Not Rocket Science

Have you heard the proverb: "As wise as atheists and as stupid as bishops"? Read the following, and all will be made clear...

Someone asked Christopher Hitchens (the well-known atheist) the following question: "I'm a liberal Christian, and I don't take the stories from the Scripture literally. I don't believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make any distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?"

Hitchens replied: "I would say that if you don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, that he rose again from the dead, and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven you're really not in any meaningful sense a Christian".

From the mouths of renegades...

In contrast to Mr Hitchens' sentiments, let us now hear from the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA. In 2009, Schori spoke about "the great Western heresy". This heresy is the teaching "that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God... That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being."

Enough said.

Charitable Orthodoxy

Mark Young of Denver Seminary writes:

"At Denver Seminary we believe that there's a better way for those with strong convictions to interact with others. We call it charitable orthodoxy...

Charitable orthodoxy is the third of five Core Commitments that define Denver Seminary. It means that we are committed to the core doctrines that have defined Christianity for centuries. We cling to these great truths of our faith for they frame our understanding of God, of the world in which we live, and His work in it. Furthermore, we confess these great truths as the way forward for those trapped in the mire of indifference and relativism. Around our common confession we engage in gracious and serious conversations about faith and life. Sometimes we disagree with one another about the interpretation of particular passages, about theological issues of secondary importance, about the expression of Christian ethics in public life, and about the application of Scripture to ministry. At all times, however, we are committed to be a community that relates to one another charitably, with a penchant to listen before speaking and a desire to learn that trumps the instinct to defend and to tell...

Our commitment to orthodoxy means that we believe passionately in the truths that Christians have confessed in every generation and on every continent. But passionate belief must never eclipse compassionate engagement with those who do not see the truth as we see it. In the life of a Christian, there is no room for demeaning and disrespectful behavior toward others. The integrity of our faith and witness demands charity toward all people. Being charitable toward another is more than being polite; it means seeking the good of others, even those who misunderstand you, malign you and even seek to harm you..."

Two comments:

(1) "with a penchant to listen before speaking and a desire to learn" - this is excellent advice. Karl Popper once said that before criticising a position that you disagree with, you should try and understand (and even state) the case for that position at its most powerful; then you have earned the right to oppose it with all your mental energy.

(2) "there is no room for demeaning and disrespectful behavior toward others" - a fair point. Opposing a problematic Christian by calling him "an ignorant and devious character who destroys the lives of vulnerable people and milks them for every cent they possess", sounds entirely unacceptable, but WHAT IF YOUR OPPONENT IS INDEED an ignorant and devious character who destroys the lives of vulnerable people and milks them for every cent they possess? What do you do then? - speak the truth or hide the truth?

C.S. Lewis and Roman Catholicism

Patrick Chan writes on Triablogue (12 October 2011):

The following quote is (I think) from C.S. Lewis in his book Christian Reunion and Other Essays: "The real reason why I cannot be in communion with you [Roman Catholics] is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but also to what he is going to say."

A Question About the Book of Acts

Justin Taylor asks an important question (and one which is relevant to some of the disagreements between Pentecostals and Reformed people):

How Do We Know What's Normative in the Book of Acts?

Obviously there are normative things in Acts: the best example I can think of is the "kerygma" doctrines that you find in the speeches of Peter. More difficult to answer, however, is the question: "Are particular stories or events in Acts recorded because they were important (and mostly once-off and unrepeatable) phenomena in early church history, or were they recorded because they serve as valid and enduring patterns which the church down the ages is obliged to follow?"

Orthodoxy, the Gospel and Salvation

Have a look at this article by Brian LePort (on the "Near Emmaus" blog):

Is Rejection of the Doctrine of the Trinity a Rejection of the Gospel?

The Wisdom of Osteen

Would you buy a used car from this man???

Joel Osteen (relevant keywords include: shallow, smiling, feelgood, megachurch, pretty-boy) was recently interviewed by Piers Morgan.

Here are two quotes from Osteen (thanks to Al Mohler for the exact wording):

(1) On capital punishment: "You know, it's a complicated issue, Piers. I haven't thought a whole lot about it but, of course, you know, and I'm for second chances and mercy, yet, the flip side is there's consequences for what we've done and, so, I - I don't know what my total stance is..."

