Western Christianity vs. Openness and Honesty

It has been a long, long time since I have posted. I have been overwhelmed with my academic endeavors much of the past year, and have embraced the breaks I have gotten. However, this post is a product of passion. I am frustrated with many in the Church I interact with, and incredibly disappointed with some of my encounters over the last year. And thus, I must speak out in some way. (I warn this is an act of passion because I will rant and possible over-react. But so be it).

I will speak of a few encounters (of course without mentioning names) of which I have been disappointed by the impression either the Church or common American Christian culture has made on some people I care about deeply.

In the first, I sat in on a class of a professor at Liberty I really enjoyed and admired. His Biblical knowledge seemed to be quite impressive and his godly teaching as well. However, as I sat in on the lecture, all I heard was prideful bashing of the "liberals." The liberals seemed to end up being defined as those who don't agree with Independent Baptist ideals and Biblical interpretation. The second involved a conversation with a friend who used to live on my dorm, which involved him accusing my professor at seminary being "unfit for ministry" because of a Christian liberty he participated in. The last was a conversation in which I was accused of being a "pinhead liberal" who was not worth associating with because I claimed that as much evil has been done in the world in the name of Christianity as in Islam. You have got to love friends.

It is not these encounters that upset me. It is the larger picture I see, and the overwhelming experience I have had especially at Liberty. It seems that many Christians are on the defensive. They are scared, of anything and everything that is not what they believe. This is not just in issues of orthodoxy, such as the nature of Christ, but in political views and incredibly difficult issues. But there is not room for a dialogue. No room for discussion. The door is locked. The problem with always having the door locked is that you never know who you are keeping out, maybe even the truth, or Christ himself. And you do not know who is inside, perhaps the Devil himself.

But we are arrogant as American Christians. The little theology we know is all there is. What has been refreshing at Gordon Conwell is an openness to listen, to be wrong, to perceive the remote possibility that we could possibly be wrong in something. But anyone who is a Democrat, or believes in evolution, is automatically thrown out of the discussion. Not just their view on that subject either, but the entirety of their ideas with them.

The problems with this defensive approach to our beliefs are many. For one, it proves we have little faith in our beliefs. The more you protect something, the less you believe it can stand on its own. Also, it alienates others from the Church. It causes division upon division. It paints the picture that the world sees of narrow-minded Christianity. In a pluralistic world, the voice of Christianity is almost always rejected not because of its claims, but because of the attitudes of its proponents.

Certainly, there is a lot a stake here. For to be open to another's beliefs is difficult. Where do you draw the line? Where is there a break between orthodoxy and heresy, between something that is permissible and something that is destructive and cancerous. I can't say exactly. My appeal is not for a change in my friends views. In the last year, mine have hardly if at all changed. What I am asking for is for someone to listen. For people in the Church to be willing to hear what another person has to say without rehearsing their prepared response in their head, without their pre-scheduled polemics and counter-arguments. The Reformers fought violently (sometimes sinfully so) for their beliefs, but they heard the other man's words. If the Church is to avoid the corruption of its past, it members cannot blindly listen to only their pastors and teachers as authorities and avoid all others. That is how the Church supported the corrupt practices of the papacy without outcry for centuries.

I find it ironic that those in Evangelical Christianity who are so quick to call Mormans and Jehovah's Witnesses ignorant and brainwashed are the same people who would never read a commentary or theologian they knew they would disagree with, who do not question the stances of their Church or denomination. What is to keep them from ending up down a path of deception as well? As for most of us, only the grace of God has kept us on the right path; but we have not done our part whatsoever.

Surely, the Gospel is at stake. But it seems to be at stake either way, for it seems often our minds are close to Jesus but our hearts are far from Him.

I'm Alive (I think)

Anyone who reads this, which is no one, will have to forgive me for my lack of posting. Life has been slightly insane to say the least as of late. I had an online course on Ethics that ended last Monday that I did a million hours of work for, and also I have been working a lot more hours than I am supposed to be (stupid boss), but nevertheless protecting people from caffeine deprivation.

I still intend on posting on success (thanks Victoria for responding and Caleb for making me look like a morn - don't be so smart when you respond to me! just kidding). I also wanna try and post this summer some book reviews of some books I have really enjoyed this school year. The list probably will be "Back to Virtue" by Peter Kreeft (evangelical Catholic), Malcolm X by Alex Haley, possibly Innerancy by Sproul (I know I am such a fundamentalist), and some others. Should be fun.

I just finished a whole lot of work, and have some time off so maybe I will post soon. Sucks because I haven't had internet in my apartment for about a month now. Makes this much more difficult to say the least.

I am leading worship at an Easter service on Sunday. That should be interesting. There will be live baptisms going on and being broadcast on the screens while I lead. It will for sure b e different, but I am excited. Hope you all enjoy your Easter weekend, and hopefully not as much but nevertheless, March Madness! Go Hoyas!

Don't Call it a Comeback

Ok, so its been awhile. And by awhile, I mean a long while. I am sorry for such a hiatus.

