If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

“The history of Science is the history of bad ideas.”

This is a quote that I heard recently. I think that it is a rather tongue-in-cheek way of expressing our (post)modern culture’s current attitude with respect to the authority of science. During the modern period, science was king. The scientific revolution produced hopes of a Utopian society where virtually all problems would be solved due to human innovation, evolution, and advancement. But during the postmodern period, science has been humbled due to a realization that the process was not as clean as we thought. Human contamination, insufficient data, faulty presuppositions, and religiously and politically motivated studies have tainted our hopes that science is truly king.

Euclid said, “The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.” Such is true, but how do we know that we have properly interpreted the “mathematical thoughts of God”? I believe in the authority of nature and many of our (scientific) conclusions about such. Every Christian should. I have written about this in times past. Romans 1 says that creation itself leaves people without an epistemic excuse about God’s reality. This, among many other things, provides a firm biblical foundation for cosmology, biology, physics, and rationality in the Christian life. In this sense, the study of nature is mandated for the Christian.

However, we need to be timid about our conclusions that come from science, knowing the ways that it, like the Bible, can be manipulated. More important for what I am talking about now, we need to realize how dynamic the conclusions of science can be.

I was a fitness trainer through the nineties as well as working in the fields of sports medicine. I was very good at what I did and understood the issues (at least I thought). I focused on weight loss physiology. I wanted to provide people with the best—the most scientifically accurate—routine for weight loss. When it came to losing weight though, I would tell people to engage in a steady-state cardio routine. This is one in which you would keep your heart rate up consistently and moderately for above thirty-minutes. Then about fifteen minutes of resistance training. Without getting into all the details of why, suffice it to say that this was the most accepted scientific method for such goals. When it came to nutrition, I was not faddish at all. I repudiated the fads. I wanted to stick to that which was scientifically verifiable and accepted: the food pyramid. However both have changed since the nineties. Now, in order to lose weight, your cardio must include more of a circuit training where your heart rate gets up into its anaerobic state every so often. This is something that I used to teach against with (scientific) resolve. On top of this, the food pyramid has been turned upside down and subjectivized! Now, I am not saying what I did before did not work…it did. But it was not really right. There is a stability to say that exercise and proper nutrition are essential to weight loss. But I am no longer quite so committed to a particular type of exercise and nutrition. It is not so stable. Some of my theories have been literally turned upside down! That is just one example of the sort of things that can dissolution a person toward so-called scientific conclusions.

Here is a list of some other things that have changed over the years with regard to scientific ideas:

• Maternal impression (the mother’s thoughts can influence the child’s)
• Human cell (simplistic to complex)
• The status of Pluto (no longer a planet)
• Piltdown man (scientific hoax about a “missing link” in evolution)
• The food pyramid (turned upside down)
• Health benefits of alcohol (bad for you one day, good for you the next) Continue Reading »

Sometimes it is frustrating to introduce yourself to theological issues. Most people who get deeply involved in theology quickly realize how much they don’t know. Confident seminary students enter their training thinking that they are going to breeze their way through as they have their prejudices confirmed by their soon to be impressed professors. After the first year, their countenance is soured as their confidence turns into an insecure angel (or devil) on their shoulder who says, “Who did you think you were presuming God called you into ministry?” They begin to realize that they came to seminary to find out how much they did not know! Some get discouraged and leave, others harden in their categories becoming unable to learn. But the best adjust their expectations, knowing that an admission of ignorance is a fundamental foundation to learning.

There is an old dictum to knowledge. It goes something like this:

There are four types of people:

1. The one who doesn’t know, and doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. He is a fool–shun him.

2. The one who doesn’t know, but knows that he doesn’t know. He is a student–help him learn.

3. The one who knows, but doesn’t know that he knows. He is an unenlightened person–enlighten him.

4. The one who knows and knows that he knows. He is a wise man–follow him.

I would like to add a fifth:

5. The one who knows but does not know how he knows. He is naive—deconstruct him.

This fifth category refers to those who have all the right beliefs for all the wrong reasons. This is very common in theological circles. I believe that it is prevalent within Evangelicalism as a basic creedal confession takes the place of doctrinal understanding. I know of many people who confess a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, but they really don’t know why they believe in this doctrine. I know of many people who believe that Christ rose bodily from the grave, but they could not give you even the most basic defense of their confession. Both the bodily resurrection of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are good and right beliefs, but if someone cannot justify these beliefs, do they really believe them? Continue Reading »

We talk a lot about this: essentials and non-essentials. In fact, at the Credo House of Theology (our headquarters), right when you walk in the front door you will see written on the wall in Latin the words in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. Translated into English, this means, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” This phrase (often wrongly attributed to Augustine) comes from an otherwise obscure German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century named Rupertus Meldenius. It has served as a place holder for a sort of Evangelical Credo (statement of faith). It expresses the idea of orthodoxy and grace. It reminds us that there are essential Christian beliefs and there are non-essentials.

