click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Theological Swinging, the New Calvinism, and Emerging Christianity
by C Michael PattonNovember 20th, 2011
119 Comments
Last week I met with an old friend of mine who I had heard was a “swinger.” For those of you who don’t know, swinging is when both partners in a committed relationship agree to have a sexually open relationship. This guy was married and came in to talk to me about – you guessed it – marital problems. The idea in “swinging” is that things never become mundane. Sexual monogamy, according to swingers, is nothing more than confining yourself to sexual boredom. Being with the same partner becomes cliché and uneventful. Swinging keeps things fresh and novel at all times so the high produced by provocation is always maintained.
As problematic and destructive as marital swinging is, that is not what I am writing about. I want to talk about what I call theological swinging. This is, in my opinion, one of the greatest problems in theology today (and probably of any day). Let me explain.
Before going to seminary, I was given a set of books by my pastor. At the time he was, to me, the smartest person living on planet Earth. I salivated to get a peek of his notes each week. I wanted to record everything he said. And just to get to see his library – the source of the very sun! – was just about too much excitement for me to handle. That is why I was speechless the day he gave me two books, one blue and one red. I knew these were precious books to him due to the amount of notes and stickies that covered the dog-eared pages. What were they? Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volumes 1 and 2 by Josh McDowell. Upon reception of these books I read them cover to cover. The wisdom and knowledge that filled these pages was almost too much excitement for this 20-year-old apologist wannabe to take. It was so provocative to me. The provocation came, not from learning the Gospel for the first time, but from seeing for the first time, with my own eyes, an attempt to defend Christianity. “Are you kidding me?” were the words I said each time I hit a new topic. This guy, Josh McDowell, must be a giant of the faith, demanding respect from everyone. He was my new hero.
It was not until I hit seminary that I found out the “truth:” You see, at seminary, among all the students “in the know,” I came to find out very quickly that these kinds of works are frowned upon. I came to find out that McDowell’s apologetics were called “pop” apologetics. In essence, pop apologetics is a cliché defense of the faith performed by cliché apologists. Translation: it was naive. It was not kosher. If and when I quoted someone like McDowell in a conversation with fellow students, there would be some snickering. The idea conveyed was that there were certain works, written by certain authors, that were “little league” and not respectable. Whether is was Lewis Sperry Chafer, Josh McDowell, Wayne Grudem, or R.C. Sproul (all of whom were my self-proclaimed mentors until that point), they were, at best, milk from the breast of my mother; at worst, naive teachers who simply parroted the simple and sheltered faith of evangelicalism. If you wanted to run with the “big boys” you had to read yourself some Barth, Multmonn, Hauerwas, or one of the liberation theologians such as Boff or Gutierrez. Why? Because, quite frankly, they did not fit the “stupid” evangelical mold. These were the “cool” people to read. They were the trump cards that, when played, left other students feeling inadequate and inferior. I thought I could read Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come and be prepared for any discussion on eschatology. Who knew that quoting Theology of Hope by Jürgen Moltmann at Dallas Theological Seminary would be more prestigious than Pentecost? Who knew that saying that you had been reading A Theology of Liberation would score you more points than reading Basic Theology by Charles Ryrie? Who knew that the greatest danger for any Christian leader was to be labeled cliché?
Let me try to illustrate this another way before I get back to the swinger thing: I remember in fourth grade, there was a girl who held the near-unanimous vote for being the prettiest gal in school. Everyone was in love with her. Everyone wanted to sit by her at lunch or go across the monkey bars with her at recess. If you gained either of these honors you were, by extension, the most popular guy in school. She held that much power. However, things changed. By the time our same group of friends entered high school, she was no longer held in such high esteem. In fact, thinking she was pretty was somewhat passé. Suddenly, it was the random loner gal (who everyone previously thought was weird). Suddenly it was the one who hung around with the skinheads and listened to Violent Femmes who everyone liked. On paper, she was not as pretty as our former love, but she was exotic. She was outside the box. If she were to lose her exotic “off-limits” appeal by joining our crowd (which some did), she was no longer the one. The primary qualification for appeal became novelty. Fresh appeal that comes from being obscure and mysterious went further than the meat and potatoes of good looks and charm.