Life has been interesting. I was home for an extended amount of time...almost 2 months...for break. It was nice being home, but probably not the best time for me spiritual. Had some relationship ups and downs. Highlight of break was spending so much time with Robert and strengthening our friendship.

Now I am back up in Mass for the semester. The new semester is filled with new stresses, namely an unbelievably large work load. I am in four courses, but really five because one ends in a month - which is the main cause of my stress. My reading list is like Mike Tysons wrap sheet. My courses are as follows

Christian Ethics (finishing that one up)
Systematic Theology II
Life and Theology of Karl Barth
Christianity and the Postmodern World
Greek I (something like that I don't know the real title)

Anyways, in terms of the spiritual, things are on a steady upswing from a deep pit. I am getting involved in worship, increasing accountability, etc. It is cool. Getting to know some cool guys up here from the school. Should be a great semester with some discipline.

Went on a road trip down to NC for Greg's wedding...which was a weekend that involved something like almost 30 hours of driving and was draining but good to see everyone for the most part.

That is a brief update. Its two months so give me a break, this isn't a journal Anyways, on to the important thing.

PLEASE IF YOU READ THIS RESPOND

I really would like to know how people define success. If you read this blog, I would appreciate an honest response to this question and hopefully a subsequent post will follow on the subject. I am not trying to make this a trick question. How do you honestly define success, or more specifically, what must happen or occur in your life to make you define it as a success at this current moment. Your response can be more immediate or more long-term. Just let me know.

Until later, peace out.

I think, therefore I am crazy (Who is winning the game to kill people in Uganda)

I haven't posted in quite some time. In this post, I am just going to jot down some of my recent thoughts in bullet form.

- First, on a serious note, I would like the mourn the death of Sean Taylor. I don't mention the Redskins in this blog much for some reason (though I am obsessed), but the tragic shooting and passing of Sean Taylor came as quite a suprise to everyone. I know, I know, there are tragedies everywhere everyday. Taylor was just freakish though in his physical abilities. The perfect blend of speed and strength, he seemed indestructible. More tragic is that he was just turning around his life over the past year or two, which was before marked by constant trouble (arrests, etc.). He left behind an 18 month year old girl. Maybe one day he could have been in the Hall of Fame. Such a sad thing.

- It is December 1st, which I have decided is like my New Years. Any changes I want to make, I would like to start now, getting some momentum going into next year. I really had a lot of goals for this year, all of which failed miserably. It was not a great year spiritually, or in any other discipline, and I hope to turn that around next year. Here goes!

- The "i" key was broken on my keyboard and I just got it fixed. Lots of words have "i" in it. Having no "i"key is annoying.

- There aren't a lot of Einsteins. In my field, there are not a lot of Barths, or Calvins, or Boenhoffers. My question is, is this because these people were so special, or because almost everyone gives up trying to be something great. I feel like between ages 18-22 I hear a lot ambition on what people want to be. I feel like between 23-80 I see a lot of compromise and giving up. Am I not going to be Karl Barth because I will eventually give up wanting to be something great, or people I actually am not great. People need to learn to take risks. Life is not a cost-benefit analysis, it is a symphony, and nothing is beautiful about being mundane or scared.

- I am realizing (this is not an attack on anyone in particular) the kind of people I want to be around, and the kind of people I don't. I want to be around people who burn (see my facebook for the quote one this). I want to be around passionate people, who enjoy life. Not just the exciting things, but the things we have relegated as mundane and trite. Conversely, I do not want to be around those who are lazy, apathetic, bored or uninterested. I am tired of these people. I am tired of being around people who are dramatic, who cannot see outside themselves. I wanna be around people who have concerns for the world.

- I was going to make a post called "Who is Winning the Game to kill Uganda." I made it a subtitle because I think it attracts interest. I was watching the Republican debates the other day. I hate politics, and generally don't find them interesting (although now I find them becoming progressively more interesting). The format was people asking questions through youtube, some of which proved the stupidity of Americans (one guy dogmatically asked 4 times if he believed every word of the Bible, holing the Bible up to the screen (as if that is essential for office); another asked what they thought about the confederate flag)). First of all, why do we ask stupid questions like that. We are choosing someone to run our country, and impact billions around the world. Infuriatingly ignorant. Anyways, what was interesting and why I am writing about this is that all talk about the debate and analysis sounding similar to the sport talk I hear everyday. It was about who won, who came out looking good, who's argument beat the others. However, I heard no analysis on the actual issues. No one asked if the candidates arguments seemed morally right. There is no analysis on the actual impact these issues have. Instead, Huckabee looked good because he was the most humorous, and others looked bad because of their personal attacks on each other. Also, why do we only care about their views. What about their ability to reason, their intelligence, their bravery. Do you this a possibly terrorist attack on the World Trade center was an area of debate when Bush was running? No. We need to care more about the President's ability to tackle new issues that they will undoubtedly encounter. Instead, we use even the choosing of our President as another form (as if we need more) of entertainment. I can't wait to see who wins the game. In the meantime, as we have our fun, we are making a decision that effects the poor in our country and the poor in Uganda and the persecuted in Iraq. But its all a game, right?

