jesus,” and so on and so forth are not only futile but counterproductive and wrongheaded church strategy. They’re not wrongheaded because they’re futile (I’m an idealist, I guess?), but rather, they’re wrongheaded because they fail to fundamentally reckon with the reality and complexity of our epoch. At any rate, the briefest perusal of Taylor’s work will leave you with the profound impression that secularization is more complicated than most of us typically imagine; hence, any spirituality or teaching meant for the secular age that fails to deal with this complexity is in deep, deep trouble.”
…i’m right there with eric as well: grace is the spiritual capital of christianity, and the church is headed for bankruptcy court! (wonder if we are qualified for TARP bailout resources…just joking!)
peace
June 15th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
GREAT, GREAT, GREAT post! I went to a Christian college, where all of the curriculum was based on teaching students to develop a “biblical worldview.” In some ways, this was helpful. (I learned to think more critically about my faith.) In other ways, it was decidedly not helpful. (Part of having a “biblical worldview,” I was told, meant embracing young earth creationism.)
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, “Because we think we know what we’re talking about when we talk about worldview, we blind ourselves to one of the great marvels of the universe and the object of God’s incomprehensible love: people. Messy, inconsistent, internally inconsistent, self-contradictory, surprisingly wonderful and maddeningly foolish people. Who have, if anything, a patchwork worldview that defies description.”
There is no such thing as one, single “Christian worldview.” And that’s a good thing.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
P.S. This may sound cynical, but in a lot of cases, I’ve learned to reinterpret “Christian worldview” to mean “conservative Republican party platform.” For example, a Christian apologetics organization with which I used to participate released a “Worldview Chart” that listed “care for the poor and oppressed” as a “Postmodern Worldview” that stood in opposition to the “Biblical Worldview.” I also noticed that “Free Market Capitalism with Limited Interference from the Government” appeared under “Biblical Worldview.” Hmmmm….
June 16th, 2009 at 4:13 am
Eric asks: “Can we as Christ-followers try to do the same?”
With all due respect. How can you call yourself a Christ-follower??? You don’t even have proof that Jesus existed. You certainly don’t have any proof that he rose from the dead or that he forgives sin.
Who is this that you are following and how can we learn more about him. I know that Osama Bin Laden has said that he believes Jesus was a great man as do many Islamic Terrorists. Is this the same Jesus you’re talking about following?
If you do have any proof, please submit for review.
Thanks,
B.D.
Heh heh…
June 16th, 2009 at 4:18 am
“Try becoming a friend of a gay or lesbian person.”
That has to be the most offensive statement ever uttered about homosexuals.
“Befriend a Gay, Day”??
How could you not get how ABSURD that is…
B.D.
Ps Coming Soon: “Be Nice to Negroes”…Only at your Local Vineyard Church – We do Christianity RIGHT…er…we mean…Left!
June 16th, 2009 at 10:41 am
b.d., with all due respect I think it’s out of line to call into question someone’s relationship with Christ based on comments in a blog.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:51 am
I think for many it’s easier to believe that there is a “Christian worldview” because it helps God to fit into a neat box. And then we would know where we fit. We want to feel like there is a concrete answer to every issue. I know it would make it easier for me. I wonder if God left it like that for us to wrestle with. If we didn’t have to wrestle with issues would we just place Him on a shelf somewhere and bring Him down on Sundays?
June 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Tom Weston wrote an essay “Of Sacred or Secular”. He sums it up “Some people have a very restricted notion of God’s “authorization” of human activities. But the wise will consider the rich authorization in a passage that reads: “Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Colossians 3:17) Whatever and whatever you chose to call it, ” Do not call impure anything that God has made clean.” (Acts 10:15)”
June 16th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Ken,
I hear you. As you know I try to be mostly lighthearted in my posts, and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to share my take.
You probably also know I think that at least 80% of this so-called re-examining of previously held tenets of the faith is nothing more than middle-aged navel-gazing.
The best analogy I can think of is how it seems every other month or so Oprah has some 32 yr old woman on her show announcing she no longer will let men control her life as she did in her 20’s and is now her OWN woman. This proclamation is met in knee-jerk fashion with thunderous applause from the 95%+ middle aged female audience.
But almost EVERY woman goes through that awakening sometime in their early 30’s. It’s just part of the process. Yet each woman going through it thinks they just invented the wheel! haha
Same here. Your blog posts are thought-provoking & intriguing, but they couldn’t have been made without your ADMITTED 20yr history of acting/thinking in almost the exact opposite way! This of course begs the question – how many more years before you flip again! haha
So yeah, most of my comments are intended to kind of show the folly of the whole ‘examination movement’ that’s hot right now in the Body. Especially on KenWilsonOnline. lol
With that out of the way, I do want to RESPECTFULLY defend my comments to Eric C.
To me a Christian can most easily & succinctly be defined as a “Scripturist.”
A scripturist is someone who accepts the (perhaps arbitrarily put together) 66 books of the (Protestant) Bible as God’s Word and does NOT accept any of the other contenders – The apocrypha, The Book of Mormon etc as canon.
This is as good a working definition as I think you’ll find.
It allows for the Fundamentalist Baptist who thinks tongues are NOT for today, the exuberant Pentecostal who prays daily for EVERY spiritual gift, and the contemplative Calvinist who wonders who he can speak to about Jesus today to all fit under the same umbrella – Christian – even though there are SERIOUS disagreements between us.
After all, even though I may disagree w/the Baptist dude about tongues, I know that at least he and I are attempting to reason from the same source text as to what’s true and what’s not. He comes to one conclusion, I another.
But we both base it on those 66 books.
But, once you move away from that….
Once someone says (which Eric C has in effect suggested) I DON’T CARE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, this is what I believe! Than, by my definition anyway, he’s no longer a Christian.
And I think the questions I raised were legit.
I GUARANTEE you if I was unsaved and debated some Christian (as I was wont to do back then haha) and found out he didn’t think the Bible…The Holy Bible! could be trusted…I would eat him up!
All of the questions I asked were fair and in bounds. If you can’t trust the Bible to be essentially the truth, then you have NO business even talking about Jesus for the reasons I’ve already mentioned.
Keep in mind. I totally respect Eric’s position. It is actually refreshingly honest from an intellectual position and does not diminish him one whit in my book as a human being to be respected like all others. But no, he’s not a Christian in my book. And any defense he would put up to that effect could EASILY be proved a farce.