(2) On a moral link between abortion and capital punishment: "Well, I think there could be when you say may or may not. You know, that's the troublesome thing, if we don't know for sure and, you know."

Wow. This is the man who casually announces that he wants to write a book, and the Christian publishers savage each other to be the first to advance Osteen a million dollars before he has put pen to paper. What is the world coming to?

Nonetheless, Osteen's burblings are a model of clarity when compared with the immortal statement of Doug Pagitt. During a radio interview, Doug (who is an Emergent Christian) was asked about the doctrine of hell, and he uttered these words:

"I think that there's ... I think there's all kinds of ... I mean that, that, damnation would sort of be that ... that there's parts of the uh, life in creation that seems to be counter to what God is doing and those are the things that are eliminated and removed and done away with. And so I think that's what damnation is, and so there's people who want to live out that kind of uhm, wanna have that good judgment - the judgment of God in their life. I mean you know judge ... judgment in a biblical fashion meaning that God remakes ... that God remakes the world."

Way to go, Doug.

You Can't Be Serious . . .

I have just learned that Patricia King is qualified to teach the Glory School, because:

(a) She has experienced angel orbs (they appear in different colors, and some are "tingly").

(b) She has encountered the blue flame.

(c) She can roar like a lion (it's easier if you go down on all fours).

(d) She has met the angel called Purity (who takes the form of a white eagle with piercing eyes).

(e) She goes into trances (during which you can travel to distant places in the spirit).

(f) She trains her students to raise the dead (her students visit mortuaries to see what might happen).

(g) She sees third heaven experiences as an ordinary occurrence (like Todd Bentley and Bob Jones, Patricia regularly visits the third heaven).

(h) She promotes levitation as a sign and wonder.

(i) She has seen the great outpouring of gold (not only gold dust, but also diamond glitter, angel feathers, and sacred oil).

Where do they dig up these appalling clowns?

For more details, see this post on the "Beyond Grace" blog.

Theses For a Reformation

Mark Thompson, an evangelical Anglican who teaches theology at Moore College in Sydney, has proposed some theses for a new reformation in the Anglican Communion.

Chantry Writes To MacDonald

Here is Tom Chantry (pastor of a small church) writing an open letter to James MacDonald (pastor of a large church). MacDonald is a council member of the Gospel Coalition and is also the main host at the Elephant Room.

MacDonald has recently been opposed (by some) and commended (by others) for inviting the appalling T.D. Jakes to participate in an upcoming discussion at the Elephant Room. Tom's purpose in his open letter is not to hammer MacDonald about the Jakes invitation (though Tom does mention this briefly); Tom's main purpose is to ask MacDonald what is really going on at the large church which MacDonald is responsible for...

By the way, MacDonald likes Beth Moore. Moore is clearly better than Cindy Jacobs or Paula White, but that's not saying much at all, is it?

Major versus Minor

On 3 October, Roger Olson said on his Patheos blog:

"I well remember when Jay Kessler, then head of Youth for Christ and president of Taylor University came to the college where I taught and decried this growing tendency among evangelicals to shoot at each other over relatively minor points of doctrine and practice... He was a powerful voice for moderation among evangelicals for many years, but either people weren't listening or he just didn't raise his voice loudly enough. But I know he was passionately opposed to this tendency to major in the minors..."

Roger has a point. We all get tired of people obsessing about what we see as minor or trivial issues. But the question worth asking is: "What are the criteria by which we can distinguish between 'major things' and 'minor things'?" Until we know that, we languish in a world where one evangelical's minor is another evangelical's major and vice versa...

Any suggestions?

As far as Christian doctrine is concerned, what do you think of Mohler's threefold scheme that starts with the most important doctrines and ends with the least important: (1) First-order doctrines (e.g. the deity of Christ, justification by faith); (2) Second-order doctrines (e.g. the meaning and mode of baptism); and (3) Third-order doctrines (e.g. premill, postmill and amill positions in eschatology)?

Also useful are Michael Patton's suggestions for distinguishing between essentials and non-essentials in doctrine.