Portends of eschatological bliss

It's funny how the most unexpected things fill me with intense and ineluctable joy. I just finished playing Mario Galaxy, and at the end everything is reborn unto new life. You might think me sentimental for finding elements of deep goodness in a Mario game, but I demur. Goodness sneaks up on us in the most unlikely of places, including video games. The joy that I feel is that joy I remember as a child: deep, abiding happiness. It's also the same joy I felt when I first became a child of God: adoption, newness, "Abba, Father." The only difference is that my mature joy is tinged with a touch of sadness because of the brokenness and fallenness of the world that yet remains and with which I have become intimately acquainted. Yet this won't last, and in the end joy will win when God wipes every tear from our eyes. All of these things are portends of eschatological bliss, tastings of the joy to come when God finally sets everything right in His creation.

"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." -- Revelation 21:5

Does hell rule out God's omnibenevolence?

That's the contention of the fellows at http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/07/jesus-loves-me-critique-of-hymn-633.html, but it's one that has no force whatsoever.

Hell is the final resting place for those who have rejected God's love and grace, and in so doing have themselves become incorrigibly evil and incapable of repentance. For those who refuse God's grace and love, the only thing remaining is God's justice and wrath. The result of separation from God is misery and must be if God is the source of all goodness and happiness. Thus, those who refuse God's love experience misery, but this hardly means that God stops loving them. Experience teaches us that we may love someone and yet realize that the moral law demands rectitude and justice for the sake of others we also love. To shield evil people from the consequences of their choices would be to undermine completely the significance of morality. We may desire the highest good for a family member who commits murder or theft, but we also realize that unrepentant transgression calls out for justice for the sake of those who have been hurt. It must be that the wicked pay, even if we would prefer the wicked to repent and receive grace. The two are hardly mutually exclusive as both experience and Scripture make clear. In the Bible, we are told that Christ showed His love for us by dying for us while we were yet sinners (Romans 5). Yet we are also told that God's wrath abides on those who are rebellious (Romans 1), and that in the end they will be locked away with their misery from the rest of God's good creation if they persist in wickedness. This hardly detracts from God's love for them. God loves them in spite of such rejection, but His holiness demands that evil is dealt with. The two fit together perfectly well in God's character, as Scripture makes evident.

Yet another failed Calvinistic argument. I ought to be keeping a tally.

Calvinism promotes poor thinking

It's been quite some time (by my standards) since I've embroiled myself in some good old-fashioned Calvinist-Arminian controversy, so here's a fresh dose for my theological friends and foes alike. My thoughts may ramble on a bit as I chase certain ideas around, a byproduct of my candidly thinking through issues here on my blog. So take this as another tour into the mystifying mind of Kyle and watch me think my way to brilliance (tongue firmly in cheek).

At first glance, the title of this article might seem wholly uncharitable and unnecessarily inflammatory. Am I saying that all Calvinists are idiots? No, that is not my claim. Calvinist divines have shown themselves to be intellectually serious when it comes to systematic thinking about great questions related to the Christian faith. Nevertheless, in my continued reading of Calvinist literature and works, I have noticed a troubling trend that seems to rear its ugly head far too often for rational comfort: when it comes right down to issues of theological and philosophical contention, Calvinism promotes poor thinking.

This is a move of which I have spoken before and one that has been noticed by other thinkers, notably Jerry Walls in the book he co-authored with Joe Dongell, "Why I'm Not a Calvinist." Walls aptly and charmingly calls it a "posture of piety." When pressed into a corner that reveals some absurdity or contradiction in their theology, Calvinists often appeal to the "infinite mystery" of God in order to escape the deliverances of clear and biblical thinking against their system. Not only does this enable Calvinists to avoid a genuinely critical evaluation of their theology, but it also allows them to do so with an air of spiritual respectability. Usually the not-so-subtle implication of this move is that all who attempt to think seriously about these issues are being Pelagian, impious, or rationalistic in their approach to questions of Christian concern.

Recently, I have begun reading "Philosophy and the Christian Faith" by Colin Brown, a noted scholar who happens to be enamored with Karl Barth (no surprise here - most people agree that Barth, for all his great insights, had a low valuation of natural theology). It has become increasingly clear as I read further into the book that he is Reformed in orientation, a perspective with which I actually have some sympathies. Nevertheless, his treatment of the classical arguments for the existence of God is surprisingly superficial. Not only are his reasons for dismissing them poor, but he fails to give them their clearest and strongest articulation before rather glibly dispensing with them. He appeals to the notion that God is known by faith, not by objective demonstration. Anything else is an unbiblical and alien intrusion of philosophy into the Christian faith. Brown's assessment of other philosophical questions is also rather broad and insufficient, but that might be owing more to the nature of the book he is writing (covering over a thousand years in under 400 pages).

We can agree with Brown that the principle way we know Christianity is true is by the witness of the Holy Spirit that is secured through the risk of faith (though not a blind leap into the dark or over some seeming absurdity - that is a notion not to be found in the pages of Scripture). We can also agree that autonomous human reason could never arrive at spiritual truth on its own. But it does not follow from this that arguments and evidence play no role in the shoring up of theistic beliefs for both believers and non-believers alike. If one is to dismiss theistic arguments as either fallacious or ineffective (and for a God of truth, falsehoods necessarily can not and will not lead to a firm and lasting knowledge of God), one should at least have good reasons for doing so. Unqualified appeals to piety or mystery will not suffice, only sound argumentation, biblical or otherwise.

It is moves like this that prompt me to say that Calvinism promotes poor thinking in the name of piety. The mystery button is pressed at will without any good criteria for doing so, resulting not only in shoddy thinking but also in a misunderstanding and devaluing of the beautiful concept of mystery itself. I am convinced that this is the main reason Calvinism has the hold it does on Christians today: they refuse to subject their system to rigorous scrutiny because they are convinced that doing so is somehow inappropriate. I would wager that most of these Christians are quite capable of reasoning themselves out of Calvinism, since in my opinion most hold to Calvinism because they mistakenly think biblical concepts like grace, depravity, election, and predestination require TULIP. Instead, a combination of poor thinking and false piety allows Calvinism to continue as a viable theological option. Apparently, God's greatness is an excuse for poor thinking.