Hope that clarifies things…
B.D.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I’m confused. Is the “Christian worldview” the idea that we should have the view of the world that Jesus had or has? If so, doesn’t that seem kind of silly? I mean, how could we have God’s view of the world? Or is the idea that we should have the view of the world that his first century followers had? If so, doesn’t that seem impossible? Or is the idea that we should have the view of the world that somebody who lived in the 1970s had? If so, doesn’t that seem improbable?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Perhaps we would all do better with a bit more grace.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
B.D. It does clarify things. Your definition of a “scripturist” excludes all Roman Catholics and some Orthodox. You used this as a defense for claiming Eric c. wasn’t in Christ. You’ve just emptied out many millions more by your definition. I’m so glad you’re not the judge.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
b..d..,
Regarding your comment:
–”To me a Christian can most easily & succinctly be defined as a “Scripturist.”
A scripturist is someone who accepts the (perhaps arbitrarily put together) 66 books of the (Protestant) Bible as God’s Word and does NOT accept any of the other contenders – The apocrypha, The Book of Mormon etc as canon.”–
If that’s true, then what about all the followers of Christ in parts of the world without access to a complete Bible? Are they not Christians? What about all the followers of Christ before the Bible (as it is now) was put together, books chosen, and copies printed? Were they not Christians?
I would like honestly like to hear your reply. Is this what you are saying? Or did I misinterpret what you meant? In which case I would like to give you a chance to clarify.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Ken,
Good post. I’ve been reading your blog for a while but haven’t commented. Especially liked your Darwin post.
I used to be a Christian but am no longer (atheist). I’m still very close to my friends and family who are Christians. The word “worldview” has gotten pretty stale for me, and I have noticed that it’s often used by Evangelicals, especially the ones who want to do apologetics. For me, it’s about as meaningless as the word “postmodern” because it seems to mean just about anything to anyone. What you’re saying makes sense, though, if the word is consistently being used to codify American Evangelical Christian beliefs and practices as much as possible. This would certainly chafe for any thinking person who considered herself to be a Christian but didn’t buy into the “Christian Worldview.”
Also, I’m intrigued that BD would say that Eric C’s comment was
“refreshingly honest from an intellectual position and does not diminish him one whit in my book as a human being to be respected like all others. But no, he’s not a Christian in my book. And any defense he would put up to that effect could EASILY be proved a farce.”
This would reinforce the opinion that some might have that being a refreshingly honest intellectual excludes you from being a “Christian.” I know quite a few people who have been calling themselves Christians for a long time but are too refreshingly honest and intellectual to make the cut. I’m so glad that they’re in my camp now: The Non-Christians.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for friends of mine who seem to be emphasizing the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth above all other doctrines and tenets that have glommed on to Christianity over the centuries. From outside of belief, I can now see that so much of that has nothing to do with what Jesus says in the Gospels. If I can’t call these friends of mine Christians, what am I supposed to call them? Jesus Followers? Who has the copyright on “Christianity”?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
BD,
Salvation is through faith. But faith in what? A particular text? Do you study the Scriptures because you believe that in them you will find eternal life?
And if that text fails at any point in its 66-book span, and you are pushed — by the brutality and despair of certain parts of it, by science, by textual criticism, by personal experience, or some other force that, despite all of your apologetic efforts, you are unable to resist — over that mythic “precipice” of no longer being able to affirm everything it says, do you have nothing left to hold on to, to plant your feet in?
Do you just plunge, tumbling head over heel, into a nihilistic abyss?
Yours is the fear of every fundamentalist. It was my fear too.
Or would you still cling to Christ, and to that which Christ said about God?
There is nothing in Scripture that provokes me like the Gospel of John.
For years I couldn’t understand why Jesus so severely rebuked people who studied the Scriptures as diligently. I especially couldn’t understand why Jesus said that they didn’t even know God and couldn’t come to the Father but through him.
These were people who learned — from the same Scriptures Christians study today — that there was One God, that God was a holy God who was set apart, that God especially hated sin and demanded sacrifices and other ritual observances.
So thorough was their faith that they remade themselves in the image of that God. They focused on personal holiness. They set themselves apart from those around them. And they hated sin.
But Jesus told them that if they didn’t see God in a radically different way — a God who became Incarnate, a God whom you could touch (without being instantly smote dead), a God you HAD TO touch, and eat and drink, to find rivers of life, a God who befriended sinners, and a God who would submit Himself to man’s injustices and the deadly consequences of his judgmental nature to demonstrate what a passionately personal, forgiving, and loving God He is — they would never know God.
Wow. Yes, I believe that. But that belief is not based on the alleged infallibility of a text. Nor is that belief threatened by the chance that the text is — like our own reason, intuition, and interpretive capabilities — imperfect and corrupted.
I believe it, rather, because it harmonizes with my deepest intuitions about life, delivers me from despairing alternatives, provides meaning and purpose, and produces better fruit.
I have been amazed to discover that abandoning belief in inerrancy/infallibility has not been the terrible precipice I despaired that it would be, once I stepped away from it. Rather, now freed from my formerly terrifying and despairing views of God, I am learning about a God I *really do* want to know, a loving God in whose image I want to be remade.
And a faith that I am excited to share with my 5-year-old adopted son.
A faith, in fact, that I am excited to share with anyone.
A simpler faith, by the way, that cannot be refuted by the failure of the 66-book Bible on any single scientific, historical or propositional claim.
That may or may not meet someone’s definition of a “Christian,” but I don’t see any value in being culturally identified as such anyway.
I would rather be identified as a Heb. 11:6 kind of person — someone who simply believes that God exists and will reward those who earnestly seek Him.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Wow!
I knew I’d be ATTACKED by this crowd for my common sense practical working definition of what best characterizes a Christian…
…But I grossly underestimated the speed and FEROCITY with which it would come!
Nonetheless…being a gracious, kind and patient man, I’ll be happy to clarify it for everyone -
Ken writes: “Your definition of a “scripturist” excludes all Roman Catholics and some Orthodox. You’ve just emptied out millions by your definition.”
First the short answer: PATHETIC.