I remember hearing a pastor once say concerning doctrine, “You are either one-hundred percent right or one-hundred percent wrong. There is no in-between and there are no gray areas. God is not confused or unsure. Why should we be?” While this might be true concerning God, for us things are different. For now, we see in a mirror dimly (1 Cor. 13:12).

As well, Paul spoke about those things that are “of first  importance [protois]” (emphasis mine). Christ spoke about straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel (Matt. 23:24) and the “weightier things of the law” (Matt. 23:23).

This is one of the things that (should) distinguish us as Evangelicals. We are those who unite around those things that we believe are the weightiest, the things that are the most important, the essentials, while we (should) give liberty in the non-essentials. I often tell people that there are some things that I believe that I would die for; there are some things that I believe that I would lose an arm for; there are some things that I believe that I would lose a finger for; and then there are some things that I believe that I would not even get a manicure for.

Like in all areas of life, we need to learn to choose our battles carefully. But in order to do this, we must first come to know the difference between essentials and non-essentials.

But (as the criticism goes) it is not that easy to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. I have written on this before. More importantly for now, many Evangelicals have simply never been exposed to this and therefore practice their theology in a much more legalistic way, believing every conviction that they have to be representative of a hill upon which they should die.

Here I want to elaborate upon and expand the discussion a little bit. While we need to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials, we also need to recognize that there are different types of essentials. Along with this goes my belief that there are different ways to “break fellowship” based on our beliefs. In other words, not all essentials are equal. Some are essential to the very foundation of Christianity, but some are only essential to a particular denomination or expression. This will require different types of breaks in fellowship.

Let me start with a chart, then I will briefly break it down:

click on chart to enlarge

Essential for salvation: These are the most essential doctrines of all essentials. This includes what every Christian should always be willing to die for. In essence, if someone does not believe the doctrines that are “essential for salvation,” they are not saved. Continue Reading »

I probably don’t need to explain what knee-jerk theology is.  We all know it and we all do it, to varying degrees.  Somebody makes a comment or pontification on some doctrinal point or passage in Scripture that is an affront to how we’ve understood it.  The knee-jerk response instantly rebuts, refutes and refuses to acknowledge any of the merits.  After all, if that person saw things as we see it, they wouldn’t hold that position, right?

But the reality is that there is no such thing as two truths at the same time.  Somebody is missing it.  Somebody is wrong.  I do believe that, in our human nature, we most likely will assign that blame on the other person and respond accordingly.  But another reality is…we could be wrong.

So how do we overcome the knee-jerk reaction and treat each dissent fairly and objectively, with truth as the end goal?  Here is a quick list that I think might help.

1.  Ask yourself if the position can have any merit: There is the sine qua non of Christianity, those components without which Christianity would not exist.  If a position proposes undermining what makes Christianity, Christianity, then it does not have merit.  That shouldn’t mean that we don’t listen or understand the undermining position.  In a quest to support and defend Christianity, we should at least be willing to understand arguments that attempt to refute it.   Beyond the essentials (that can also differ), the certainty dial decreases; no matter how strong your convictions or how much evidence, that differing position can have some merit.

2. Recognize our filters: As I mentioned in my previous post on relative truth, we all have them.  We have lenses of doctrine and experience, and through them is how you will see things.  If you hold to an Arminian position regarding election or if you staunchly believe in YEC, understand that position is your filter.  If you have a strong commitment to Calvinism or to Amillenialism or to non-cessationism of spiritual gifts, understand that is your filter.  It may be that you arrived at your positions through careful, honest and exhaustive study, but that still results in a perspective that will most likely be imposed on any type of examination.

3. Examine the other position as if it were true: I think this is a tough one: I think our natural inclination is to examine the other position as if it weren’t true, mainly because we’ve already determined that it is not.   But stepping into the other position, and examining Scripture from that perspective, I think can shed tremendous light not only on the differing view, but also on our own.  This also requires reading works of the proponents of that position, rather than refutations (of those with whom you agree) of that position.