I have stated before and will state again that the Christian faith does not go against human reason functioning at its best. Human reason as a tool to gain knowledge is itself insufficient to secure spiritual enlightenment both because we require the immediate and ongoing gracious revelation of God and because such a posture would only further inflate our vain illusions of self-sufficiency. But while such truths of the Christian religion may be properly said to go beyond the capacities of human reason alone, they certainly do not go against them when they are functioning at their best. The Bible is in support of this view of the relationship between faith and reason, as it locates the offense of the gospel in its high and condemning morality, not in its lack of rational credentials (cf. 1 Corinthians 1 - the ancient world was replete with divine incarnations, so the Incarnation would not have been regarded as rationally offensive). There is a joyful interplay between reason and revelation in the Christian faith, each mutually supporting the other - once again, a view commended by nothing less than Scripture itself (cf. Romans 1)

Refusing to reflect upon issues that call out for reflection is both intellectually irresponsible and dishonoring to God. Getting into the habit of appealing to mystery when it is not appropriate to do so can have a deleterious effect upon your own relationship with God and the public understanding of the Christian message. We must not buy the lie that poor thinking is a victimless crime for Christians, or non-Christians for that matter. The harm that can result from poor thinking or refusing to think for oneself is great indeed. The basics of the Christian faith may be sufficient for initial salvation, but ongoing discipleship and evangelism require much more to be biblical and successful.

So what is the way forward? We must not use the mystery button for a problem that may be resolved by further investigation, and we must not use it as a stop gap for clear absurdities in our positions. There certainly are genuine mysteries in the Christian faith, things that either elude our grasp or present us with a sense that there is far more going on here than we could ever fully understand. But it does not follow from this that within the domain of things God has revealed, there will be something absurd to the person who is sincerely attending to the truth and whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly. Nor are we to use pseudo-spiritual excuses for our lethargic and inappropriate thinking habits. This is not to say that every Christian must be a professional philosopher or theologian, but every Christian is called to think deeply and seriously about their doctrinal commitments. To make consistency and coherence an optional condition for objective truth would result in nothing less than epistemic chaos. We do not need to become increasingly vague, broad, and obscure in our thinking as we deal with increasingly lofty theological issues. Indeed, a clear understanding and proclamation of the gospel requires precisely the opposite.

False notions of piety and false views of the relationship between faith and reason promote poor thinking, and Calvinistic thinkers typically exemplify both of these intellectual vices. Indeed, the frequent affinity between Calvinism and Fideism is unmistakable.

Men, women, home, church, and society

How's that for a title? The church has the pretty serious task of discerning the biblical position on issues surrounding the relationship between men and women. This discussion involves so many facets that must be adequately dealt with in order to come to a fully-orbed and well-thought-out position on the matter: (1) What are the distinctions between men and women beyond physical sex? (2) How much of what the Bible says is culture and time bound, and how much is eternal? (3) What is the relationship of Paul's advice to slaves and his advice to women? (4) Do men and women have differing roles in church, home, or society? (5) If some form of complementarianism is true, what does it mean to be equal in essence but differing in function, and do the differing functions parallel inherent and unfallen differences between the genders? (6) How much of our gender identities is determined by societal norms (how much, if any, is nurture vs. nature?) (7) If some form of egalitarianism is true, in what ways are men and women still different, and how does that affect their function in marriage, church, and society? (8) What is the authority of tradition on this subject? (9) What characteristics generally ascribed to men and women are part of the holy and original created order, and what characteristics are the result of sin? (10) What do the various biblical passages on these subjects teach us today, and how are we to properly exegete them? (11) If women cannot be in leadership positions, what positions of ministry or other parts of life are okay for them and why?

I don't have answers to these questions, but I thought I'd lay them out there. These and many like them must be considered before a sufficiently nuanced and informed view of the relationship between men and women can emerge. The theological tradition of which I am intimately a part has traditionally stood for a more egalitarian view, and in the light of new questions and considerations I have moved from a more complementarian view to witholding judgment for the time being. I need to give a reasoned assessment of the arguments of both sides before I land where I believe the Bible points us on this most critical issue.

Any thoughts on this issue?

Right living presupposes sound doctrine

For those who think the study of doctrine is unimportant beyond the bare basics of Christianity, here is an example of someone whose ministry and practice flows directly out of his explicitly Calvinistic worldview: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&em

At least Driscoll is aware of his theological orientation; those who are unaware of their beliefs operate on the basis of an implicit and unexamined theology, a far more dangerous prospect. The less aware we are of our presuppositions, the more they will govern our thinking and practice in subtle ways without us realizing it. The Bible exhorts us to have sound doctrine for all areas of our Christian lives, friends, and thus we must not downplay the critical importance of seeking out biblical teaching.

A frequently and fantastically misunderstood passage

Few passages from Scripture have been more grossly misunderstood than the following one. In particular, the section in bold has been used by fideists to justify the idea that the Christian message stands in opposition to human reason. Now, there are many different varieties of fideism out there, so I will try to keep my comments as clear as possible so as to convey the type of fideism I reject as unbiblical and unChristian:

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

For it is written,
"I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD" (1 Corinthians 1:18-31).