Longer answer: There is virtually ZERO difference in intent and intellectual honesty than when a HEATHEN says: “So you believe Jesus is Lord, and the only way to heaven, huh? Your definition of who gets into heaven excludes all JEWS, BUDDHISTS, MUSLIMS and at least half the Chinese. You’ve just emptied out many millions by your definition. I’m so glad you’re not the judge!”
haha too easy
unbekannt asks:
“What about all the followers of Christ in parts
of the world without access to a complete Bible?”
LOL! I think even some of you slow-on-the-draw folks know what this mimics:
“But…but…what about all those people in remote villages that haven’t even HEARD the name of Jesus???”
haha
Amazing these guys would even try this baloney on me. But hey, they serve them up. I’ll hit them out of the park!
Wait! there’s more…
“What about all the followers of Christ before the Bible (as it is now) was put together, books chosen, and copies printed? Were they not Christians?”
Let’s see now…that sounds sooooo familiar.
Oh I know -Kind of like…
“What about all those Godly Jews who were alive before Jesus came?? Are they not going to heaven???”
BD
PS So glad I spent all those years ministering the Gospel to the unsaved on the streets. Who knew it would come in handy later in life answering pretty much the same questions…but this time from…er…Christians??? Wow, huh?
June 17th, 2009 at 1:06 am
My goodness, Ken. You REALLY don’t like anybody thinking they know ANYTHING with certainty. Didn’t you recently remind us of the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding us into the truth? If He’s leading us into truth, shouldn’t we be able to be confident and at least reasonably certain about a few things? Your posts seem to have one common theme above all others: dislike of certainty. Yet you seem to be quite certain that uncertainty is better than certainty.
June 17th, 2009 at 1:33 am
b…d…,
What an interesting and surprising statement! Where does it ever say in scripture that what defines us as Christians is our acceptance of the bible? Please do not misunderstand me: I accept the veracity of scripture as the word of God. It is our standard.
However it is not our belief in the Bible that brings us into a saving faith but rather our belief and acceptance of Christ and his work on the cross (and his victory over death via the resurrection). I have heard it explained this way: Scripture is the menu but Jesus is the meal. The “real meal deal” I might add.
What makes us followers of Christ? It is our relationship with him – it is that we know him and seek to follow his command to first be his disciples and then to make disciples, teaching them to do everything he commanded us to do. What is that? Proclaim the Kingdom of God and extend the invitation of the Kingdom to all people regardless of who they are (or what worldview they might subscribe to). We are called to love God and to love people. Period.
Further, your comment in regards to Eric’s post:
“Once someone says (which Eric C has in effect suggested) I DON’T CARE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, this is what I believe! Than, by my definition anyway, he’s no longer a Christian”
What exactly are you critiquing? Eric never states “I don’t care what the bible says” nor does he seem to “suggest” it anywhere in his post. What is your point? Why question the validity of his faith?
Ken, this is a great blog – keep it up! It is so important to ask the questions that need to be asked. The dialogue is so necessary and vital – how else can we ever hope to communicate the Kingdom in a relevant way? Peace and be blessed!
June 17th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I never thought I would say this. I don’t care for your delivery and I feel a bit of excessive self confidence in your posts, but your post 11 had one excellent point.
If one does not hold his Christian faith’s basis on the Bible, but picks and chooses, specifically when it has to do with Jesus, then one is indeed creating Jesus in their own image, and that is extremely dangerous.
Also, go easy on Eric C. I myself have gone through his struggles, so I can ‘feel his pain’ as far as feeling judged.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I definitely believe there is a Christian Worldview. Just read the beatitudes.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
In BD’s first post, he expresses an irritation and even a little antipathy that I too once strongly felt toward “liberal” preachers, etc.
Like BD, I felt like the “liberals” were dishonest. How could they — how dare they! — claim Christ if they didn’t fully embrace the text that proclaimed Him? I wanted to shout at them, and tell them, “if you won’t accept the Book, then you cannot have its Christ!”
Their selective acceptance of Biblical truth claims smacked of autonomy and spiritual arrogance. They were treating theology and Biblical truth claims like it were some kind of menu that one could freely pick and choose from. They were eating only the dessert and leaving the vegetables and bitter herbs on their plates — untouched. No, you don’t get a made-to-order theology! That’s not how it works! God puts hard things on our plates, and you must eat them too!
So BD, I do understand where you are coming from. I really do.
But I didn’t leave those hard things untouched; I didn’t reject them out of hand. I chewed on them (purchased and read many apologetical books), tried to swallow them, gagged on them, then tried to cut them up in smaller pieces and sugar-coat them (tried to devise my own, more satisfactory, apologetical defenses for those tough pieces), but in the end they still made me sick to my stomach, and I couldn’t keep it down.
Many others have stronger stomachs than I do. Many are entirely insouciant to the harsh claims of some Scriptures. They swallow the doctrines of Amalekite genocide, hell, and the like without any difficulty at all. And they mock as weak and (spiritually) unfit those who struggle with such foods.
It is easy to have a strong stomach for such things if you have already negated the dignity of those outside your tribe.
This has not been some sudden Oprah-like naval-gazing self-examination for me. It has been, rather, an intense, soul-searching, troubling, and many-times-despairing journey for me.
June 17th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
(going with the “lighthearded” theme) So in the worldview according to b.d. St. Paul and Luke and Matthew were not Christians. Astounding.
I do question the wisdom of “eating people up” for having differing views – especially of the bible. I’ve never experienced someone being successfully converted by being beaten down with a particular “correct” interpretation of scripture. The love of God should be a consuming fire – we are supposed to spread the good news (maybe not fire and brimstone sermons as a first resort).
June 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
The idea that any human gets to tell any other human whether or not he or she is a Christian is poppycock. This is pure hubris. Pure spiritual arrogance. Only Jesus can tell us whether we are Christians or something else.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I understand what you’re saying about dichotomous thinking. But I think there is some validity to thinking in terms of a Christian worldview. Every way I interpret what I see in the world springs forth from my belief in Jesus. In the same way, an American Muslim would interpret all that he sees in light of his understanding of the world through Islam.
I don’t think it is helpful to toss out the idea of worldview just because so many people are getting it wrong. What Rachel Evans describes in #5 is an example of getting it wrong–taking particular beliefs and declaring there is only one possibility for a “Christian” worldview. I think that’s the main point of your blog posting–the problem of making claims for worldviews too narrowly.
