As I have been reading and reviewing books and blogs over the years, my approach has changed. This was not an overnight change, but something that just happened the more involved I became in engaging those who were serious about teaching and learning with intellectual honesty and integrity (something that, I am sad to say, does not always characterize Christian teachers). There are certain characteristics that I have found in people’s teaching that immediately alert me to the realization that I am wasting my time (which I don’t have much of!).

If you don’t want me to read your books or blogs (or listen to your sermon or lecture), here are some characteristics to adopt:

• Overstatement
• Unqualified Superlatives
• Non-Contingent Propositions

Yes, I know . . . maybe not what you expected. Many of your lists would include clarity, systematic presentation, grammer and spelling, and reference support. Those things are important to me as well (although you may not have noticed from my writing!), but the above list is what I notice most, especially in presentations and arguments that are theological in nature. Continue Reading »

Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Any attempt to defend a position is going to be met with three things: 1) reasoned rebuttal from those who are truly trying to understand yet disagree, 2) antagonistic reaction from those who see your argument as a threat to their favorite position and have an emotional reaction to it, and 3) misguided response from those who misunderstand and misdefine the position that you are attempting to defend.

As part of my continued belief that people (including Protestants) don’t really understand sola Scriptura, in my initial post in this series, I distinguished it from four other views. I had hoped that this would serve to prevent reaction #3, but such was not the case. Nevertheless, here is another chart to help define my position.

In my initial defining I distanced the doctrine from those who would claim that there is more than one infallible authority for the Christian (dual-source theory or sola ecclesia) and those who would claim that the Scripture is the sole authority for the Christian (solo Scriptura or nuda Scriptura). The doctrine of sola Scriptura is the belief that the Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian. In other words, it is the ultimate authority. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Being in ministry—being in theological ministry—the passions run high. You are going to say some wrong things and you are going to have some wrong things said about you. Such is ministry. One needs to develop some thick skin if they seek to surf these waters.

As a consequence of being misunderstood, you get mislabeled. One label that has been recently tapped on my back with red crayon is “minimalist.” What does that mean to be a minimalist?

Minimalist

One who sees Christianity as a system of belief that only recognizes the least common denominator. In other words, let’s just find out what all those who call themselves Christian believe and say that this is true Christianity and then let’s not talk about anything else. Talking about what divides, well . . . divides. And division is bad, bad, and double bad. Therefore, let’s just all get along.

Many of those in Pop Evangelicalism, the Emerging Church, and the Emergent church take this perspective.

From the standpoint of those who call me a minimalist, I represent a branch of Evangelicalism that compromises truth for conciliation in the name of ecclesiastical unity.

Stepping back and looking at this criticism, I can see where it comes from. I understand how people would get this impression. I do tend to encourage people to focus on the things that unite. I do tend to plead with people about the danger of talking past each other. I am even sometimes critical of militant apologetic methods that seem to deepen chasms, hardening others in an apologetic position that only focuses on what they are against, thereby losing perspective. However, I would not classify myself as a minimalist. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

“If it ain’t in the Bible, I don’t believe it.” Have you ever heard said that? How about this one: “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” You might have that bumper sticker. Why not? Doesn’t this represent the glory of the Protestant Reformation’s elevation of Scripture to a position of the sole source of authority in the Christian’s life? Don’t these pithy statements represent the best of what it means to adhere to the doctrine of sola Scriptura?

No, they don’t. In fact they unfortunately represent a common misunderstanding of what sola Scriptura means. 

Where does one go for authority? In whom do we place our trust? The Church? Tradition? Scripture? The Pope? These represent important questions that are normally not understood outside the perspective of individual traditions.

There are essentially five views that exist in the church today concerning the important issue of authority.

1. Dual-source theory

Belief that Tradition, represented by the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church, is infallible and equal to Scripture as a basis for doctrine; the Church itself is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice since it must define and interpret Scripture and Tradition.

Adherents: Roman Catholics
 

Notice that there is one complete deposit of faith, given by Christ to the Apostles. This one deposit is transmitted by two sources, written tradition (Scripture) and unwritten tradition. Notice also the dotted line as Scripture moves from the “Age of the Apostles” to the “Age of the Church.” This represents that the Scriptures were not complete in canonized form (all the books were not decided upon) until the forth century. The Roman Catholic church believes itself responsible for the interpretation of both written and unwritten tradition. Because of their belief that the Holy Spirit protects the Roman Catholic church from error, they believe that they are the ultimate and final authority for the Christian. This is why this view is often referred to as sola ecclesia (”the church alone”). Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

“Converstionism.” This is one of the few marks of Evangelicalism spoken of by Evangelical historian Mark Noll. Evangelicals believe that people must experience a sincere personal conversion to Jesus Christ. This is a hallmark of Christianity—to be a convert.