First, it will be noted that this passage says absolutely nothing about human reason narrowly understood as the cognitive powers of logic and mathematics. As such, this passage cannot be used to support the view that the Christian message, or some part of the Christian message, is somehow logically incoherent, impossible, or absurd. This is not to say we will be able to get a full grasp on all things pertaining to the truths of God. Any adequate conception of deity will no doubt include some things that simply elude our grasp. But it does not follow from this that within the domain of things we do know, we will find some logical or rational absurdity when our cognitive faculties are functioning at their best. If coherence is not a necessary condition for truth (even if it is not a sufficient condition), we are left in the muddy waters of skepticism about God and everything else, since the rules of logic govern and enable all knowledge. This certainly cannot be the Christian view of reason, since Christianity teaches that reason has its origin in the very mind of God.

Second, it's clear that the main point of this passage is that the fundamental value system of the Gospel is at odds with how fallen beings view the world, precisely because a fallen perspective on things is objectively false and foolish (from God's objective viewpoint). Those whose minds have been darkened by sin and who have closed themselves to God's gracious revelation through self-deception will see the Gospel message of cruciform, self-giving love as weak and ridiculous (Nietzsche, anyone?). Their cognitive faculties are not functioning properly; they are blinded to the truth of God by the "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4). There is nothing in here about certain Christian doctrines appearing rationally absurd to those whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly, nor does anything in this passage imply such a thing.

Nor can one derive from Scripture the view that Christianity appears absurd to our minds until one begins to live as a Christian. Entailed by this view is the notion that we must "leap over" something that seems clearly untrue to us (an "absurdity" like the Incarnation) in order to become a Christian and in order for it to begin to make sense. In other words, we have to go against the deliverances of reason in order to become a Christian.

In fact, the Bible teaches the exact opposite view. In Romans 1, we read, "That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:19-22).

In other words, the truth of God is sufficiently clear to all people such that they have to go against what they clearly know in order to turn away from God in self-deceptive depravity. If it appeared absurd to them (and hence, false), it would not at all be evident to them that these things about God are true. Only when human beings refuse God's grace and spiral down into sin do the things of God begin to appear absurd to the fallen intellect, even though they are objectively true and rational. Rather, through a combination of forming beliefs about God in the means of grace and dealing with objections via apologetics (and perhaps even finding positive arguments for God's existence), one will get a sense that they are coming closer to the truth, and this all can be done before one experiences initial salvation by faith. It was for me.

This means that the person who is open to God's revelation will not find himself or herself going against what they clearly know to be true in order to become a Christian. Now, this does not mean that they have to come to a knowledge of God through apologetic reasoning; quite the contrary, as a philosopher/theologian with Reformed epistemological inclinations, I think that God has designed us with certain ways of knowing Him and truths about Him that are immediate and basic (ways which issue in genuine knowledge nonetheless). These truths, however, fit into what we already know about the world; in fact, they give it all a ringing coherence that is intellectually satisfying, not to mention existentially satisfying. Apologetics can help clear away some obstacles and objections to Christian truth (such as logical puzzles involving the Incarnation), and it can also draw the rationally inclined to the truth of God via positive arguments. Only to a closed and evil heart does the Gospel appear absurd, and the opening of one's heart does not require that one first affirm something that appears irrational. There is no intellectual suicide required for Christian conversion, only an attendance to that which we all already know deep down in our hearts due to the image of God in us (that we stand condemned, that God's love is wonderful even though it judges us, that the Gospel is actually the most rationally affirmable truth in the world for those who are willing to hear it because of our immediate and unmistakable sense of its truth). God's grace calls up these truths and places them in front of our eyes so that we might accept them and be redeemed by them.

What we are invited to do in redemption is grab hold of those truths about humanity, God, and the world that God has revealed to us (through special revelation, general revelation, and the witness of the Spirit) and that we understand as true (not "absurd") for both believer and non-believer alike and commit to God in faith. In time, God reveals more to us until we begin to experience salvation. So perhaps there is some truth to the idea that Christianity appears more true to us as we subjectively respond to grace and revelation; surely this kind of knowing is participatory and requires an engagement of the will, even in the context of risk and uncertainty. Faith, after all, can only truly occur in less than full disclosure. One cannot sit back dispassionately and coolly reason their way into being a Christian; there will be some movements of the will along the way.

But I see no Biblical warrant for the idea that Christianity requires persons to make a leap over something that appears irrational to them in order to become a Christian. On the contrary, Christianity makes sense of the world and of the facts of human experience. It also makes the most moral sense (it is the highest morality, even if it does shock us with a depth of love that we are not used to and could never fathom on our own). It does not further the cause of Christ to use vague and misleading language in describing God's truth as absurd or against reason functioning at its best, or to imply that Christianity requires a sacrificium intellectus. This is an unjustified and unbiblical deprecation of God's gift of reason. We can certainly overestimate the power of reason; we need God's direct revelation and the guiding light of the Holy Spirit to arrive at Christian truth. But just the same, let us not devalue reason in a way that makes it look as though Christianity is anything other than an eminently rational religion, properly understood. We have enough of that in a world threatened by irrational and terroristic religion.

Million dollar words and inflexibility

It has been brought to my attention recently by someone who will be named (someone who happens to be quite intelligent and perceptive) that I often use words with which many people will be unfamiliar. To address this, I will try to link up relatively unknown words with dictionary.com (at least the first time I use them) in order to improve the readability of my writing. I don't want to lower the standard for us by discontinuing my use of these words, however, because I think it's better to challenge people to improve their vocabulary at least to some extent. I'm not a genius, so presumably I won't be using words that go over the heads of others all the time. But I do strive to learn and use words that are adequate to express my thoughts.