But it is useful to keep in mind the concept of worldview when communicating with other people. It is in keeping their worldview in mind that helps one know what words to use, what images to use for examples, what ideas to focus on when communicating with others. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Thinking in terms of worldviews is valuable. Pigeonholing worldviews stereotypically and narrowly is what should be avoided.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Thanks, joao. Strangely, I have long sensed that we have a lot in common. I have far more in common with the apologist who struggles with — and I mean really wrestles with — the most difficult questions of faith than with an over-confident but rarely-self-critical believer. Generally, I find that those who really wrestle and struggle with these issues have not negated the dignity of those outside their tribe. That means the world to me, and probably also to them.
Who knows, maybe even BD and I have something in common. Maybe — although he would never admit it here — he has, at one time or another, struggled over these issues.
It is sometimes the fiercest apologist — the person who reacts most strongly to challenges to the faith — who struggles with these issues the most. After all, they already feel pushed by their own doubts to the brink of a steep and terrible and despairing precipice. It is only natural to react with anger to a person who pushes you further, and suggests that you take that leap — and let go of your worldview, your carefully-constructed systematic theology, or your belief that you can only be saved by faith in a closed text — into nothing more than the arms of a loving, Incarnate, friend-of-sinners God whom you can touch, and eat, and drink.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Susan writes: ” I do question the wisdom of “eating people up” for having differing views – especially of the bible. I’ve never experienced someone being successfully converted by being beaten down with a particular “correct” interpretation of scripture.”
Susan, you misquoted me.
The ‘eating up’ comment referred to when I was an UNSAVED person debating a Christian.
B.D.
Often misunderstood
Seldom wrong…
June 17th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
B.D.-
In regard to post #18. Honestly I’m a little offended that you were so sharp in your response. As I said in my post, I honestly wanted to know your answer. I wasn’t trying to use my questions as a way of tearing down your argument, I am honestly curious about what you believe.
In regards to: “PS- So glad I spent all those years ministering the Gospel to the unsaved on the streets. Who knew it would come in handy later in life answering pretty much the same questions…but this time from…er…Christians??? Wow, huh?”
While most of the people on this blog will read that statement and know what you mean by that, and how in ministry you are supposed to answer those ‘pretty same questions’, I am not one of them. Apparently I missed some kind of ‘Christian theological training 101′ which deals with these issues.
In regards to: “LOL! I think even some of you slow-on-the-draw folks know what this mimics:
“But…but…what about all those people in remote villages that haven’t even HEARD the name of Jesus???” ”
Does that mean you don’t believe they are ’saved’? (I am not being sarcastic, or rude, I am honestly asking). If you could give me some kind of a ‘cheat-sheet’ that can help clue me into your post, or your responses to what my questions ‘mimicked’, I would appreciate it.
If you don’t want to post on this blog, e-mail me. s.e.diebel@gmail.com
(same goes to anyone else on here that would be willing to clue me in)
Thanks.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“According to b.d. St. Paul and Luke and Matthew were not Christians. Astounding.”
What’s really astounding is how quickly so many self-proclaimed Christians have resorted to
cheapshot insults to discredit a very useful and REASONABLE working definition.
What are y’all so afraid of?
None of these absurd objections are raised to foster a BETTER understanding, but to simply poke holes in what I’ve said. This, of course, are the EXACT techniques employed by the disingenous, from heathen to the Pharisees, when confronted with truth.
These are people who have NO INTEREST in learning, but merely wish to TRASH other viewpoints.
[See the Pharisees questioning of Jesus regarding the women caught in adultery or why his disciples didn't wash their hands enough for details. Of course those cites are from The Bible so they may have never happened! haha]
I wonder if the people jumping on this bandwagon realize that, in their weak efforts to put a chink in my armor, they’re really exposing how embarrassingly childish they are?
NONE of these claims – that I’m emptying heaven of all the Catholics or that I’ve excluded people who never had access to a complete copy of what we today call The Bible – can even be REMOTELY inferred from my excellent definition of what it means to be a Christian.
Lacking the ability to logically deduce at even a most basic level is really nothing to be proud of much less reveal to everyone else on the World Wide Web…
BD
June 17th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Unbekannt,
You pretty much got it. The question –
“What about all those people in remote villages that haven’t even HEARD the name of Jesus?”
is one you get when ministering the Gospel belly to belly to unsaved people. You especially get it a lot on the streets of Ann Arbor! haha
It’s just a ruse to try and diminish the scripture. The person asking has no interest in the spiritual fate of those conceptualized remote island dwellers, but merely in discrediting the legitimacy of the Gospel Message. I’ve faced a lot worse – spat at…sucker punched in the jaw…the virtue of my entire family tree being called into question haha….you name it!
Sorry if you were offended, but your question pretty much resonated the same kind of intent.
Don’t feel bad, though. I’m still waiting for someone on Ken’s blog to try and stump me with “Can God create a rock so big, even he’s unable to move it?”
haha
BD
Keeping it real. Keeping it fun…
June 17th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
BD,
Please try to season your arguments with salt. I want a real discussion, but your too-defensive yet often-abrasive style represents your side of the inerrancy debate poorly.
To the point where you prove a significant argument I and others often make — that those most adamant about inerrancy are most likely to have a diminished view of the dignity of people outside their theological/doctrinal tribe.
The world witnesses that diminished view of man in conservative Christians’ attitudes toward many people groups, including Muslims (we must confront the Islamic menace with war, not appease them like Obama is by affirming their humanity!); Palestinians (the Israels should take back the Promised Land — at any cost!); illegal aliens (deport those law-breakers immediately, even if parents are torn from their US citizen children!); people with AIDS (God’s judgment at last! — or at least until medical researchers came up with that God’s-judgment-defying life-prolonging cocktail); people with mental disabilities (these are irresponsible self-absorbed people trying to blame their weaknesses on a disease rather than its underlying cause — sin!); and — until about a generation ago — African Americans.
All of these common Christian political positions have one thing in common: a deeply diminished view of people outside the tribe.
Disturbingly, your own posts reflect a rather diminished view of those with whom you disagree.
I can present the inerrantist’s positions’ arguments in a far more compelling, yet gracious, way than you do. Someone else needs to step up to that task.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
BD.
Have you ever been wrong and admitted so since your conversion?
You bring up great points, but then you ruin it by claiming perfection. And you may be jesting, but it is really hard to discern what is a joke and what is serious from your writing. Even the ‘haha’ comments sound like you are mocking.