Theology is a lot like this. If it is exotic, out of the norm, and less known, it does not matter how “pretty” it really is, it is what is “cool.” You see, in theology, for many people “in the know,” once something becomes mainstream, it is disqualified. Once it becomes too popular or normal, it is naive. Once everyone thinks it is correct, it is no longer qualified to be anything but a foil for the correct. We become theological swingers whose end is not to find the truth, but simply to swing.
For theological swingers, referencing the unknown, obscure, rejected, Violent Femmes-loving theologian becomes a heavy-handed power play. It has its power because most people don’t know how to respond. A statement like, “I used to be premillenial like you until I read Moltmann” leaves people speechless. They don’t know who Moltmann is, much less read him, so they are left feeling inadequate to stay in the conversation. Mystery, intrigue, and novelty become placeholders for truth. Pastoral ideals of theological stability are replaced with looking smarter than the next person. Truth is not the goal, but rather self-image. And theological swingers just don’t want to be bored, liking the same gal that everyone else likes.
I have been a theological swinger. In fact, I am only now beginning to graduate from this way of thinking. I am only now beginning to see that this method is itself naive. For a time, I would not read anyone who fit the mold of my conservative evangelical theological culture. I felt that was my duty. I loved to quote those who were less known and exotic. I still have the tendency to belittle (at least in the back of my mind) people who reference and quote theologians, biblical exegetes, and philosophers who are too popular within the evangelical sub-culture. I am ashamed to say that McDowell, who inspired me so much before, became to me an embarrassing distant relative who only discredits my “scholarship” and reputation with others whose respect has fueled my swinging habit.
However, I am recovering. The first thing I have realized lately is that one person’s cliché is the next person’s provocation. Dealing with people who come out of other traditions has taught me this. Those whose culture is accustomed to learning from liberal theologians find conservatives provocative. Those who are accustomed to Eastern Orthodoxy find evangelical writings out of the box. Those who are fundamentalists rebel and swing with those who take a more liberal stand.
Theologies and theologians come and go. Provocation is a great thing, but if we are committed to provocation and swinging more than truth, the journey will be unending and ungodly. We will never be satisfied, as our compass will be broken. Divorce, adultery, and eternal convictionless theological swinging is all we can expect. Remember, there was a time when all the “pop” theologies and apologetics that you might look down upon now were not mainstream. They were the mysterious, obscure ideas. They were the novelties. However, their value does not come in their newness, but in their substance.
I do want to say that all of those thinkers I referenced before have been very much worth my time and attention. With popular theologians or the less popular ones, we all need to broaden our horizons. And we should read and learn outside the norm of our culture. We don’t need to accept mainstream because it is mainstream and we don’t need to reject it because of this either. The exotic, novel, and provocative are worth our attention so long as truth, not novelty, is our goal. However, sometimes there is a reason why the gal who hangs out with the skinhead is obscure and unknown . . . and it is not because she is prettier than the other!
I write this for myself. These are confessions of a theological swinger. However, I know so many theologians and young “emerging” thinkers out there today who are completely unstable, swinging away and trying to get everyone else to swing with them. Swinging is not theologically “cool,” much less does it evidence any intelligence. It has no profundity and is the furthest thing from a pastoral approach to stabilizing people’s faith. Once we realize that one person’s cliché is the next person’s provocation, we will disengage in this endless search for something new. “Novel” is not synonymous with “profound.” Realize this: that which is new today will be passé tomorrow. All one has to do is look into much of the Emerging movement and see this swinging mentality displayed, as authors who were thought to be the most profound ten years ago are now thought of as simple.
And just as a sidenote (to get me into a bit of trouble), I often wonder if this mentality is more to blame for the resurgence of all the young people who are Calvinist charismatics than is actual theological conviction. It just seems like it is the “cool” thing to be these days in evangelicalism: young, restless, reformed, and charismatic – and to read Jonathan Edwards! Certainly I have nothing against Calvinism or Edwards (though, as you know, I have some issues with the charismatic movement), but I don’t know if celebration is necessarily in order. I have a hunch that many will switch dance partners once this fad goes out of style.