Also, it has been brought to my attention that at times I appear inflexible in my views. I usually try to exude an amount of confidence that measures up with how certain I am on a subject, but this does not mean I do not consider objections to my views at length or that I am beyond being persuaded to the contrary. I try to admit when something is an open question for me, even when I make the case as forcefully as possible for the side to which I am currently inclined (or when I try to do the same for the opposing side so I do not critique a straw man). At times, I can be unduly defensive in my demeanor out of insecurity, but other times I am just being my passionate self (and still other times, I am so afraid of being judged or hurting someone that I clam up and refrain from disagreeing strongly!). I am, however, rather optimistic about how much we can know about the world, about God, about His revelation, and about what He calls us to do in specific circumstances. So, if I am found making robust knowledge claims, even about things of eternal significance, it's because my theistic epistemology is such that I believe we can know many things with great assurance, even if not with Cartesian certainty. Since I've never heard this adequately refuted, and since I have experienced the satisfaction of arriving at knowledge about these things countless times, I will continue to hold this position.

I hope that clears some of this up. I just know Adam will be thrilled at how cognizant I am being of my audience =)

Verbosity is counter-productive

So since my last post on dialoguing was basically a book due to my tendency to be exhaustive on my blog as I just throw all of my thoughts out there, I thought I'd sum it up.

Really, my entire post can be boiled down to this one point: is it not appropriate to be trenchant when necessary? When something is abhorrent, or irrational, or immoral, or harmful, or a gross distortion of the Gospel, shouldn't we be truthful in our critique of it and thus choose language that is sufficiently strong? We can disagree on what specific instances qualify for such strong speech (what practices or beliefs fit the above characterization), but it's hard to argue that it is not necessary to be trenchant at times (in whatever context God calls, including ecumenical dialogue) in order to be truthful or that it is "un-Christlike" to do so. To soften it in these instances would be to compromise the hard truth, plain and simple, even if it is done in order to avoid offending people or allegedly to be "more effective" (and if the truth is not spoken, you are guaranteeing lack of effectiveness since no one will hear the truth) . These type of strong critiques are bound to offend by their very nature, and that is not at all necessarily a fault of those who proclaim them (prophets and Jesus were both quite unpopular, even in the eyes of most, at times). The frequency of this kind of speech will be person dependent. Professional theologians and philosophers who have their hands deep in controversial issues at great length will find themselves needing to do this more often than your average Joe Christian.

On certain issues, it is impossible to make our message more tolerable or less offensive without at the same time being less truthful. In the case in question, both Collins and I have talked to Spirit-filled Christians (not that being one of those guarantees good judgment) who either were fine with or were supportive of his antics in the talkback session and in class.

This one story is sufficient to show that the appropriateness of speech, just like God's love, is not to be measured by a largely positive response ("being effective"), unless we are willing to say Christ was being un-Christlike. Here is Jesus offending and turning away His own disciples with truth:

John 6:60-66
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it? Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

There, much more swallow-able!

Yours succinctly,

Kyle

A excerpt from a treatise on the fear of man by Franck from Wesley's "A Christian Library"

How's that for a blog title?

"My soul hath been grieved many a time, in the sense of
the apparent corruption, not only of all men in general,
but also of our order in particular. More especially hath
my heart been touched to the quick, when from innume-
rable instances I have been convinced, that the fear of man
is become the epidemical disease of our teachers. For
when I reflected on one hand, with what spirit, with what
joy, with what undaunted courage and boldness, the servants
of God, in the Old and New Testament, set aside all regard
and fear of man, delivering, as the Lord's ambassadors,
their message plainly, and without mincing the matter,
though it exposed them to the apparent hazard of their
lives ; and, on the other, how gently and how softly we go
about it now-a-days ; and how little we manifest the truth to
the conscience of every one : when I moreover considered
how much they suffered with Christ their Lord, for the sake
of their testimony ; and how the most of us take care to
preach so smoothly, as not to incur the least shadow of their
sufferings; all this made the difference between us and
them appear so exceedingly great to me, that I could not
but be amazed and astonished at it. Pardon me, beloved brethren,
if you think me to speak with too much plainness and simplicity;
for I am not at all ashamed to become a " fool for Christ's sake,"
that I may be wise indeed."

This one's for the Calvinists out there

"I appeal to every impartial mind...whether the mercy of God would not be far less gloriously displayed, in saving a few by his irresistible power, and leaving all the rest without help, without hope, to perish everlastingly, than in offering salvation to every creature, actually saving all that consent thereto, and doing for the rest all that infinite wisdom, almighty power, and boundless love can do, without forcing them to be saved, which would be to destroy the very nature that he had given them." -- John Wesley

On point as usual, Mr. Wesley.

More dialogue on dialoging

Over the course of the past few months, much has been written between the bloggers of Existential Faith (Adam) and Preach Faith (yours truly) on the important subject of fruitful and appropriate dialogue. Interest on this issue was sparked by the now infamous ecumenical dialogue at Asbury between Collins on the evangelical side and Hunter on the Roman Catholic side. As the conversation has ensued, I have begun to get the feeling that Adam and I are each pulling the pendulum from differing sides of this issue and that there is actually more agreement than may initially appear between our positions. Obviously there is substantive disagreement too, but I get the sense that we've talked past each other at times due to lack of clarity. I don't intend to replay the issues of the ecumenical dialogue, but I'd like to try to untangle some of the related but distinct flashpoints of the debate that have heretofore been muddled together, as well as make a few new points along the way.

Perhaps a good springboard here would be Adam's latest response to my comments on his latest post on dialogue. Let's go over some things he has said so we can avoid misrepresentation, and also because he has asked me to refrain from responding on his blog. Also, I think it would be better to keep from the pop psychoanalysis that sometimes creeps up into these discussions. Most of us are not psychologists, so we shouldn't be speculating on why someone believes what they believe by diving into their past or peering into their heart. It's a fruitless endeavor that only ends up making people frustrated in the end. I'm going to stick to critiquing views and not people here as much as I can. Time for bullet points.

