at least three times in the past couple days i have seen people take a quote, change the meaning, then argue against it. in all three cases the changing of meaning was in extent. a person made statement of possibility or probability or limited in scope. this was then turned into an all inclusive universal truth and argued against.

for example, the original comment may have gone something like this;
“if you hike to the bottom of the grand canyon you may fall off a cliff and die”

to which someone responds:
“what do you mean hiking the canyon means i’ll die! i’ve known plenty of people who have hiked the canyon and lived…”

i’m not sure why this happens. maybe it’s sloppiness and haste, maybe it’s just expecting the worst of people, maybe it’s just the heat of rhetorical battle, maybe it’s just easier to argue against absolutes as opposed to nuances.

the problems are:
it is disingenuous to change the meaning of someone’s comment by pouring obviously unintended meanings into them – then countering the argument no one made in the first place.

it serves to elevate the angst and anger as people try and point out the error… and tempers flare.

it also serves to foster needless tangential discussions.

so, for the sake of time, effort, peace, and accuracy… before responding in disgust or disbelief, please take a moment to discern that you have; a) accurately interpreted and quoted the source, and b) you are countering an argument someone actually made.

(titled thusly so I don’t have to pay Jerry royalties for “Whaddaya Think?”)

I’m going to present a quote from a book review.  The reviewer is also an author.  I am omitting all names (including the reviewer) and the topic of the book, as many (all?) can be polarizing, and I want an honest reaction to the content, not the personalities. No fair googling the quotes before you respond.  (The omitted items are in italics.)

I was preparing for the worst when I read in the blurbs that this book “avoids the clamor for extremes” (name withheld), is “the first to be truly gracious” and is great “for any who are tired of straw man arguments and polarizations” (name withheld), and rises above “the usual shallow, facile critiques of [one of the primary topics of this book]” (name withheld).

Is it just me, or is it deeply troubling that the reviewer sees as contemptible (”I was preparing for the worst”) the ideas of avoiding clamor, employing clear logic, and (worst of all) the horrendous sin of being gracious?

Or maybe it’s something else.  The very next sentence in the review says:

I can’t help but assume that [my book on the same topic] is one of the “extreme”, “straw man”, “facile” critiques they’re thinking of.

Isn’t this like James-Cameron-level narcissism?  I keep hearing Carly Simon singing, “You’re so vain / I bet you think this blurb is about you”.

In the words of Linda Richman, “Discuss.”

[The following is a post in which I am writing about Christian support for a doctrine of "Just War". Our friend, Rick Frueh, has written a similar post, in support of Biblical Pacifism.]

I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell. – William Tecumseh Sherman

We support and extend the ministry of the Church to those persons who conscientiously oppose all war, or any particular war, and who therefore refuse to serve in the armed forces or to cooperate with systems of military conscription. We also support and extend the Church’s ministry to those persons who conscientiously choose to serve in the armed forces or to accept alternative service. As Christians we are aware that neither the way of military action, nor the way of inaction is always righteous before God. – The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, 2004

[Please brace yourselves - this is going to be a long article. My dear friend, Rick Frueh, has requested that he and I write opposing papers on the acceptability of Christians supporting a doctrine of "Just War", with me supporting this doctrine, and him rejecting it. I would like to thank Rick for this 'challenge', and apologize in advance for so thoroughly trouncing him, here on the field of battle. ]

At Issue

Before embarking on this long road, I think it is probably best to indicate our areas of agreement and disagreement. Both Rick and I agree that war, in and of itself is abhorrent, and is something to be avoided. It is not something that we, as individuals should seek to cause, nor something that our nations should actively seek. Where we disagree, is whether or not acts of violence can be supported by Christians – on an individual or a national scale. Specifically, our disagreement is whether or not Christians should support their country in a war, or serve in that war.

Keeping this in mind, I will examine three basic concepts, which build upon one another, in regards to Christian and the use of deadly force: 1) Self-Defense; 2) Civil-defense; and 3) National-defense. As a backdrop to this, I will also quickly discuss the first century Jewish view of human life that Jesus supported, sometimes referred to as Pikuach Nefesh.

Before moving on to the meat of this article, I’d like to also make one more caveat: My purpose in laying out the case for the doctrine of just war is not to provide/denounce justification for any conflict unfolding in current events. Rather, it is to lay out the rational and theological underpinnings in such a way as to be able to have rational discussions and criteria on whether or not a conflict might be considered just or unjust.

Read the rest of this entry »

The accusation that somebody is telling a lie has been thrown around a lot lately.  You have likely seen it on TV between cable news channels, between politicians, between cable news and politicians (including the white house staff), on this website (by authors and commenters alike). Some of you have probably even seen it in church.

I started thinking about the validity of accusation of lies when my first child at the age of 4 began to realize that sometimes we would say one thing (often involving her getting something she wanted) and that thing not come to pass.  I can’t remember the events surrounding the first accusation, but I do remember her getting upset with her parents and pouting and telling us that we lied to her.  I made her come back into the room and calmly explained to her that we did not lie because besides the fact that getting upset and pouting about not getting your way is immature and that even at such a young age we try to teach her how to handle situations maturely, she was just plain wrong.  I believe that in that particular instance, the situation had changed preventing us from following through with our previous claim.