4.  Be fair and objective: Examine the evidence.  Try to understand where the other person is coming from.  This does require a setting aside of the filter when examining Scripture— see #2.

5.  Examine your own strawmen: I don’t think this needs any expounding.  We build up strawmen based on our perspective of the differing position.  But it does beg the question whether we have made every effort to understand that position based on #1, 3, and 4.  Have we really taken the time to understand the other position based on how they understand it?  I don’t think using the strawmen and less-informed rantings of opponents counts as understanding the position.  See #3

6.  Slow down the draw on the proof-texts: You know what those are: the arsenal we have ready to whip out at a moment’s notice.  This is true especially against those positions we have strongly determined to be wrong, the ones that seem to raise the hackles on the back of our necks.  I think this should also really clarify why we use the proof-texts we do.  Learning is a continual process that requires continual re-examination of our arsenal and should also reduce the reactionary response to reach for them without reflection.

7.  Correlate each position to the overall system of revelation: I love this quote by A.A. Hodge, :

“Since the revelation given in the Scriptures embraces a complete system of truth, every single department must sustain many obvious relations, logical and otherwise, to every other as the several parts of one whole. The imperfect development, and the defective or exaggerated conception of any one doctrine, must inevitably lead to confusion and error throughout the entire system”, (A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism and Augustianism, http://monergism.com).

How does the differing position, or your position, square with the overall system of revelation?  Do the connections breakdown somewhere?  Are you honest enough to admit that they do?

8.  Don’t touch that dial: I recall a time when a couple of well-known radio personalities mentioned something that was such an affront to my beliefs as a then-Charismatic, that I actually stopped listening to them for awhile.  I was convinced they knew nothing and if they really had the Spirit, they would not say such things. Ahem, see #1-5.

9.  Be ready to admit that you could be wrong: Easier said than done.  I do think this is a mark of humility.  Pride does not concede.  But remember that God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble (1 Peter 5:5).  Truth should be our aim, not self-preservation.

10. Recognize that it is not about you anyway: I believe this is the most critical.  Every system of doctrine and understanding of Scripture should have as its purpose a greater understanding of God and His revelation.  It is not about how we square off with our favorite theologian or pet doctrines, but how we see God.  He is the one that has condescended to reveal Himself to mankind and He desires nothing more than reconciliation with His creation.  His revelation in Christ (Hebrews 1:2-3)—God the Son who humbled himself (Philippians 2:6-7), died on the cross for the payment of sins (Romans 3:24-25), sits at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:3) and final judge of sin—was for the express purpose of placing everything in subjection to Him (1 Corinthians 15:27-28) .  It is about Him, and Him alone (Colossians 1:16-18), and everything should point to Him. (Colossians 1:28). 

And if our knee-jerk theology is not about Him, then a thorough re-examination is definitely in order.

No, I have not mastered this list, not by a long shot.  But I do think it’s a step in the right direction.

I came across this question on Facebook the other day – “what site do you go to find the truth?”  Because I know this young man to be deeply committed to Christ and to pastoring youth, I took the question to mean “what site most represents Biblical truth?”  Immediately, I responded with a site that I thought offered resources and articles by those whom I thought investigated topics thoroughly, objectively and consistently. This of course was based on my understanding of how Biblical truth should be examined and attained.  Afterwards, it dawned on me that not all would agree with me.

In the advent of relativism and post-modernism, the rallying cry of evangelicals is that truth is not relative.  God’s truth does not change.  Some would cite that the problem is that we are measuring God’s truth against shifting standards of our own making and compromising that truth (notice that I am avoiding labels).  Yes, I do agree with that.  I do hold to the fact that God Himself is truth (John 14:6) and His word is truth (John 17:17).  As a theologically conservative evangelical, I do uphold that God has communicated His propositional truth in a written format which is the Bible.  There is no subjective nature to what He has communicated.

The problem is that our truth is relative, or rather our measuring rod by which we understand truth.  It is our epistemology, if you will.  We will never be able to hold to an absolute, perfected standard by which we can most avowedly say “I have truth in all cases”.  Now before you go condemning me as one on the outer rings of E-darkness, what I mean by that is we will always have some sort of subjective tendency to our approach to understanding truth .  Why? Because we have a colander through which we sift our understanding of how to arrive at what the Bible is communicating.  We have presuppositions and doctrinal affiliations and life experiences that all weave their way into the fabric of our understanding.  In some cases, our understanding is sourced in extra-Biblical dogma and tradition that will dictate how we arrive at divine truth.