1) So Adam characterizes behavior he has seen recently as "abject sin," quite strong language. He asks me to consider the opinion of Spirit-filled Christians, and suggests that I have been dismissive of them. Well first, both I and Collins have talked to some Spirit-filled Christians who do not find what I have witnessed to be inappropriate at all, never mind "abject sin" (believe it or not, there is another view out there, both with respect to the talkback session and Collins' classroom antics). Even many of those who would think Collins was too polemical would not go nearly as far as Adam in calling it "abject sin" (I might even be willing to say that at times Collins is stronger than I would ever be, but I'm not sure I'm mature enough to know in every situation what is the proper amount of zeal). Furthermore, I am not dismissive of the views of other Christians in the least, else why would I be listening to Adam and others who disagree with me? Why would I ask other students what they think? For no other reason than to listen to the opinions of others at length and come to my own. If I disagree with them in the end, it is because I have found good reasons to do so. To give a counter example here, I would say the majority of conservative Christians would find the type of music Adam listens to utterly inappropriate for Christians (I disagree on the whole), yet Adam goes against the grain admirably because he doesn't buy it. Does this mean he is being dismissive? Hardly. So this suggestion is far from truthful on Adam's part. There is a crucial difference between disagreeing with opinions and dismissing them, and being Spirit-filled hardly guarantees good judgment anyways (self-confessedly!).

What is also interesting here is that Adam's choice of very strong language is not that different from what we witnessed on that fateful day in which the RC practice of Benediction was labelled idolatry (certainly comparable to "abject sin.") Adam has discerned (rightly, I believe) that he needs to use such forceful language in order to make his point accurately as he sees it, and for that I commend him. This is precisely what I am arguing for in this ongoing debate/discussion: the Christian duty to call such things as we see them in a way that conveys with sufficient clarity and power that which is true. The real issue is whether or not you think Collins' claim was accurate, not that he said it with the directness that he did. Directness is needed quite often when dealing with eternal issues precisely so people hear us and in order to be truthful.

By the way, the notion that Wesleyan folk tend to be gentle Pietists is one I've heard from several places now, not to mention my own extensive experience running in Wesleyan/holiness circles for upwards of 6 years and reading loads of Wesleyan/holiness literature. To cite this as an explanation for much of the negative reaction remains plausible indeed.

2) Quote: "My main point here was not that it is more effective, but that it is clearly less exclusionary (i.e. more people and thereby views will be excluded from the conversation [although in a roundabout way this does imply more heated dialog is less effective, if you measure effectiveness by people actually hearing and receiving your message). I have known so many insightful people who stay clear of people they consider "blowhards" even though they have incredible insights to share. This is a clear case where heated type discourse is more of a stumbling block than calmer forms (although both will turn off at least some people, heated discourse excludes MANY more). My point is that this type of prohibitive turn-off occurs much more frequently than non-debate oriented discourse prohibiting some to participate."

Right, and I think at least part of this is patently false. As I have stated on my blog in other places, it is probably true that more people will be likely to speak up in a more relaxed environment because they will not feel like they are going to be eaten alive. As such, those of us who are more fast-paced and direct should most certainly ease up for such people (and those who are more laid back should be a little thicker - cuts both ways, folks). But it is not at all clear that the outwardly passionate and direct people get less of an audience. The fact that the boldest speakers at our school tend to be the most popular (Collins, Walls, Witherington) is only one of many pieces of evidence to the contrary of what Adam sees as an "obvious" truth. The fact that hundreds and hundreds of people watch and attend debates (even cable news shows, even though I concede that often the time allotted is just not enough to get beyond bare assertions) is another. The impact of people like Luther and Wesley, who were often confrontational, is one more. And to bring up another example within the Arminian/Calvininst debate, the young Calvinists coming in droves to Calvinism due to the confidence displayed in its current advocates is yet another (this is why countless Calvinists have told Walls that he is the first Arminian who acts like he actually believes he is right, and why others have told me that they think he is the best Arminian apologist out there). I have heard far too many testimonies by people who are reached by this style to give assent to Adam's allegedly obvious contention that irenic dialogue is heard by a wider audience. I would say there is about an equal audience for each type, but that he is probably right that we need to calm it down for the insightful and less intense individuals (even though, even here, I have heard many timid individuals question and voice their opinions in front of some pretty beastly professors). I can testify myself to have gained wide audiences when I show myself as bold, assertive, and confident (of course, I'm sure there are times when I've been either too forceful or not forceful enough. Alas, I am only going on to perfection =) ).

Oh, and obviously I don't advocate being a "blowhard" type. I feel like Adam and I often talk past each other because we don't understand what the other person is advocating.

3) Quote: "Unfortunately you seem fairly willing to bring this form of communication into contexts in which it does not belong, which serves to isolate and turn people off to your message rather than convict and draw them in. Most of the time when people discuss they are not looking for a sermon:) So your point does not follow."

I'm not saying we should sermonize or run people over who want to just discuss - after all, I think discussion is one of many important kinds of dialogue needed whenever appropriate (I do not agree that one will predominate. That depends on the type of people you talk to, your profession, your calling - several factors). I'm referring more to being bold, pointed, confrontational, direct, and vigorous where appropriate. A prophet after all is someone who speaks forth, who calls people and practices to account with boldness - and who is often very unpopular.

4) Quote: "The thousands and thousands who purposefully avoid them do make my case quite compelling. I simply do not want them to be carried into contexts that they don’t belong. I do not lament debates, I lament their overuse and domination of the dialog landscape."

Debates where appropriate, this much is obvious. What I am saying is that wherever and whenever the Holy Spirit calls us to be all of the above mentioned adjectives, that's where we are to be that way, wherever it is. Not just in a church, not just behind the pulpit, not just in a debate. If we say otherwise, we basically guarantee that discussions and other kinds of discourse will be softball and domesticated. If a subject comes up that requires trenchant critique, we will stifle the correcting voice of the Holy Spirit or Scripture. And for the record, I think such speech is utterly appropriate if sin or error comes up in ecumenical dialogue, as it was in the rest of church history.