Kind of hard to have a dialog that way.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Eric C. wins the “word of the day” award for insouciant.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
To All: The following is in response to many of the above comments:
What we believe and the manner in which we practice our religion is more a function of our psychological personalities than it is a function of our religion, in the way in which our personalities attach themselves and express themselves in our religion.
Unhealthy personalities and their attachment to the unhealthy characteristics of religion are explored in:
Healthy Religion: A Psychological Guide To A Mature Faith, by Walter Kania, Ph.D. [2006]
Here’s a sample quote:
“Some of the characteristics of unhealthy religion that I identify include:
- Use of an ancient and outmoded world-view.
- Rigidity of doctrine and dogma.
- Closed systems of thought and practice.
- Exclusiveness.
- Literal reading and interpretation of texts.
- Presuming to know and identify God’s will.
- Speaking for God.
- Ignorance of one’s own religion and its origin.
- Conversion of mythology into history.
- Making metaphors and symbols into facts.
- Presenting itself as the ultimate authority.
- Arrogance and special-ness.
- Uncritical acceptance of religious authority and pronouncements.
- Antagonism toward truth from any other source.
- Use of absolutes.
- Use of tribal ideas to define divinity.
- Valuing the religion over the individual.
- Infallibility of their writings, beliefs, or institutions.
- Judgment orientation.
- Rooted and stagnated in the past.”
http://www.amazon.com/Healthy-Religion-Psychological-Guide-Mature/dp/1425924166
June 17th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“It’s just a ruse to try and diminish the scripture.”
No, BD, it isn’t. It really isn’t. You judge those who ask such questions falsely.
These are the same questions other non-Christians have brought up with me all my life, and that I wrestled with personally, but that most Christians seldom discuss amongst themselves.
They are legitimate questions. Very real, deeply personal questions. And those asking them do care about Spiritual things, and about the fate of all those “others.” It’s called “empathy” — putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. That empathy derives from a conviction — a conviction in an “absolute,” in fact — in the inherant dignity and worth of every human being.
They wouldn’t ask those questions if they didn’t fear that the Christian faith constitutes a rejection of the basic dignity of other humans.
In fact, most people who ask these questions do believe in God. They just can’t believe that God is the sin-obsessed “4-Spiritual-Laws” God they hear Evangelicals talk about. They can’t believe that a loving God would condemn all to hell who don’t profess allegiance to a specific — and, quite frankly — rather strange-sounding set of doctrinal propositions.
The fact is, BD, Evangelicals have constructed enormous stumbling blocks for the world. Ironically, that stumbling block isn’t Christ. It’s the “Christian worldview” and their “systematic theologies.”
It’s not enough for someone to seek God and hope that He will reward the search (Heb. 11:6). No, to be a “Christian” — according to your definition — one must submit to and affirm every factual, scientific, and doctrinal proposition — 10s of 1000s of them — in a 66-book text.
That’s a whole lot to swallow.
Again, Evangelicals haven’t made Christ the stumbling block.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
BD and Others,
After reading though this blog and all the comments I must say this has become a pretty heated debate. I’m sure even though it doesn’t come across, you all deeply love and respect one another. I think what BD is trying to impose is that one of the main doctrines in Evangelical Christian faith is that we believe the bible to be the literal word of God. There is many debates among theologians about the exact meaning of specific scriptures based on the changes in language over time. For an example, there are some theologians who argue that Homosexuality in the bible is pertaining to the relationship in pagan cultures between an older man and a boy. While others argue that it is speaking of homosexuality as we know it today. While BD, you make an excellent point about Christians believing that scripture is the actual word of God, the actual definition both theologically and sociological of a Christian is one who believes that Jesus was the son of God, died on the cross for our salvation, and rose again 3 days later. Believing that the bible is literal is actually the definition of an Evangelical according to both theologians and sociologist who study religion. Not every Christian believes exactly the same thing, only that would occur in a perfect world. Because God made us all so uniquely, He gave us the ability to pour into one another, and as a wise woman once told me “Iron sharpens iron”.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
joao, re your comment about the beatitudes being the Christian worldview–I think we’re using the term “worldview” differently. People with many different “worldviews” in the way I’m using the term have and do believe in Jesus’ teaching in the beatitudes.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I just read something that says ‘Christian worldview’ to me. (The “two levels” referred to at the beginning are a) the level of ‘our external affairs’ and b) a deeper level of constant prayer in God’s presence:
“Between the two levels is fruitful interplay, but ever the accent must be upon the deeper level, where the soul ever dwells in the presence of the Holy One. For the religious man is forever bringing all affairs of the first level down into the Light, holding them there in the Presence, reseeing them and the whole of the world of men and things in a new and overturning way, and responding to them in spontaneous, incisive, and simple ways of love and faith. Facts remain facts, when brought into the Presence in the deeper level, but their value, their significance, is wholly realigned. Much apparent wheat becomes utter chaff, and some chaff becomes wheat. Imposing powers? They are out of the Life, and must crumble. Lost causes? If God be for them, who can be against them? Rationally plausible futures? they are weakened or certified in the dynamic Life and Light. Tragic suffering? Already He is there, and we actively move, in His tenderness, toward the sufferers. Hopeless debauchees? These are children of God, His concern and ours. Inexorable laws of nature? The dependable framework for divine reconstruction. The fall of a sparrow? The Father’s love. For faith and hope and love for all things are engendered in the soul, as we practice their submission and our own to the Light Within, as we humbly see all things, even darkly and as through a glass, yet through the eye of God.”
That says it for me, and I can’t improve on it (except perhaps to defer to the times and use some more PC phrase for ‘the religious man’).
June 17th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
J Lee-
I think you have a good point. After thinking about it, my beef with “worldview” is just that it’s more often used as a synonym for ethos, when I have always thought it’s more like wearing goggles. When Evangelicals say that everyone who is a Christian must sign on to a whole laundry list of beliefs called the “Christian Worldview” then this is an attempt to codify an ethos. And it’s kind of futile, I think. At least, it stifles the intellect, which may or may not be your concern…
When academics use the word “worldview” it’s more like an anthropological concept (as Ken pointed out), where we’re considering the fact that every person approaches the world with preconceptions based on what we’ve received culturally and through our own experience. So, it’s like looking at the world through goggles when, sometimes, you don’t even realize you’re wearing them. The point of talking about “worldviews,” in my opinion, is just to make ourselves aware that we are all wearing goggles. And we should take that into account. Does that make sense?