And, to put this into perspective: Theological swinging is nothing new itself! There were a bunch of these boys in Athens.
Acts 17:21
“Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.”
Similar Posts:
- Are We Theological Bots?
- “Good Question. I Will Find the Answer and Get Back to You” . . . And Other Stupid Statements
- Top Fifteen Must Have Books on Apologetics
- “True for You, But Not for Me” 2.0: The Newly-Released Revised, Expanded Edition
- Hi, I am Paul Copan
Loading ...
119 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
David: Nice post, thanks to clarify!
Like or Dislike:
0
I enjoyed the article, but I guess I am struck with the impact of post modern thought again. And contrary to post modern thought, there is a correct theology and there is an incorrect theology. Certainly, we can all have freedom of thought and actions in the narrow gray areas, but in the absolute black and white areas, there should be agreement. So “swinging” in response to the norm of thinking, in my mind, is contrary to Matt 7:13-14, Prov 29:25. Even the apostles are prone to this error when swept away by common thinking (Peter acting contrary to Prov 29:25 in Gal 2:11f), but it took the boldness of a rebuke by one of the “non-original Apostles,” Paul, to straighten out the situation.
In the final analysis, we can go through our mental gymnastics, but in reality if there is no impact to my personal life, Christianity is absolutely useless.
The people whom I model my theology after are those who also show the close personal walks with God that are awe inspiring and consistent with God’s word (Heb 13:7). As with little mentioned Enoch (Gen 5:24, Heb 11:5), many of these folks will probably never be known by mass Christendom, but as with Enoch, will be given a special honor as spoken of by Matt 5:23 – Well done, good and faithful servant.
–Thoughts from my heart.
Like or Dislike:
0
Keith,
Comments on this particular post of Michael’s may not be the appropriate forum to discuss Mormonism, but I’ll briefly answer a few of your questions since you asked them here.
“Orothodox Christians believe in one God in 3 persons. You guys believe in millions or billions or trillions.”
I simply believe what Christ said in John 17 and Rev. 3:21. He invites as many as will come into his oneness and throne with the Father. Whether or not you want to call that “godhood,” Christ was bold enough to call us brethren, call us gods, and Paul was bold enough to call us heirs of god. That’s not me saying this, it’s the Bible.
“Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus was unique & born as the unique son of God…”
I do believe that Jesus was born as the unique Son of God. I know of no other being born of a virgin and conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. I do believe he is self-sustaining, self-existing, that he had no beginning just as the Father had no beginning, etc. That’s all consistent with my faith.
“Orthodox Christians believe that salvation is by God’s grace alone, through faith in Christ … that it can’t be earned … they also believe that God offers adoption as adopted children to those who are saved.”
I’m not an orthodox Christian, but I am a Christian and I do believe exactly that. I can’t earn salvation, and it is on Christ’s merits alone that I am saved. But if I love God, Jesus said I am obligated to keep his commandments. Not doing so indicates a lack of love and faith. So failing to keep the commandments = rejection of Christ and his salvation. Properly understood, faith and works are identical, as James indicated.
“The whole point of Isaiah is there is no other God apart from 1 … that there is no other saviour …. that only God is truely God & able to control and forsee and create the future ….”
I agree with all that, but Christ clearly described both his separateness and his unity with the Father. It is a shared throne or government, not necessarily a shared essence (whatever that means), that makes them one God (Rev. 3:21). But trinitarianism doesn’t offend me except insofar as it denies an embodied God, which is completely incompatible with belief in a resurrected Christ who is in the express image of the Father.
“that there is a huge and infinite expance between limited created people and uncreated infinite God…”
Yes, and Christ’s infinite grace bridges that expanse, making possible our oneness with him and the Father (John 17).
“You do believe that you along with other male elders will one day be as God ???”