And what about the thousands upon thousands who love bold speakers? That's what I'm advocating. Once again, obviously I am not saying we should just be unloving jerks.

5) Quote: "Here is where you are most certainly wrong (how’s that for assertive and blunt)"

Refreshing and edifying!!! =)

6) Long Quote: "Discussing similarities and struggling to discover and re-discover areas of overlap can create vast, very involved and very fruitful discussions. I have had many of them with people ranging from Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Fundamentalists and the lists goes on. In fact, I have actually had longer and more fruitful conversations focusing on areas of synthesis, understanding and similarity (without compromising truth or either party’s doctrine) than with any form of more debate oriented or argumentative dialog. This is not to slight debate, but as my experience and others who I spoken with affirms, this type of dialog is very fruitful and quite involved. So your claim that it will “not issue forth in much of a discussion is clearly dis-proven in the experience of others. Perhaps your inability to see this, or the lack of this experience in your or other’s lives, is more a sad commentary on the state of dialog and discourse than an indication of what is possible. We are Christians empowered with the Spirit, we are capable of so much more than rehashing differences (which is valuable as a component of dialog moving forward in unity and truth, but not the whole of this as you wrongly assert). Far from being the only way to advance in unity and truth, “looking at where we differ,” is actually only one element in this task. Without substantive synthetic efforts we will not move forward in unity or truth one iota."

I think you make a good case that swimming deeply in the traditions of others can be fruitful and enlightening. But it's hard for me to see how you can do this too long without hitting upon points of irreconcilable differences. Focusing on similarities does not actually move the discussion forward at all, it just gets you up to date, which as I have affirmed heartily before is utterly necessary. It may help you understand your position and the position of others, which prepares us for closing the gap as it stands, but there will come a point where you can't go forward unless you lay differences on the table.

Moreover, we can't help but be confrontational when we are discussing most controversial issues, and the most important issues are usually the most controversial ones. And especially when we are dealing with religious issues in which truth affects souls, very often these are not things we can be both "civil" and truthful about. Calling out sin and error like it is means that often, civility and truth will be mutually exclusive. We cannot sacrifice the full weight of the truth just so less people will be offended, for then the truth will go unsaid and those who would hear will not hear it.

The Roman Catholics need to hear that they distort the gospel with layer upon layer of confusing tradition. The Fundamentalists need to hear that their anti-intellectualism is hurting the church deeply. The Muslims need to hear that their religion is false and that they are worshiping the wrong god whom they have co-opted from Christians. Agnostics and atheists need to hear that their worldview leads to moral anomie and meaninglessness, and that they are in the end being irrational. These are all tough truths that need to come out, truths that will indeed be compromised if we prefer civility over truth (even if these two do coincide at times - not every point about our differences has to be offensive, but some necessarily will be if we are being truthful). Isn't it nice that we agree on so many things? Perhaps, but it's the differences that are keeping these people from the truth - and some of them from salvation! These issues have to be raised if we are going to pull them over to the truth, otherwise we will just continue in cordial affirmations. Dialogue that is affirmative is fruitful insofar as it educates us and fosters mutual understanding. It is not fruitful in raising the critical issues that divide and solving them. How could it be if the issues are not raised?

7) Quote: "It does not take much sophistication for one to ascertain that a publicly proclaimed evangelical Protestant does not swallow Roman Catholic Dogma whole. Or that a Wesleyan does not affirm all that Calvin has to offer. Perhaps if someone does not know who I am, a brief introduction would be required. But if one of my pastors or teachers at the seminary affirms a Roman Catholic understanding, I think it would strain credulity to somehow come to the conclusion, “He must affirm most everything Roman Catholic.” Again the problem is that some people are incapable of doing this, which points more to insecurity on their part than a need for clarity."

Well yeah, there is no need to qualify all the time - as you said, only to the uninitiated (which happens a lot of you talk to new people all the time). We should and must simply affirm good things about traditions - something, just for the record, that Collins has done on multiple occasions without qualification even for Roman Catholicism (I know, aren't I just the token Collins apologist? He's one of the main reasons I came to Asbury! But afraid to criticism him or any other person I respect, I am not).

But qualifications are often necessary. On many occasions people have misunderstood me as affirming more than I desire or denying more than I desire. Also, as I said, when two theological traditions are vying for supremacy, it needs to be said that you need not be a Calvinist to believe in grace, even if you affirm that Calvinists are great at affirming grace (something I have done with Calvinists before, even in an unqualified way! =) ).

8) Quote: "My point is that if the majority find a certain dialog appalling and un-Christ like, this is a good indication that the communication was ineffective (i.e. the majority of the audience did not receive the message or even listen that closely because of the ineptitude of the speaker)...So while the majority opinion certainly does not always indicate the truth; in this matter it certainly indicates if a communication was effective or not."

And here is where I think you are most certainly mistaken. The majority of people reject the Gospel as ridiculous, does that mean it is inherently ineffective or that there is something wrong with the content of the message? Most people hated and hate Jesus and what He truly stands for according to Scripture, does that mean He is to be blamed for not being effective with most people (I address your bogus contention that the real Jesus is admired by most people below)?

But most fundamentally, there are several possible reasons for ineffectivity (if I may be so bold so as to invent a word), not all of which are traceable back to the speaker. Some people are simply unprepared to receive a bold and strong message for several possible reasons. One of those reasons is just that they are of a different personality, and you are surely right that we have to make sure to accommodate our audience to a degree. Another is that people have different views as to what ecumenical dialogue should allow, as you and I seem to have. Another is that they simply don't understand how grave the issues are, so they judge the language and tone as utterly inappropriate (for such people, perhaps an irenic discussion is necessary for us to get on the same page =) ). There are just so many reasons why a group of low church protestants relatively unfamiliar with the erroneous doctrine and harmful effect of Roman Catholic practice would find Collins' trenchant remarks inappropriate that it is far from obvious that the fault is to be laid on the speaker.