So, when people say that they have a “Christian Worldview,” that’s just about the same as saying, “I’m a Christian and I’m a human being.” We all have a particular, personal worldview that’s formed by our religion (or lack there of) and other cultural influences, as well as biological factors, and we should be aware of how that affects our beliefs and decisions.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Actually, I guess it would make more sense if I said that worldview as ethos was an anthropological concept, and worldview as wearing goggles was a psychological concept.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:04 am
The more I’ve thought on what Ken has written the more misguided I think it is. Let’s consider one attempt to define a Christian worldview, put forth by George Barna, and I think it is fair to say his attempt would be a fairly widely accepted definition of a Christian worldview. Here it is:
1. Absolute moral truth exists
2. The Bible is accurate in all the principles it teaches
3. Satan is a real being, not merely symbolic
4. A person cannot earn their way into heaven through good works
5. Jesus lived a sinless life
6. God is the all-knowing all-powerful Creator who still rules today
Rather than being a list of narrow views on a whole host of topics, a Christian worldview is really just an affirmation of some of the biggest topics most clearly articulated in Scripture and a willingness to view life through the lens of these truths.
What on this list could someone who says they are a follower of Christ possibly take exception with?
And to a point of Ken’s I find particularly troublesome, what the heck is American, Republican, White or Suburban about the six things listed above? I’d really like that question answered. Ken?
June 18th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Brian, What you describe is a set of biblical beliefs that don’t constitute, in my understanding of worldview, an entire worldview. These are beliefs that would shape any worldview but not constitute an entire one. This is part of the problem in our use of a term like “worldview”–it means different things to different people. Just because we believe these things doesn’t mean our entire worldview is Christian. Our worldview is also shaped by many other things, including our national heritage, political views, socio-economic status, etc. A person who grows up in an urban setting as a minority in the United States is going to see the world differently in many ways than someone born and raised in the suburbs. Both can believe all six things that you stated as the Christian worldview but that doesn’t mean they have the same view of the world. Of course, it’s a powerful set of shared beliefs and this gives the two people much in common. Just as you and I have much in common but we might have different worldviews.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:33 am
“It means different things to different people.”
I’ll have to look into it a little more but my guess is that ‘worldview’ most objectively would mean something like what Barna has presented–a core set of beliefs through which we view life–rather than a long list of possible influences on our thinking (influences that may have helped to shape our worldview but are not themselves our worldview). Even your good friend on Cooper Rd in Westerville recently commended Barna’s attempt at defining a Christian worldview as pretty good.
‘Worldview’ meaning different things to different people is probably a fine thing. What I’m concerned about is that it increasingly seems that EVERYTHING means different things to different people, even things that have an objectively true meaning.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
good points brian. talk to an african christian and you’ll find that their views on what it means to be a christian are a lot closer to the conservatives and fundamentalists here than they are to ken’s. it’s not the african and third-world christians who are questioning the authority or truth of scripture, or whether homosexuality is blessed and sanctioned. it’s the middle aged white guys in the usa. the former have a more solid connection to historic faith than the latter.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Eric C. – You’re telling me the vast majority of the bible is untrustworthy, unscientific, mythological and not to be trusted. But the words of Jesus (well at least the ones we like) can be trusted. We can trust that what Jesus said about God, salvation and how to treat others is safe and sound. How did you decide His words were good, but others were not?
June 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
happylad,
The biggest question I ask is this: is it a doctrine or teaching that diminishes man or strips him of his dignity? And closely related: is it a doctrine or teaching that is frequently, or has been frequently used in the past, to diminish man or strip him of his dignity?
It is after, all, the all-to-common lack of respect, expressed by so many Christians, for the dignity of others — and the doctrines used to justify those attitudes — that I protest with all my heart.
Eric C.
PS: As much as some may resent the fact that I ask these questions, you can be sure that I have identified the *biggest* issue and objection unbelievers have with Christianity.
For that reason — even if you despise my questioning or think I am arrogant to doubt the inerrancy or infalliblity of the Protestant Bible — you should carefully consider these questions.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Happylad said:
“You’re telling me the vast majority of the bible is untrustworthy, unscientific, mythological and not to be trusted.”
Hmm… I didn’t say that, but your challenge is fair enough. Probably one that has crossed many other minds.
Let me turn your comment around.
Why is that so important to you? What is the point anyway?
Is the purpose of Christianity to lead people to believe “the vast majority of the bible is []trustworthy, []scientific, [and historical]“?
Or is the point to lead people to understand that there is a loving and personal God that made man in His Image and took on human likeness Himself; who wants man to seek God, find God, and love God and his neighbor as Himself?
What’s more important? Isn’t the latter enough?
Happylad, if I may put words in your own mouth (as you have in mine), I assume that your answer (or if not yours, the answer of many conservative evangelicals) is “no.”
That the overarching purpose of Christianity is to get everybody on the “same page,” literally. To get the whole world to proclaim with one voice, “yes the Bible is God’s authoritative word.”
That is, after all, how so many Evangelicals today define who is or is not a part of the tribe. “Do you believe in this Book?” If you do, you’re saved; if you don’t, you’re not a “Christian” (and therefore you’re damned).
The “Truth…” The “Word…” It’s all in a Book.
Which, fortunately, is not nearly as elusive as … say … a living personal Incarnate God, much less a Christ reckless enough to say incendiary things in the synagogue, throw tantrums in the temple, and hang around sinners all the time.
No, fortunately for mankind, the Truth is a Divine Text. A Divine Text that man can dissect, exegete, synthesize, and repackage.
Better yet, since all Truth has been conveniently reduced to the Divine Text, Christians can judge people with it.
And this — like BD said in another thread — is very important. Because if we don’t have a Divine Text with which to judge and critique people’s doctrines…
“As for the guy who decided he gets to pick and chose what scriptures are from God, all I can say is – Good Luck WID DAT! haha Anything you ‘discern’ I can discern better, pal. That’s where that ABSURD reasoning leads us….quickly!”
…how the ‘hell’ are we supposed to judge them and decide “who’s in and who’s out,” who’s saved and who’s unsaved, who’s chosen and who’s damned?
That, after all, is the point, isn’t it? To become a mighty spiritual warrior — for God, for Truth, for the Word… for the Book. What could be more spiritual than to learn the Bible so well that you can wield it as a “sword,” and “rightly” judge those who have rejected the “Truth,” that is, the Divine Text.