I believe that if I fully accept Christ’s grace as described in John 17 and Rev. 3:21, I will one day be one with Christ “even as” He is one with the Father–as He said, not me. He also used the phrase “PERFECT in one” in John 17, and in Matthew he says “be ye therefore perfect, EVEN AS your Father in Heaven is perfect.” I don’t assume to know all that this entails, but I accept Him at his word.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, this is not the place for such depth and argument about Morman doctrine, etc. But I think we ‘orthodox seeking and historical’ Christians, can say certainly, that the Morman doctrine of God: Tritheism, belief in three gods..specifically that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Gods, is just not biblical or historical. And if I can quote the Jewish Shema: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deut. 6:4) This is also the name of the best known prayer in Judaism! And as our Lord Jesus said: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)
Finally, St. Paul can write: “Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth – as if there are many gods and many lords – yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1 Cor. 8:5-6) Here Paul contrasts the so-called gods of the Gentiles, with the God and Lord of the Jews and Christianity!
Indeed the true and orthodox faith is Judeo-Christian! ‘In Christ’ and Trinitarian! (Eph. 2:18)
Like or Dislike:
0
Since this thread has moved to a discussion of Catholicism, Anglicanism, and a little Mormonism, I thought the following article by Catholic Priest Alexander Lucie-Smith, Doctor of Moral Theology was pertinent:
Why Do Catholics Become Anglicans
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr. Robert,
You seem well educated on orthodox or conventional Christianity, so I’ll let you define that. The only reason I’m responding is because of your statement that Mormonism is “just not Biblical” and to clarify that my understanding of God’s oneness IS quite thoroughly Biblical. Unless you can refute this and show how it is not Biblical, I have no reason to question it.
From my perspective, a oneness of “being” or “essence” is in some respects non-Biblical. That is, my understanding is that this sort of oneness is not explicitly described in the Bible, and was not formalized or made “official,” “conventional,” or “orthodox” until the 4th century. Am I mistaken?
But Christ DOES explicitly talk about another sort of oneness that is quite compatible with the Shema: A oneness of throne or government (Rev. 3:21) and a perfection that cannot be attained outside of that oneness (e.g. John 17:23). This means that there are NOT three SEPARATE Gods, even though there are three unique persons. So far, I think, we would be in agreement. However, nowhere does this sort of oneness require that the three persons must be one in essence or being (whatever that means). It simply means that outside of this ONE shared throne or government, that is, in disunity (as with a pagan pantheon) there is no god. If the Son and the Father were not in perfect agreement, at least one of them would not be God. So no, there is no God outside of this oneness, this perfect agreement of throne and government (one throne, not two). Again, this isn’t peculiarly Mormon doctrine, but it seems quite clear that Christ himself described this very sort of oneness in his own testimony (and who would know better than Christ?)
This is all perfectly Biblical. I have referred to no uniquely Mormon scripture, no outside text, no man-made philosophy, and no extra-biblical speculation. But in this particular description have simply stopped short of stepping outside of what is explicitly Biblical. Surely you agree that Christ and the Father are AT LEAST one in this sense of perfect agreement and a shared throne and government. Why does the fact that I stop short of going BEYOND this–Christ’s own–explanation, (and thus stopped short of going beyond the text) make me non-biblical or non-Christian?
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike: First, let me say, that one can certainly be a “Christian” and not have a good theological or biblical understanding, if by grace thru faith. And listening to you talk about Christ as Savior, has come I believe from your faith and your own existential self. So I certainly make no personal judgment against you here. But, on the “theological” place and level, I am speaking, both historically and I hope somewhat biblically, I find the Morman doctrine of God, is very certain error! Thus I went to the Morman doctrine of the tritheism. You appear yourself to sort of dance around this, without coming out clearly here? I mean, this is simply Morman Dogma! (Note I have the Fourfold Books under one cover -leather – of the Morman KJV ; Book of Morman ; Doctrine and Covenants; and The Pearl of Great Price). I got this during a summer visit to St. George, Utah one year.