Oh, and un-Christlike? Maybe if you think Jesus was always a non-confrontational lamb who never raised His voice, flipped over tables in the temple, or got angry. But that's not the Jesus of the New Testament. Besides, if we come to the conclusion that someone's behavior is so blatantly sinful, it is our Christian duty to try to get them to see the error of their ways.

At times, the truth is inherently offensive no matter how it is said, even to most people as the offense of the cross is, and one cannot change it to "be more effective" without changing the content of the message itself into something less pungent and therefore less than truthful. One can emasculate it in order to "be more effective," but then truth is lost on those who are willing to hear it, and consequently effectiveness is also lost. Just as God's love is not measured by our response, the truth's effectiveness is not measured by our receptivity to it.

9) Quote: "And seriously Kyle, you were there, that event turned into something akin to a circus. I would be interested in speaking with anyone who was there and has a positive appraisal. I have talked to many faculty and students and not come across one single positive appraisal. And I will also reiterate that the only one who seemed to “misunderstand the event” was the evangelical party. In that case he should simply humbly apologize instead of shamefully castigating those who are rightly ashamed of his actions."

More very strong and pointed language from Adam, again not of an entirely different order from that fateful day at all. I don't fault him for it at all of course, just pointing out what I perceive to be a double standard. By the way, your continued insinuation that the evangelical party was somehow being malicious is really uncharitable. There is no way you could know his motives for doing what he did, so it's just pure conjecture on your part.

Circus? It was lively and people got offended, but circus? Seriously Adam, hardly. Let's go back in time 1500 years and see how "circus-y" the earliest ecumenical dialogues were! I remember reading in Documents of the Christian Church about how Arians were castigated as heretics and ejected! The problem here is that the prevailing model for saints is no longer Wesley, Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Paul, or Jesus, but something else I know not what. And as I said, there absolutely are positive appraisals out there if you look for them (obviously, people aren't going to be complaining if they didn't have an issue with it). Indeed, I heard a couple right after the event, and have heard more since (and more negative ones, to be fair). I still maintain that people just don't get how serious the issues are, even if I end up saying that Collins was a bit too strong - and if I am going to grant that he was, it was not at all by a wide margin.

As far as misunderstanding it, our generation doesn't know a dialogue aimed at truth when they see one, apparently. They also don't recognize the need to vigorously defend truth and doctrine. They seem to prefer the route that raises the least ire. So as I see it, those at our seminary who felt Collins was far out of line are the ones who don't understand what fruitful and truthful dialogue requires in the face of sin and error, or they just are clueless as to the seriousness of the issues at hand. There have been many situations in which I felt that seminary teachers have missed the boat on this front. There is no reason to apologize for speaking the truth, and certain things require some forceful language in order to be accurate.

In the end, I find your moralistic assertions here to be no less strident than what I've heard from Collins, so I am puzzled as to what your protestations against "browbeating" and so forth actually are.

10) Quote: "That’s a shame, because if the majority of your audience does not receive your communication, then chances are it was ineffective. If you are talking simply to talk, then no problem. If you are talking to communicate Gospel truth, there is a big problem."

If people refuse to understand the seriousness of the issues, it will be difficult to get them to get it, especially in a postmodern world. Of course, we should try all kinds to get through to people, which includes calm discussion. But you cannot just keep accommodating your speech ad infinitum to the culture to the point where you are basically speaking watered-down non-truth. As Scripture says anyways, the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, and many people will sadly perish without Christ in the end. The truth is often hard for most to bear, even if I agree in principle that we need to be cognizant of our audience to a degree. If we continue to conform to the culture, we will soon not be saying much at all (and while Christians are often ignorant and too militant, more often in our postmodern world they are far too indulgent).

If there is one person who realizes how harmful a certain practice is because of a trenchant critique, and 10 who know nothing about it who are turned off by what they perceive to be "browbeating," I'd say it was worth it. Once again, there are many reasons to account for someone being ineffective that have nothing to do with the speaker. I agree that we are to pull out unnecessary road blocks, but sometimes it's most people who have planks in their eyes (you should not be unfamiliar with disagreeing with most, as I've heard you do it before).

11) Quote: "Actually no, the teachings of Christ have sparked the largest religion in the world and he had droves of followers even while he was alive. Even among secular folk, Jesus has largely a good name and appraisal. So again, Christ’s example makes my point not yours. Also, I would again caution the one to one correlation between the dialog of Jesus and our current religious dialog. You seem to be lifting certain isolated events out of context and using them to normatize a type of dialog, that if we take Jesus’ ministry as whole, is quite limited. There is a big difference between defying the Roman empire or attempting to break the assert the coming of the Messiah to Jews and debating some point of doctrine among spirit filled, professed Christians."

According to the Bible, most people do and will reject Jesus. Sure, people may think He's a good guy on the surface, but that's because they don't grasp how He condemns them. He was hated by many and ignored by many more when He was alive. And I am extremely dubious that the numbers that make Christianity the largest religion are at all reflective of genuine followers of Jesus anyways. The Gospels and the parables also make it clear that many of those "droves" ended up falling away and had superficial, miracle-loving faith.

And no, I don't think Jesus was offensive less often than not. I'm not just speaking about his use of epithets, but his general tendency to call things as they were with forthright and confrontational honesty. I think that since the Bible calls us to be Christlike, this is entirely relevant, and you have yet to produce arguments that are persuasive to the contrary.

12) Quote: "I have seen you defend behavior that borders on invective. That is what I am responding to. I am glad you reject invective now."

Once again, it all depends upon what you mean by invective. Hateful? Hating what? A vicious practice like evil speaking? Then rail away, I say. Hating people? No, of course not. Loving people, hating the evil that they do. Telling people that they are basically cowards if they refuse to criticize you to your face but instead repeat your faults to other people as a source of entertainment (evil speaking) ? Sounds like the truth to me, and I know three persons off hand who felt that the rebuke in question was not out of line. The church needs a strong rebuke against such a vicious practice. It is chastening. We just have to make sure we are not ignorant, blind, or hateful in our zeal.