If my posts have created great offense, if it smacks of “blasphemy,” it is because some know only the Divine Text. It is their god. And yes, I worship a different God.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
“Yes, I worship a DIFFERENT God.” – Eric C
Wow! That was easy.
BD
Yeah…I’m THAT good.
PS For the record,I DID NOT SAY “…how the ‘hell’ are we supposed to judge them and decide “who’s in and who’s out,” who’s saved and who’s unsaved, who’s chosen and who’s damned?”
Don’t know who did, but it wasn’t me.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
I will start by admitting that I follow no religion and yet some of my really good friends are Christians, Catholics, Jews, atheists, Muslims as well as the so called “muslim extremists”.
I grew up in a Muslim culture where I got a chance to meet people with different degrees of religious extremism. I have always felt that the more uneducated a person was, the less he understood his religion and the more impatient he was when confronted about his religious views. He would just close his mind to others’ opinions and ridicule those who ask questions to hide his own ignorance. And, the worst thing is these people are most likely to stand out because of their passive aggressiveness and ridiculous behavior and thus bring a bad name to their religion. And, I am afraid to say B.D. has really done a good job of doing that.
The worst thing is most of the people who have brought bad name to Islam are uneducated, illiterate people who had been brain-washed since the day they were born. And, B.D. sounds like a well-educated, well-read person. What a pity he is no different from an uneducated “Muslim extremist” despite all his good education. It seems for him a good Christian has no interest in the spiritual fate of those conceptualized remote island dwellers (or any other creation of God), but merely in establishing the legitimacy of the Gospel Message.
I’m sorry to say if that is what your religion is about, B.D., I’d rather burn in hell than be despised by my fellow men.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Eric C. – I simply quoted your many texts, while you “read into” mine. You don’t know what I believe, but you have shared your view on sin, salvation and the scriptures on EVERY SINGLE thread. You have not answered my questions, rather you answer them with questions.
You can’t pick and choose the scriptures you want to believe in and then write off all the others. That’s unscientific! And again, you don’t know what I believe.
I believe that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9-10, my sincerest apologies that I’m quoting the gay bashing, woman hating apostle, but his words here do fit my belief system so well).
I do not believe that a person must believe everything in the bible. So please, don’t put words in my mouth. Please, only quote words that I actually say.
Thanks!
June 19th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Maybe Ken can comment on this sometime.
Maybe throughout the ages, and not just in times past (Acts 17:26-28), God has revealed enough to man to inspire/provoke him to search for God, but never enough that a man can just skip the search altogether.
And maybe throughout the ages, man has had a tendency to worship the revelation, or the messenger, rather than the God that is revealed.
Examples:
Some worship creation while forgetting the Creator
Others — e.g., secular humanists — worship man’s capacity for moral reasoning while denying the made-in-the-image-of-God basis for their moral arguments;
In the past, yet others were inclined to worship angels and the apostles bringing good news.
And today, many effectively worship a text, but they nevertheless miss the very Christ it preaches.
Maybe that’s part of the problem. Man starts to search for God, finds a signpost to God, and then — often — stops searching and starts worshipping the signpost.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Thank you, everyone, for your comments. After reading through all of this, I am shocked at some of the attitudes.
They seem more characteristic of people who are trying to bully and alienate than of people who are sharing the good news. I thought the whole idea of evangelicals was sharing the good news.
There seems to be an all-consuming need to be right. To achieve righteousness through being right in one’s beliefs and in their articulation. To be right no matter what that takes. Never mind who one runs over in the process.
There is little value placed on gentleness, forgiveness, and grace. There is little respect shown others in a number of these comments.
What are you thinking? Is this a game for you? It seems so, from time to time, in the comments that are here. It seems like it is a competition for righteousness.
Many of these comments are frightening.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Mina wrote: “B.D. sounds like a well-educated, well-read person.”
Why thank you! That’s the nicest thing anyone has said to me on this blog. How sweet. I have to admit, a computer glitch is preventing me from reading any other part of your message, but I’m sure it’s equally as gracious.
Thanks again…
Love,
BD
Heh heh…
June 19th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Happylad,
You claim: “I simply quoted your many texts.” You did not “quote “me. I stand by the things I’ve written, not by your re-characterization of what I wrote.
You also say: “You have not answered my questions.”
Happylad, yes I have…again and again!
You asked me: “How did you decide His words were good, but others were not?”
I answered your question: “The biggest question I ask is this: is it a doctrine or teaching that diminishes man or strips him of his dignity?…”
That, Happylad, is a significant part of “how I decide.”
And in other threads, I have also argued that one can test a doctrine by whether it leads to despair, by God’s moral & natural revelation to man, by testing the fruits of the doctrine, and even by the Holy Spirit, who is capable of leading to truth.
What I haven’t seen from the other side of the debate is a response that debunks every truth test apart from Scripture, without itself contradicting that very Scripture.
Yet the implied argument is always that we can’t be certain of anything apart from the Divine Text. It’s either the Divine Text or a nihilistic abyss. But Scripture itself does not support that view.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Read again what Mina wrote:
“if that is what your religion is about, … I’d rather burn in hell….”
That’s poignant. That’s brave.
Until recently, I feared — because of Gal 1:8-9 (let anyone who preaches anything different be accursed!); Rev. 22:18-19 (if you add or subtract from the Bible you will be damned); and other passages — that to question the authority of the Divine Text would put my soul in eternal peril.
You see, it’s not easy to leave fundamentalism. It’s a very scary thing. That’s why fundamentalists really feel that they are being pushed off the edge of a precipice — an eternal precipice — with all of the challenges to the veracity of the Divine Text.
So everyone should understand why so much irritation is expressed. Fundamentalists need the world’s patience and sympathy. They feel a real, visceral, deep-in-the-soul despair over the thought of diminishing the Bible.
It’s a despair that competes strongly with the despair that parts of the Bible diminish man and strip him of his dignity.
Thus the struggle; the deep wrestling; even the punches thrown from one side to the other.
If this discussion has gotten heated, it is because it touches on deep things that really matter. So please understand that.
After the heat dissipates, we should all remember that God made each one of us in his Image, and loves each one of us fiercely, and so we should too.
June 20th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Eric C. – could you tell me which parts of the bible diminish man and strip him of his dignity?