Please understand that what follows in no way detracts from this. Conversionism is essential to Evangelicalism. What follows serves as a warning about the dangers that often exist as a person’s conversion from any position to another interacts with their witness and theological integrity.

I was in a spiritual conversation with a gentleman the other day. At times, the conversation became heated. I don’t mind heated conversation or debate so long as it is respectful, honest, and intentional. At one point in the conversation, the gentleman accused me of not being able to see outside of my “Evangelical lenses” that tainted my ability to accept the truth—his version of it of course.

Did you get that. Let me pause and for a bit of repetition. He believed I could not understand because (let me paraphrase):

“You cannot see outside of your Evangelical tainted lenses!!!”

Ouch! And what lenses are you wearing?

“None. I am a postmodern. We are the only ones that don’t wear lenses.”

Interesting. Can I have a pair of those? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I sat down with a young lady a couple of weeks ago and had a conversation. This was a conversation about faith—her faith. Better put, this was a conversation about a faith that once was and is no more. She was a very interesting and bright lady—inquisitive, well-read, and suspicious. She began by telling me that she was a Christian (past tense) and had since left the faith. Christ was once a part of her confession, but, as she recounted to me, after a long voyage of not finding sufficient answers for her doubts, she believes that she had no choice but to follow her own integrity and renounce Christ all together. I asked her what her problems were and she became very emotional. It was like I represented Christianity and she was ready to take it all out on me.

Ignorance. Pity. Shame. These are all good descriptions of what she thought of Christianity. But the primary description that I felt coming from here was “betrayal.” She had been betrayed by the Church because they duped her into a belief not unlike that of the tooth fairy. When she discovered this betrayal, no one had a valid answer or excuse. So she left. She is now an unbeliever—a soon-to-be evangelistic unbeliever.

One fascination, obsession, and focus (neurotic pulse?) I have in my life and ministry is with regard to those, like this young lady, who leave the faith. You may have noticed this. I have over a dozen books giving  autobiographical sketches of those who once proclaimed to be Christian and are now evangelistic atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, with their goal to convert or, rather, unconvert others. I have been in contact with many people who either have already left or are on the verge of leaving. I get emails, phone calls, and visits from the same.

No, it is not a neurotic pulse. I believe that it is the recognition of an extremely serious issue that we are facing today. We are facing an epidemic in Christianity—an epidemic of unbelief among our own. Crowding our churches are those who are somewhere in the process of leaving. No, I am not talking about leaving a denomination. I am not talking about abandoning some institutionalized expression of Christianity. I am not talking about leaving the church (though related). And I am not even talking about renouncing religion. I am talking about those who are leaving Christ.

Over 31 million Americans are saying “check please” to the church, and are off to find answers elsewhere. Jeff Schadt, coordinator of Youth Transition Network, says thousands of youth fall away from the church when transitioning from high school to college. He and other youth leaders estimate that 65 to 94 percent of high school students stop attending church after graduating. From my studies and experience I find that leaving church is many times the first visible step in one’s pilgrimage away from Christ.

The question that we must ask is a very simple one: Why? Why are people leaving the faith at this epidemic and alarming rate? In my studies, I have found that the two primary reasons people leave the faith are 1) intellectual challenges and 2) bad theology or misplaced beliefs.

First, I want to explain this transition process, focusing on the first: intellectual challenges. You might even find yourself somewhere on this journey.

Step one: Doubt
Step two: Discouragement
Step three: Disillusionment
Step four: Apathy
Step five: Departure

Step One: Doubt

Here is where the person begins to examine his or her faith more critically by asking questions, expressing concerns, and becoming transparent with their doubt. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I think we have a great audience on Parchment and Pen. It is varied and representative of a diversity of Christian thought. I appreciate this. I need this. Thank you all for being a part of the serious thought.

I have a question for you. I am sitting here thinking through a class I am teaching tonight on essentials and non-essentials. It is very windy. There is a large oak tree outside that is catching the wind. Its strength amazes me. How does it withstand so much wind? It brought to mind a very familiar passage of Scripture: Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Have you noticed it? Do you feel small? Do you feel inadequate to have opinions anymore? Do you feel a heavy hand upon your head? Do you feel demeaned, disenfranchised, demoted?

That is what it is beginning to feel like to be an Evangelical.