Now on to the whole aspect of “essence”, etc. This is simply very profound and theological. And I would point you to the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea I, 325. But, remember these come from the ground and history of the Theological East, and Orthodoxy. So I would also point you to the EO, or the Eastern Orthodox, and their definition of their own historical theology of ‘the monotheistic Trinitarianism, and belief in the Incarnation of the Logos (Son of God)…One single God who is both three and one (triune): Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, “one in essence and undivided.” The Holy Trinity is three “unconfused” and distinct divine persons (hypostases), who share one divine essence (ousia) – uncreated, immaterial and eternal. The Father is the eternal source of the Godhead (monarchy), from Whom the Son is begotten eternally and also from Whom the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally. The essence of God being that which is beyond human comprehesion and can not be defined or approached by human understanding.’ I know this statement is dense, but it was hammered-out before an open Bible, and in the midst of many other godly men. I would simply ask you to read and study it! For this is the Faith of the Church Catholic (Universal), both East and West, and has been so for centuries! Note, even as an Anglican, I stand here myself! And really all Christians stand here that are historically Protestant and Reformational/Reformed, and also Roman Catholc, with the EO. – Yes, there are some theological differences, but they are hopefully minor, at least now and today!
Like or Dislike:
0
Guys,
I truly do appreciate the concern for this subject and the tone being used, but please keep this on topic. Mormonism is not the topic. There are a lot of posts on this blog about the nature, essence, and biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
Merry Christmas
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, I only mentioned that I was a mormon to let you know that you weren’t only preaching to the choir
My further comments were in response to what I saw as inaccurate characterizations of my beliefs by others.
Fr. Robert,
I admire your faith and your knowledge. Of orthodoxy your knowledge is great, of mormonism it is apparently limited.
But mormonism aside (in respect for Michael P.) I recognize that some very intelligent men hammered out the doctrine of trinity with an open Bible, but I cannot see where it is REQUIRED by the text itself. Your description of the historical background seems to confirm this. The doctrine wasn’t clarified by Christ, the apostles, or the earliest Christians, and wasn’t generally understood until the 4th century as you confirmed, so it cannot be necessary to believe it in order to be a REAL Christian. Otherwise we disqualify three centuries of the followers of Christ!
So you really haven’t answered my question (which again, does not require mormonism to understand): Why is a strictly Biblical understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son insufficient?
Your post also raises another question, and with Michael P. I would appreciate a response that does not presume to elaborate on or criticize supposed “mormon doctrine.”
Rather, I would appreciate a response that relies strictly and solely on the Biblical text, since I’m sure even many of the learned theologians you cite would endorse the phrase “sola scriptura.” If so, a layman like me ought to be able to readily discover the necessary doctrines of salvation from the Bible alone. If trinitarianism, then, is not readily discovered by the layman from the Bible alone, it must not be necessary for my salvation or my status as a Christian any more than it was for the three centuries of Christians that preceded its elaboration.
Where does the Bible insist that God must be immaterial? It does say God is Spirit, but where does it say that spirit is immaterial? Or that a being of Spirit cannot possess a body of flesh? The resurrected Christ, who is indeed God the Son (even from a trinitarian perspective), demonstrated that he HAS, or possesses, a body of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39). So God may BE Spirit, but he demonstrably HAS a body of flesh and bone–at least in the person of the resurrected Lord. And if Jesus was in the EXPRESS image of God the Father (Hebrews 1:3), where does the Bible exclude the possibility that the Father may also be a Spirit possessing a tangible, material body?
In my understanding, the only restriction against drawing this otherwise obvious conclusion is the extra-biblical doctrine of trinity, specifically the doctrine of oneness of ousia. By this I do not mean that the doctrine of trinity is incompatible with the Bible, but only that it requires theorizing beyond the text itself. Nowhere is a oneness of essence, substance, or being required by scripture alone. Indeed there are many apparent contradictions of it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw Michael P., questioning the need for extra-biblical philosophical or theological sophistication in light of sola scriptura IS on topic. The doctrine of trinity, so central to orthodoxy, is simply a convenient test case.