13) Quote: "But, the measure of appropriateness is how many people actually listen to/hear you, IF, your goal is effective communication of Gospel truth. You are right to say a positive appraisal is not essential for appropriateness, unfortunately, if people have an overly negative appraisal of your presentation, more often than not they will ignore or only partially receive your argumentation. So MOST OFTEN a positive appraisal of presentation (not necessarily material) will be necessary for appropriate communication (which I assume is communication appropriate to purpose, which is to communicate Gospel truth, or in other venues a specific argument, effectively)."

Appropriateness is measured by how many people listen to you or hear you??? How does that follow?? According to this logic, whenever Jesus turned people away from the Gospel and caused them to be angry instead of persuaded, he was being inappropriate! The purpose needs to be to be truthful and honest for those who are open to hear, irrespective of how many people do not hear us! If being 100% truthful requires a trenchant presentation that will turn many off, so be it. The truth sometimes offends by its very nature if we speak it with sufficient honesty and strength (the message of the cross is foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews - do we remove the stumbling block? Gal 5:11). That is much to be preferred than watering down the truth so that no one hears it, but instead hears something else.

Just how much do we water down the truth, Adam, in order to be "heard effectively?" Just how much can we be circumspect until we are fudging it and compromising? This is where I fear your methodology of predominating calmness will lead. Truth and love will be sacrificed at the altar of the non-Christian virtue of civility and avoiding offense. As usual I agree in principle that we are to be cognizant of our audience to a degree, but often enough there are people who simply will not hear for a variety of possible reasons already listed - and that cannot stop us from saying it for the sake of those who will hear it. Such people need better models of Christian discourse from Christianity's past, and to accommodate them too greatly will produce a generation of gutless and milquetoast individuals who think it's more important to be nice than be a new creation. I also agree that we need to be sure we are not turning people off unnecessarily by just yelling at people all the time (sometimes it's actually necessary intentionally to befuddle them to expose their heart or spiritual dullness, as Jesus did with parables). And as for just what tone is best for every situation, that is something I can only learn as time goes on.

But contrary to your assumption, the simple fact that most people get turned off by a speaker is hardly necessarily a fault of the speaker. And as I have said, you can't soften your presentation on some things without softening what you are saying (if you consider diction and tone part of presentation). The words chosen and the tone displayed are part of the actual message and convey a message of their own, namely, just how serious these issues are. Trenchant language and presentation are required to critique anything that warrants such a strong critique. If people don't hear it, it is hardly necessarily the fault of the speaker.

14) Quote: Point taken. I guess I am just confused because you have in the past defended dialog that was “browbeating”, un-Christlike and clearly ineffective. I agree with you in principle, but applied to actual examples of dialog I distrust your judgment, unless I misunderstood you in the past.

Whether or not said dialog is to be characterized as "browbeating" or "un-Christlike" is the very question at hand, and your assertion here is that it was is really little more than that. I and some others largely disagree with you, for reasons listed.

Finally, the issue here is not "heat" as much as it is a willingness to be confrontational where necessary. Heat is simply an often inevitably result of speaking strongly against or for a topic that is weighty (and contrary to what you have said before, I don't think we should hold back just because weighty issues strike at the core of people's worldview. In fact I think nearly the opposite is the case). So very often I have seen opportunities in which strong speech would have made a strong impact, but the opportunity was passed by for whatever reason - perhaps because it would bring up too much confrontation and heat? Also, I still maintain that personality is a bigger component here than we are allowing, given the main person under discussion here is a freakin' New Yorker and most people here have Southern and Wesleyan pastoral sensibilities. Should he, or I, change? Perhaps to a degree if God calls us to. Maybe people just need to be more charitable in their interpretation and more appreciative of the diversity in the body of Christ. We need polemicists, apologists, prophets, the fiery ones. We need the pastoral, the discussion-oriented, the gentle types - and we need to learn and rely upon each other as well to keep each member in step.

It is of course possible that I am covering up some character flaw by vain reasoning, just as it is possible that an advocate of the other side is covering up a parallel flaw. All we can do is continue to reason, read Scripture, look to church tradition, and pray for God's guidance. In the meantime, I trust and believe on the basis of Christian love that hopes first, and on the basis of what I know of all parties involved, that each and every person in this discussion is being obedient to God up to the light that they have. If anything I have said was taken in a hurtful way, I would hope it would be brought to my attention so I can clarify my meaning. But other than that, we need to leave the conviction to God. Let's continue our journey towards a deeper knowledge of God's truth and God's ways.

Yours loquaciously in grace and truth,

Kyle

Moving

I often wonder why I am moved by certain things, whether it's to tears, to longing, or what have you. There are certain themes and certain pieces of music that evoke incredibly intense emotions in me, one of them being this piece from Star Wars:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiWoEJBO148

At about 2:40 I begin to get goosebumps. The melody is so beautiful that it is impossible to analyze. I simply find myself beholding the beauty and almost feel moved to worship. Melodies like this feel like they come from another world, from a place of utter purity and goodness. And I'm sure you can guess from where I think they ultimately derive - the beauty of God and His wonderful creativity. These are the moments in which I most keenly feel the longing and the holy desire that are so characteristic of my encounters with God.

I cannot put my finger on why I am moved by the particular things that move me. Perhaps God has made us all to enjoy certain aspects of His majesty. Maybe our experiences play a part in our spiritual formation and inform what sides of God's glory we desire most. Maybe it's the eternal themes associated with this music in the Star Wars universe that enhances its beauty and calls to mind wonderful things. Whatever the explanation is, experiences like these are just too uncannily beautiful to be mistaken for anything but reflections of the God of holy love.