Any evangelical with a decent commitment to understanding what God has conveyed through His word, will contend that Biblical truth is the standard and our job is to understand what God is conveying.  “Biblical truth” in itself then becomes relative because we apply whatever methodology we have considered to be the arbiter of WHAT God has communicated, HOW God has communicated and HOW He continues to communicate.  Biblical truth according to God’s communication is accurate.  Biblical truth according to our understanding is less than accurate.  For this reason, I have even grown weary of the usage of the term “Biblical” because it generally means ‘according to my understanding based on my epistemology’.

What I am NOT saying, is that we cannot ascertain what truth is according to how God has revealed it.  What I am NOT saying is that there is no way we can know the sine qua non of Christianity.  God has not changed nor has His revelation nor His communication.  He revealed Himself progressively throughout Scripture, ultimately pointing to His revelation in Christ.  Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). We cannot adjust the work and person of the triune God to accommodate our mortal sensibilities.  Nor can we dismiss how God has spoken to us authoritatively which is His inscribed revelation, His written word.  Some do this, I believe, to their detriment.

Therefore, we do need an objective standard by which to determine what is appropriate to the means of God’s communication.  God did not condescend to reveal Himself to humanity so that we can apply whatever methods we deem reasonable to understand Him according to His communication to us.  To reduce the relativism of our understanding, the ascertaining of truth must be grounded in the reality of how God has communicated to us.  And I believe that communication is ensconced in language.  That means, as we read the Bible, we have to employ a hermeneutic that is consistent with the divine author’s intent transmitted through the human author’s intent to understand the language.

One of the most aggravating components of our modern Bibles is the fracturing of communication through segmented pieces known as chapters and verses.  What was designed to facilitate understanding actually can contribute to disjointed learning.  The tendency to spiritualize that fragmentation further moves an understanding of communication away from the center of its intended truth.  But as John Chrysostom espoused in reaction against overly allegorical renderings of the text, “attempts to understand must always be subject to the indispensable historical kernel that anchors the text in empirical reality”.  The reality is what God intended and who He is.  In his essay entitled The Biblical Concept of Truth, Roger Nicole argues that “the full concept of Biblical truth” involves three essential components to understanding the truthfulness of divine communication.

1) Factuality – the expression of truth that conforms to reality in opposition to lies or errors

2) Faithfulness – reliability on the person expected to perform according to a promise, in this case God.

3) Completeness – a summation that is definitive and provisional, which is specific to fulfillment in Christ

He contends that the three must be held in balance and stressing one over the other, or treating them in isolation, will lead to improper attention to the other strands.  This suggests an imbalanced understanding of what God has intended.  I do think this happens quite often because our subjective natures will motivate us to do exactly that, in my opinion.

So what do we do with our subjective tendencies to relativize Scripture according to our epistemology?  First, I contend that we have to distinguish between dogma and doctrine, holding the former loosely and examining the latter critically.   Second, never become so comfortably convinced in our determination of truth that we become unteachable, especially concerning the areas of essential doctrine.  To be honest, it bothers me when some so arrogantly and adamantly insist they have a corner on truth, and particularly when they are based on standards that inconsistent with God’s mechanism for how He has communicated His truth.   Third, I think we have to an increased awareness that our understanding will tend to be relative and subjective. That in of of itself will probably not completely relieve any imbalance on our part, but without it we might be rushing headlong down a dark and deviating trail.    Fourth, never lose sight of the starting point of divine communication, which is God not our understanding.  Lastly, have the humility to admit our fallibity and short-sightedness.

So instead of espousing a corner on Biblical truth, perhaps a more honest approach would be an investigator of Biblical truth, like the Bereans in Acts 17.  I think that would be a really honest thing to do lest we confuse any error on our part with absolute truth on God’s part.

For my intro students…

I often play this game with my kids that drives them crazy. Sitting in the room, with no one but us, while they are not looking I will slap them on the rear and act like I did not do it. They turn and say, “Daddy! I know you did that.” I say, “I did not.” ”Then who did it?” they respond (thinking they have settled the issue with this one question).  I say, “A guy ran into the front door and slapped them and then ran out.” They look at me like I am crazy. “Look!” I respond to their skepticism, “The door is not locked. It is obvious that someone could have come in since the door is not locked.” Upon further looks of skepticism, I have them go check the door to see if it is locked or not. Once they check and see it is unlocked, I have won the day. I have poked a hole and their certainty and even caused them to confirm it. No longer possessing the indubitably that I have required for their epistemic verification, they now have lost poise in their former confidence. In other words, I tricked them into thinking that one has to be absolutely certain about something before it can be believed.