As you wrote above, “We don’t need to accept mainstream because it is mainstream and we don’t need to reject it because of this either.” I’m asking for a simple, neither “sophisticated” nor “pop”, biblical assessment of this doctrine. If all it has to recommend it is its very old status as “mainstream” then there is no more need to accept it than to reject it. One can then seriously reconsider alternatives more grounded in the text, hopefully without fear of ridicule by either mainstream or pop theologians.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike,
Every article that I write could ultimately be tied to just about any theological issue that is important.
It is very hard to moderate the civil conversation of this blog. So please let me, as the blog owner, have my way and say that this is off topic.
I hope you can respect that.
Like or Dislike:
0
Absolutely.
In the future, if I enjoy an article, would you prefer that I avoid mentioning my Mormon background (in the interest of full disclosure)? Again, that was meant simply as a compliment for the ecumenical appeal of your post.
But was this that apparently influenced other posters to drag me off topic, though I tried valiantly to remind them that this was not the intent of my comment and probably not the proper venue.
Thanks for your Christian patience and politeness.
Mike
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike: Our blog host Michael has asked us to stay on the blog subject, though I think this thread has pretty much run its course. And in closing, as to the Trinity of God, it did not drop out of the sky in 325 A.D., in fact we can see the church grappling with the Triune nature of God well before that. Note, the great second century problem that Tertullian called Monarchianism, from here we get a lot of other grave ideas: Modalism, Patripassianism, Sabellianism. And we can see both Theophilus of Antioch (c.180) using the term “trias”, a neologism in its Greek form of the Trinity. And Tertullian (160/70 – 215/20) wrote his great work, ‘Against Praxeas’ as perhaps the first orthodox definition of the Trinity. And of course the Trinity of God simply permeates the NT (The Baptism of Christ) and even the OT Theophany of God (Gen. 18: 1-7, etc.).
Also, there is a difference between Christ’s offices as Mediator, and our sharing in them, we don’t, accept as ‘In Christ’, which is first forensic, and then only interior as sanctification..and Christ within.
Btw, if you want we can further discuss this, the Trinity of God, on my own wee blog? (irishanglican.wordpress)
Fr. Robert
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks Michael, sorry if we out a bit outside the lines! You were patient! Best, ‘In Christ’
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] I highly recommend the article here. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
I really enjoy quoting my favorite author, historian, apologist, evangelican, a true calvinist, trend setter,
psychologist, healer, charasmatic, oh yes,
his name is Jesus Christ. Quoting Him brings glory
to His person and life to all who have ears to hear.
Like or Dislike:
0
An interesting way of putting things. I have also held various theologians up as models over the years, but I have also found that as I get older I am most comfortable with a position that I describe as “as conservative as I can justify”. I refuse to automatically stand with any group or theologian. I stand where I feel God wishes me to be, and welcome any who seek to join me.
I also have researched and continue to research, to be as certain that my stance is justifiable as I can be. In doing so I challenge much of existent theology, but I can also point out the reasons why I challenge it.
One big point is that should we accept science as correct, even by as simple an act as using computers, then the findings of science have a right to challenge any aspect of theology that are not consistent with it, and these are numerous. God reigns supreme, but let us not impose a box around Him to accomodate our theology.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jesse: Charismatic [politely renaming me]: So, I can only assume that what you have just described is at best a theory of ‘truthiness’?
Charismaniac: Absolutely, while I’m quite sure there is truth out there, so far all the descriptions of it only achieve a certain truthiness, a correspondence or a semblance. I’m not sure I would be able to know a Truth or communicate on if I found one, even quite by accident. That is not to denigrate the value of the truthy, but to admit that the difficulty of managing with the limited perspective and resources that I was born with. Of course, I would not begrudge any on this list that would proclaim that they have grasped and communicated the Truth, and have seen beyond the dimly seen and penetrated into the face-to-face, but so far I haven’t seen the evidence that such has actually happened. It has been my experience that most claims in this area end up affirming appearances and semblances. These all seem to be able to be semblances by not really being Truth. Just saying.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wow, thanks for this post!
More Comments:
« Previous 1 2 3