There is a new elitism that is sweeping Christianity. Oh, it does not go by any such name. In fact, it claims to be anti-elite. Its characteristics are those which discount opinions with too many raised hands. It promotes evangelical vertigo, western fatigue, and uncertain hope. It goes by many names: emergent, post-colonialism, post-conservative, post-modern, post-fundamental, post-Christian, and the like. It promotes all things “re-.” Re-imagine, re-construct, re-think, re-form, re-(ahem) claim. It is theology 2.0. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

In his book The God Delusion, the new atheist Richard Dawkins asserts that Yahweh is truly a moral monster: “What makes my jaw drop is that people today should base their lives on such an appalling role model as Yahweh—and even worse, that they should bossily try to force the same evil monster (whether fact or fiction) on the rest of us.”

In this particular blog, I would like to address a glaring inconsistency, which I mentioned in passing in an earlier blog. How can Dawkins launch any moral accusation at all? This is utterly inconsistent with his total denial of evil and goodness elsewhere: Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Having finished my series about the Emerging Church, I feel that it is important that I say a few things so that people have a better understanding about my thoughts in general concerning the “conversation” that is going on—the “emerging” conversation.

I have a deep sympathy toward the confusion that postmodernism has brought about. The global culture that has been created in the last 50 years has caused us to change our perspectives on many things. The internet, world news, and globalization of culture has made it less likely that people can stay sheltered in a naive understanding of truth, religion, and morality—even if they are right. The ever changing currents in science, exposure to world religions, fractures in the family unit, divisions in Christianity, and subjective change in personal beliefs and certainty have caused Christians to question the reliability of any source of truth. People are suspicious, disillusion, bewildered, and uncertain. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The most valuable lesson that I had in graduate studies was when a professor of mine had me defend Arminianism. The reason why this was so valuable centered on the fact that I was not an Arminian and the professor knew it. He set up a debate where I was assigned to research the best arguments for conditional election (the primary distinguishing mark of Arminianism) while others were to defend unconditional election (the primary distinguishing mark of Calvinism). Grading was done on how well each party defended the best elements of their assigned position.

I took this challenge very seriously and for weeks studied the arguments for Arminianism, responded to the challenges of Calvinism, and shaped my presentation in such a way that I thought contributed most persuasively in debate form. Once the assignment was complete, my professor said that I lost the debate, but every student, including those on the opposing side, conceded that I undoubtedly won. It was a bitter-sweet victory! Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Considering the conflict that is brought about with regards to the issue of faith and science, I thought I would write a primer on the philosophical approaches that people adopt. Questions such as Do faith and science conflict? What do we do when faith and science seem to be at odds? What has ultimate authority, faith or science? Can there be a Christian scientist? are all important here.

Let me start with some prolegomena with regards to terminology.

First, the very label of this issue, ”faith and science,” can be misleading. Faith should not be defined as a set of beliefs that is held to without regards to or contradictory to the evidence. This is especially the situation with regards to the historic Christian faith. This is the subject of a different blog, but suffice it to say that Christians do not believe that their faith is a blind leap into the dark that disregards evidence as a suitable guide to the truth. The Christian faith is a faith that his held to, from a human perspective, because of the evidence.

Second, science is not immune to the label of faith. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I am a Calvinist, others are Arminian. I believe in a premillenial eschatology, others are amillinial. I am a traducianist with regards to the creation of the soul, others are creationists. I believe in reasoned inerrancy, others believe that this is an archaic naive doctrine. There are many points of doctrinal division that I am going to have with people, some of which are much more important than others.

Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Who is causing this disunity in the body of Christ, them or me?

There are a few different ways that I could answer this. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

 
My sister Angie and her son Drew in 2002

I often tell the story during my Introduction to Theology class of an experience that I had that deeply implicated me and has affected the way that I “listen” to God’s movements in my life. It concerns an event that happened in the summer of 2003 with my sister Angie. It has to do with how experience can seem to say one thing, but be very misleading. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

One person has rightly said that all people are theologians, you just have to decide what type of theologian you are going to be. Are you going to be a good theologian or a sloppy theologian?

Tabloid journalism. You know what this is. It is sensationalistic journalism. It is a billion dollar business. It preys on our naivety to believe something unbelievable. It exists because we like to let down our critical guard and indulge our minds by believing that which naturally would be rejected. From alien abductions to pregnant men, the tabloids have it all.

Tabloid theology is the same. It is sensationalistic theology. More than this, it describes the attitude of much of our religious culture today. It is the result of a culture that dichotomizes between the intellect and faith. It is fueled by peoples uncritical methodology. A tabloid theologian is one who constructs his or her theology based upon naivety. In the Bible, this is called a “simpleton.” In Christianity, as long as something tags their message with the name “Jesus,” with a prayer, or a Bible verse, tabloid theologians will believe it. 

Some examples of tabloid theology:

1. The pancake with Jesus’ image proves that Jesus is real.

2. Stories of miraculous healings need to be believed without question. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!