Ideas about the value of certainty are currently on the theological stage of debate. With the postmodern push toward perpetual skepticism that gives way to necessary compromise and a redefining tolerance, along with many in the church responding by appealing to a fidist approach to the faith (ignore the evidence, just believe), Evangelicals are found scratching their heads, wondering why we are checking the door to see if it is locked.

“You can’t be certain that Christianity is true. Some have said that it borrowed from other ancient religions to get its story.”

“You can’t be certain Christ rose from the grave since his body might have been stolen.”

When a suspicious world says that we cannot be certain about anything because of the alternative possibilities, we find ourselves defending a position drunk with its own form of compromise. When people poke holes in our beliefs with arguments no better than “look, the door is not locked” we find ourselves missing the big picture, attempting to argue about the security of the door.

How did we get here?

The father of the so-called Age of Reason, Rene Descartes, was commissioned by a cardinal in the church to find a way of attaining a level of certainty that went beyond mere probability. With skepticism on the rise, probability was looked at as the ugly step-sister of the indubitability that accompanied absolute certainty. Indubitability equates to infallible knowledge—knowledge that can’t be wrong. Prove without a shadow of a doubt that God exists by mere intuitive resources. That was Descartes commission.

(Let me repeat as this may be a new word to some of you. Indubitability describes the impossibility of being wrong due to an exhaustive and infallible method of inquiry; beyond the possibility of question or doubt.) 

There was celebration at Descartes seeming defeat of the skepticism of his day. His “I think therefore I am” looked as if it provided a bridge to attain the type of certainty to which humans have never been privy.  His methodology, which became known as “the Cartesian method,” was adopted in large part by those in the West. And thus began the Age of Reason, where certainty—indubitable certainty—reined supreme.

Christianity was never bound by any sort of indubitably from a human perspective. We have never been required to check the lock on any door. In fact, no one actually can or does live by such a method in the acquisition of truth.

But alas, we often think we are supposed to. We have turned “the evidence that demands a verdict” into “the evidence that produces indubitably.” At least that is what we are pressured into doing. Continue Reading »

I came across this article in Christianity Today on ending homelessness in 10 years.  I mused considering that for the past several years, this is the professional field I have been involved in.  In fact, in my position back in Rhode Island, I was responsible for managing one of the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) homeless funding program for the state, worked with most of the homeless service agencies statewide and coordinated and packaged the annual funding application to HUD for the state.  As noted in the article, every geographic region that receives these funds has to include in their funding application to HUD, a description on how they are going to end homelessness in 10 years through a coordinated effort with major public-private stakeholders.

More specifically, HUD has been focused on ending chronic homelessness, which comprises approximately 15% of the homeless population roughly.  These are the more severe cases of homelessness – folks that have been continually homeless for at least a year or experienced continual cycles of homelessness (at least 4 episodes in the past 3 years) and suffer from some type of disabling condition, including mental illness and substance abuse.  The idea is that since these are the high end users of emergency services, it is more cost efficient to put them into permanent supportive housing, which provides a team of licensed professionals to address the barriers to independent living.  In other words, stabilize them in housing first, then provide intensive services so they will stay there.  So the person who has lived ensconced in a particular state of existence for an extended period of time will now be moved to a different state of existence and expected to succeed.

I think this is a great theory in concept.  I don’t think anyone reading this post, especially me, wants to see people homeless.  But I had a major philosophical conflict in that I recognize, no matter how attractive you make housing, no matter how much you demonstrate that this would be something beneficial, there will be some, who for whatever reason are more comfortable on the streets.  It’s not that they want to be homeless but they don’t want to be uprooted from a way of living that they have become comfortable with.  The comfort of where they are supersedes the discomfort of being uprooted.  Now some of my professional colleagues might disagree, but information that I have received from front line workers would suggest otherwise, not to mention, the human nature factor.