- Sorry, that was kind of a post. I bought a new grinder and a new french press today. Woot. And a journal, which I hope to use so I can voice things I couldn't voice here.

- I am not sleeping tonight or Sunday night in preparation for a final.

- Going home has now not become something I long for. I like it here. I am not at all the same socially here as there, but that can be nice. Much more reflection and personal time.

- Lastly, I am tired of people questioning me moving to Boston. I keep hearing about how I should have stayed at Liberty. It makes sense. I was going to grad school for free, I had tons of friends I could hang out with, it was easier, and I would have been done possibly two years earlier. You know why it doesn't make sense? My post earlier. That involves no risk, no challenging myself, no growth. It is the easy path. I have never once here really asked if I am supposed to be here. I am not saying its wrong for other people to go to LTS or anything, but for me it isn't, and social, financial, and academic comforts were not going to tempt me from what I needed for God's path for me. The comforts of Egypt were a lot more tempting than the desert. I'm just saying.

I was hoping there would be more comments last time. COMMENT!

Rants Against Modern Evangelicalism: Part II

Ok, so this is a response, or rather a follow up, from my last post. That is to say, I have more to say, and I believe I need to clarify my previous assertions.

In my last post, I ranted about how the modern evangelical seems to have no desire to pursue knowledge of God in theology, church history, Biblical studies, etc. And those who do seem content in pursuing their own specific beliefs seem content in never attending to the claims of other theological systems or ideas. Calvinists study Calvinism; Pentecostals study Pentecostal theology, etc. How often do you see a Calvinist exploring Wesley, or a Pentecostal reading McArthur, or a fundamentalist studying Karl Barth? Not too often. And I believe this is sad, and shows a lack of unity in the church. God forbid that we even study other belief systems like Islam or Hinduism to know what they claim!

That is what I said. This is what I did not say. I did not say that the main problem in the church is a lack of academic knowledge of God. I did not say that this academic knowledge would automatically bring people to a greater intimacy with God (or as Victoria would put, Knowledge as opposed to knowledge).

I have been learning about a concept called the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. I am not sure if this is a new concept to me, or if it is just putting words to beliefs I have always held. It is fairly reformed in its basis, though I am not sure it has to be. Regardless, it is that Scripture is true because it is true. That is, Scripture is true because it proves itself to be true to the believer in experience. So, what this is going against is the main notion that Scripture is true because it proves itself to be true through textual integrity, historical proof, archaelogical evidence, and rational thought. These things indeed, Calvin would say, have their role. However, they are not the ultimate and authoritative test by which Scripture is judged. The only legitimate judge of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, who is appropriately the author of Scripture. All other tests and proofs are secondary.

This would fall into a belief of presuppositionalism. I do not know much about this, other than the fact that it claims that to be a Christian or non-Christian, one has certain presuppositions that cannot be proven or argued against. Therefore, one cannot just argue someone to a belief in one or the other. I would like Caleb to post in response to this in how I slaughtered explaining this belief.

Anyways, this hangs true in evangelism in that the Holy Spirit converts people, not us. And He must self-authenticate his Scripture in the life of someone to make them a believer. He can use apologetics to do this, or love and good deeds, but none of these are saving the person, nor are they even the reason the person believes, but rather that act of self-authentication.

How does this apply to my earlier discussion? I was riding in the car with my roommate and asked him about this. I was talking with a girl at this house who is struggling with her belief that Scripture is true. She is a person who is committed to social justice and willing to go to extremes to do what is right (I call her a hippy just for my sake; living in intentional community, etc.). I asked my roommate that if all things were constant (like in our scientific process) except knowledge about God (theology, church history, etc.) would the person who knows more be more intimate with God. The conversation went around in circles.

Now most of the people that I know that are really intimate with God care about pursuing knowledge about God. So does knowledge spur on intimacy, or intimacy knowledge. Since I know others who know a lot but are not intimate, I would assume intimacy spurs on knowledge. I told my friend that I felt like knowledge of God was like an assortment of tools. The more knowledge, the better and more complex the tools are. The purpose is making a building, which is the equivalent in my analogy of building a building. Someone with better tools can build something great. They can also cut off their arm with a cyber saw, so knowledge is creative and great and also destructive and scary. I don't know if this analogy is that good though. Does someone with less knowledge actually unable to be as intimate with God as someone with more. If so, that seems extreme. If not, why pursue knowledge? See, I told you this thing was cyclical.

In the end, this applies to my earlier conversation in what the church needs is more intimacy with God. I know from being a Bible/theology student the last 4+ years is that you can both be learning a lot about God and be far from Him. The church needs more intimacy and experience of God. But they need to pursue this through knowing about Him, and not just empty experience. Experience should be enriched by knowledge, and this is rare. A lack of knowledge seems to result in empty emotion, and an abundance of knowledge seems to often result in cynicism and unbelief. However, there are those who have rich, intimate relationship with the Lord and increasing knowledge of Him, and this is beautiful, and what I want to see in the church and myself.

Again, this is a rant, and may not be as linear as I would like. Please respond, I want to know your thoughts!