I know where your head is at, at least I think I do. You’re on that new bandwagon of “Jesus didn’t die for our sins, He came and lived so He could understand us and then we killed him” theology. It’s quite popular at the moment.
So please show me in the scriptures where man is diminished and stripped of his dignity.
Thanks!
June 21st, 2009 at 7:47 pm
World views? World views are like anal clefts. Every body has one.
Environmentalist are secular humanist? Not all of them. Some feel the climate changes are a normal cycle that has been going on since way before Bibical times. Ok Maybe the Bob Doleians are. After all, he tells us he invented the internet. Based on that (his) claim,I would have to discount his theory of Global warming caused entirely by humans.
If you look at world views by the secular humanist movement, you will realize they also have a one world political view ( absolute Socialism rule) and a one world religious view ( you are your own God). Any other religious view is pure myth with no substantiation to back it up. There is no room in their utopia for any other religion thus they will rule with an iron hand in that area too.
Now in Christianity. As the Bible dictates during the rapture, the Lord will return to Earth and judge all persons based on their service to God. Those that are judged as sinners will perish in the flaming pit with the anti christ for a thousand years. Those of us that are saved will be ruled by the Divine King (Jesus). At leasat in Christianity we do have a choice of eternal residence in the new world or heaven ( can’t figure the right place yet).
Oh! As a last thought or two. Many digs in the Holy Lands over the last 2 decades have uncovered evidence that the scriptures are not all myths as the Humanist would lead you to believe. There is now evidence that is unrefutable.
More Scientist are also stating that evolution of us from ape like creatures cannot be proven. There is no missing link even though the DNA is similar. They cannot explain where the Homo Sapiens ( us) came from 10,000 years ago. We did not evolve from the Cave men that were there at the same time. Some have hinted to divine creation for us as well as the entire universe.
However, all the while the Humanist scientist are scrambling to try to link it all together through evolution but so far have failed. I am sure you know who Darwin is. On his death bed he aluded to the fact that divine intervention played a greater part in evolution than he first thought and he was an athiest.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:28 am
Happylad,
The problem is much more systemic than a sampling of particular passages, but here are a few examples:
1) 1 Sam. 15:2-3 — God commands the Israelites to slaughter “children and infants”
2) 2 Sam 6:2-7 — God’s anger burns against person who reflexively touches the ark of the covenant, and God smites him dead
3) Rom 9:20-22 — God prepared some people for destruction, which is God’s right to do, and man has no standing (because he has no dignity) to protest
4) 2 Thess. 1:8-9; Rev. 20:15 — eternal hell including eternal conscious torment for unbelievers
5) Deut. 22:13-21 — death penalty (at husband’s option) for woman presumed, because of lack of blood on the sheet, not to be a virgin on her wedding night
6) Lev. 20:13 — death penalty for homosexuality
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:19 am
BD … you “get” something very fundamental about evangelical Christianity. Let me illustrate with a line out of every evangelical church’s statement of faith that I have ever personally read.
“The bible is the final authority in all matters of life and faith”
Do evangelicals hold the bible in higher regard than Jesus, who himself said “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28)? If so, then there is a serious problem because the bible itself clearly shows where our ultimate focus should be. Jesus: “I AM the way, the truth AND the life”. Furthermore, John 5:39.
This stuff is just below the surface most of the time … many Christians effectively worship the bible by following it to the letter, which is exactly the kind of mentality Jesus came to dismantle. The “End of Religion” so to speak.
Christians, don’t misunderstand me … I think that the bible is a wonderful book of wisdom that God has partnered with humanity to create. It is full of examples of principals that we can take and port over into our lives to equip us for all kinds of goodness. But ultimately, our trajectory in any given situation must come from Jesus, and not “insert series of bible verses from the old testament and Paul”.
BD you questioned if there is even evidence that Jesus existed … the gospels ARE the evidence. They have been dated (to the best of my knowledge) to less than some decades after Jesus died, which for this time period makes them reliable and valid historical sources. They were written over vast expanses of land in completely differing contexts, and they collectively give a three-dimensional picture of Jesus. They are similar enough to be corroborative, and yet different enough to be identifiably unique. We can even see different intended audiences (i.e. the book of Luke was put together as an investigatory piece for man named Theophilus).
There is honestly no remotely reasonable evidence that I can find to believe that these books were some hoax or conspiracy, either in part nor entirety. The first Christians (literally translated “Christ-followers”) were terribly persecuted. Not exactly the kind of platform one would use to attract an audience … yet Christianity exploded for the first 100 years – why? And people CHOSE to die for it at the hands of the Romans and the Jewish elite.
It wasn’t until Rome’s take-over of Christianity that people were killed for it (and ultimately, that the essence of Christianity was covered-over and hidden beneath the veil of governance). I personally think that Christianity is finally getting back to where it belongs … as a marginalized minority movement. Though the right side of evangelical Christianity still struggles for political and social dominance so that Christianity can be spread through coercion. This just produces a lot of people who will “say” they are Christians, but who will effectually be the furthest thing from it.
BD your questioning isn’t bad … though I want to throw out a caution that leaving it at questioning without serious investigation would be irresponsible and short-sighted. I want to encourage you to research this seriously for yourself.
June 29th, 2009 at 8:34 am
“Do evangelicals hold the bible in higher regard than Jesus, who himself said “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28)?”
How do you know Jesus said that?
BD
Wow! That was easy…
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:41 am
BD,
You no doubt believe that no one can come to the Father but through the son Jesus.
Are you suggesting that no one can come to Jesus but through the Bible?
So it’s a Quarternity we must believe in?
1. Does the Bible demand our worship? (e.g., daily Bible Study; read through the Bible every year; etc.).
2. Does it demand that we be faithful to its every teaching?
3. Does it damn to hell those who question disturbing parts of it?
4. Is to question the Bible the very essence of human pride, rebellion, arrogance, and self-made autonomy?
5. If a person questions the Bible’s authority on any point, do “Bible believers” act as if that person had insulted their god? Do they feel anger, bitterness or resentment?
Hmm… Very much like a deity. Substitute any pagan god for the Bible in question #s 1-5 above, and you know what I’m getting at.
So much like a deity, that I cannot tell the difference.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:35 am
“So much like a deity, that I cannot tell the difference”
There’s a reason for that.
Heh heh
Big Daddy
Somebody else tell him!