I cannot but help consider this application pertinent to where we live doctrinally and theologically.  We have learned.  We have studied.  We have drawn conclusions.  We find our nest and settle in.  And it is great, isn’t it, when we draw conclusions about what the Biblical text says and perchance take sides with notable theologians who have gone before us, especially considering the effort they put forth?  Or maybe, we have found comfort in that fact that we have followed no man but instead have relied on our own interpretations of Scripture, guided of course by the Spirit.  Or perhaps we have allowed our particular church denomination or tradition to influence and shape the body of facts we call truth.  Whatever our course of action has been, there is a certain degree of comfort that we can rest it.

I suppose that our comfort has very much to do with our epistomology, how we have come to know and understand what we consider truth.   There has been a determination made on the best avenue to discover what truth is, and we have followed that. And whatever that path is, whether through “academic” study, experience, tradition or a particular hermeneutic (yes everyone has one but not everyone uses the same hermeneutic), following that course can in and of itself, transition us into an ease of understanding.  After a while, we can proudly say that we have arrived at truth.  However, it does beg the question, ‘is it that we have arrived at truth OR that we have satisfied the mechanics of whatever epistomology we have used to arrive at truth?  The latter will certainly not guarantee the former but probably will make us more comfortable about the process.

The truth is that nobody likes tension.  Nobody likes to be uncomfortable and definitely, nobody wants to be wrong.  The guy on the street doesn’t resist moving from his abode because he loves waddling in the mire.  He won’t move because he doesn’t want the tension.   Nor do we.  It is uncomfortable to wrestle with ideas and the internal conflict that ensues when our sense of satisfactory knowledge has been disrupted.  It is far easier to stay in the bed we’ve made than to rip the sheets off and move it; it is far easier to rely on the truth we know than the contradiction we don’t know, or rather, don’t really want to know.  So we set up our fortresses, load the arsenal known as proof-texts, strawmen and maybe even historical data and throw them to protect our fiefdoms of knowledge.

Don’t get me wrong.  I think there are some truths that are absolutely essential to Christianity, truths that have been tested and stamped with the historical seal of approval of which Christianity would not exist without.  I also believe that within the mysteries of God, what He has revealed is meant to be understood (Deuteronomy 29:29), not cumbersome or burdensome and maybe even a little logical.

But it can be arduous to bridge the communication gap between God’s revelation, which is what He has made known and our understanding.  It is no small task to engage in a process of grasping who is God, what has He accomplished, what He has planned and where do we fit into that picture, in a way that acknowledges our abilities to apprehend but denies our prejudices and presuppositions.  There is tension.  There is discomfort.  Often, there are no easy answers.  Yes, the Spirit is involved but so is our fallibility.  This is not an easy place to live because it will always encourage running for cover and resorting to safe and tension free harbors.

So I think where we live doctrinally and theologically has so much to do with the level of resistance we can tolerate.   If we’ve wrapped our arms around conclusions so tightly that no amount of historical or Biblical evidence could sway opinions, especially those that deviate from Christianity’s historical roots, then I fear intended truths might be missed for the sake of ease.  And yes, I do think fear can be involved, fear of losing, fear of failure, fear of humility.  Then where we live can become a prison rather than a place of freedom.  It is no different for that chronically homeless individual who refuses to give up his abode for something better.

But just as the guy on the street must go through the tension of disruption for the greater goal of a warm and safe place of permenency, so must we.  There is a prize at stake of knowing what God has so graciously revealed to that we can know Him, His plan and ourselves better.  We’ll never arrive but must always learn and be willing to be a little disrupted in the process.

Albert Einstein once said “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing . . . so is a lot.”

I have been in discussions with a gentleman who reads this blog and, occasionally, will take one of my theology courses. The main topic of discussion is the necessity of theological discourse for the average Christian. Whether it be big words, concepts, or ideas, this gentleman does not think such things are necessary for the Christian life. He prefers the simplicity of loving God and leaving the rest to the theologians. His basic argument is that such things can and often do take away from our ability to live the Christian life due to their “side-tracking” nature.

Let me paraphrase a comment he would typically make:

“Whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian, a traducianist or creationist, believe in soul sleep or intermediate bliss, believe in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or memorialism, none of these ultimately makes any difference. In fact, these beliefs serve more to bring about sinful divisiveness than anything else.”

This attitude with regard to theology is not uncommon at all. In fact, it seems that it has a lot of truth to it. It would seem that simplicity in our confession and faith would ultimately bring about the most unity and acceptance as well as provide more energy for the things that really matter. Right?

Well, if you are saying that more knowledge is dangerous, I agree. Knowledge can puff up. Knowledge can provide ground for strong opinions, lack of perspective, and, ultimately, division. But if you are saying that because of the dangers of knowledge it is not worth the risk, I disagree.

Let me give you an illustration that I think provides a sufficient parallel to the current issue. Knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot. Knowledge of what? Well, anything. But most specifically, we could apply this to relationships. When we enter into a relationship with someone, we take risks. Relationships involve us becoming vulnerable. When we allow someone to get to know us, there is always the possibility of misunderstanding, rejection, and a sort of Trojan horse pregnability of our heart. The same is true concerning those with whom we enter a relationship. Knowledge about them is dangerous. Not only for them, as they expose themselves, but for us as we put our own ideals about them on the line. In other words, you may know someone from a distance who you have placed on an idealist pedestal. Once an opportunity comes for you to deepen that relationship, closing the blissful distance, you are entering into dangerous territory. Why? Because now you are opening yourself up to coming to know the real person. All masks will soon come off and then you will have to nuance this relationship based upon your more up-to-date and accurate knowledge of the person. This process is certainly reciprocal and it is risky—it is dangerous—for both parties. While new discoveries will certainly bring about joy and depth in the relationship, they can also bring about a great deal of pain and emotional distancing.

When the fear of relational knowledge becomes so great that people guard themselves against all forms of vulnerability, disorders follow: schizoid personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder (AvPD), social anxiety disorder. Here, people become closed and guarded hoping that this will leave their lives protected, safe, and secure.

While people might rationalize their timidity due to the reality of the dangers that are involved when knowledge is attained, this rationalization is misleading. The avoidance of knowledge causes us to neglect a basic need of humanity—relationships.

I fear that this is often the case when people rationalize their avoidance of theology. Theology is simply coming to understand God at a deeper level. Yes, there are risks, just the same as any relationship. There are risks of misunderstandings, changing your ideals, opening yourself up to criticism, and coming to know both the wonderful and, what might be perceived to be, the not so wonderful things about God. There is also the possibility of division and strife as you defend what you believe to be true. But is this really any different than any other relationship? Continue Reading »

How hard it is to avoid the innate desire that we all have to confirm our prejudices through our studies. Our pursuit of truth, more times than not, resembles an exercise of a passionate search for evidences that fit our presupposed conclusions. In other words, we know what we know, then we seek to confirm what we know.

It is always more comfortable to be than to become.

Becoming involves humility which calls for change. Change is not really on the agenda for most of us. Yes, we may call ourselves sinners and express the need to change, but when change presents its resume, we reject it, contriving a long list of excuses. It does not matter whether it has to do with theology or an argument with your spouse, we believe we are right and we will do everything to present our case in the best possible light. It is a fearful thing to even consider that we might be wrong.

I believe that this methodology is dishonoring to God, no matter what you are trying to defend—even if it is the truth. This methodology is sin. Better: we use this methodology because we are sinners Continue Reading »

With all the renewed conversation about the emerging church that is blanketing the web once again, I thought that I would enter the “conversation” in a somewhat atypical way.

Some are proclaiming the death of the emerging church saying, “The emerging church is dead—at least in nomenclature, if not in spirit.” Others such as Scot McKnight, Andrew Jones, and Dan Kimball are calling this a nominal death, believing the name itself is no longer descriptive of the original intent of the group, but that the principles expressed will move on. Scot’s post had the spirit of a “call to arms” of the emerging ethos. Others, such as Brian McLaren and Tony Jones may to be holding on to its designation with some hesitant resolve (if you you will allow me to combine those two words).

For those of you ready to sing a courtesy dirge, for those who are preparing their “I-told-you-so” sermon for this Sunday, for those who are breaking out the campaign, hold on. Put the cork back in. I don’t think this type of celebration is yet in order. In fact, I think that this is simply setting up for the second coming of emerging.

To me, this is a good thing that has been in the works for the last few years. It is a natural result of any attempts to reform. The movement is correcting itself. As a result, we see emergers distancing themselves from one another. It is interesting to see the way they are distancing themselves. There are no rope burns on either side. Really, it is just a matter of starting a walk together, holding  the hands of many shared concerns. But while this walk initially allowed some close associations, the ever so slight angle of the direction has proven that they were never really headed the same way to begin with. Its a matter of geometry.

How about a chart to describe this! (Start from the bottom).

(Click to Enlarge) Continue Reading »