I think that most of the accusations flying around (here and “out there”) are wrong as well.  There’s a difference between telling a lie and being wrong/ignorant.  A lie has the intent to deceive.  Deceit is the thing which makes something that is false or untrue a lie.    Technically, Merriam Webster’s Dictionary does say that a lie can be “b. an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker.”  But that is referring to the noun (the untruth itself) and not the accusation that a person is a liar or telling a lie.  In fact, the dictionary definition for the verb “lie” always contains the element of deceit.  But besides that, when personal accusations go flying, the people making the accusations rarely mean that the accused gave “an untrue or inaccurate statement… believed true by the speaker.”  If they thought that, they’d call them wrong, ignorant, stupid, etc.

For years people believed that the Sun revolved around the earth.  We don’t think of them as liars, just ignorant.  When you sign your tax return, you aren’t saying that there aren’t any errors, just that there aren’t any that you know of (you aren’t intentionally or consciously giving them false information).  We also don’t call out scientists as liars when they come out with a statement that something we’ve been teaching in 5th grade text books for 40 years is actually not true.*

When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!

Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there. Since we are living by the Spirit, let us follow the Spirit’s leading in every part of our lives. Let us not become conceited, or provoke one another, or be jealous of one another. (NLT Ga 5:19-26, Emphasis mine.)

*I considered siting references for all of my examples, but I realized that I would be doing it because I dislike ignorance, laziness, and false information almost as much as I dislike lying.  The point of this post is not to point out individual errors but to expose our immature penchant for accusations.

[my apologies for the length... the more I read about these asinine objections to reconciliation the more my anger grew!]

I was enjoying some cheese and wanted a little whine to go with it, so I ventured over the Crosstalk blog where the lead headline is “Rick Warren Sponsors Forum with Emergent Heretic“  – accompanied with a picture of Miroslav Volf.  The headline led to an article.  The article led to a  radio broadcast. And of course, the radio program exposed the heretics.

It reminded me of the game called Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon.  It’s a whimsical variation on the “small-world” concept that says all humans are connected by no more than six degrees of separation.  And just to put a fine point on it – I can connect myself to Kevin Bacon in as few as four degrees.

Not to be outdone, Crosstalk appears to be able to connect any disliked Christian to a heretic in much the same manner.  The difference being – connection means guilt.

It goes like this:

Rick Warren sponsors a heretic. The heretic is Miroslav Volf… because he appeared with Tony Jones… at a conference with Jurgen Moltmann… who embraces C. W. F. Hegel.

Imagine my surprise to learn Volf was a heretic because he appeared with Tony Jones, who held a conference with… well you get it – six degrees of GBA.  Problem is – none of these blog connections showed what “doctrines of demons” Volf actaully teaches.  So I listened to the broadcast… until the “caller amen chorus” kicked in. The radio broadcast was hosted by Ingrid Schlueter with Chris Rosebrough as her guest.

Since the radio broadcast was also void of any specifics as to why Miroslav Volf should be considered a heretic who teaches the doctrines of demons (unless of course a hefty dose of GBA is proof enough) I decided to make a few observations of the program itself.

The host began by declaring she does not care about definitions or distinctions when it comes to  Emerging or Emergent.  This, of course, makes things a lot easier – particularly in the game of Six Degrees of GBA.  Ignoring distinctions allows one to paint with a much much much broader brush.  it also relieves one of the necessity to define what individual actually think, say, teach, or belive – just find a heretic and assume they are all unified.

The Guest mocked the Emergent for embracing seemingly contradictory beliefs – he said embracing contradictory concepts sounds crazy.  This made me think of other crazy contradictions like… three persons and one being (the Trinity) or wholly God and wholly man (the incarnation) or free will and… well you get the picture.  This was in the context of Hegel, who (and here I agree with the guest) carried the whole contradiction thing too far.  Yet, in mocking those who embrace contradictions, the guest embraced the hosts disregard for definitions and distinctions.

And of course Warren is guilty of wanting to promote social “reconciliation” and forgiveness between people, but outside of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Why is reconciliation in quotations?

What made me truly angry… What the show, the blog, the host, the guest completely ignored (I’d be surprised of they did enough research to even know) is the context from which Miroslav Volf speaks.  He is a Croatian (a member of the Evangelical Church of Croatia) whose country (and his family itself) suffered greatly in the resent Balkan wars.  He has a very vested and very personal interest in seeing religion used, not to exclude and promote violence, but used to embrace and promote reconciliation. Even if the parties are outside of Jesus Christ.

Forgive the person anecdote -  but it is relevant… several years ago I stood in the Muslim section of Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina.  A village absolutely devastated by the war.  On a mountain overlooking the city stands a very large cross.  Through a translator an elderly Muslim man said to me “They put their guns under the cross and shelled our children.”  The cemeteries in the town are full of graves – have you ever been in a cemetery where all the lives end within a two year span?  Those who shelled Mostar were Serbs and Croats — Christians.  Now of course we understand that they are not truly Christian – but (much like distinctions and ODM’s) that distinction is lost on the Muslims of Mostar.

So until the host or her guest have walked the streets of Mostar (pt. 1) and seen firsthand the devistation and violence done in the name of God and Country (as I have) – or – until such time as they have fled into the night because their neighborhood was being shelled (as Miroslav’s family did) – until such time I invite them both to shut up and quit their bitch’n about someone else who happens to think social “reconciliation” and forgiveness between people even if they are outside of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a good thing.

Since (in the eyes of those who apparently control such things) I’m going to hell anyway, let me add to my list of “transgressions” by saying that I agree with how a Roman Catholic handled an issue.

(insert profound gasp here)

You are probably aware of “Wafergate” by now.  If you aren’t, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, recently attended the funeral mass of former governor-general Romeo LeBlanc.  When communion was served, Harper allegedly pocketed the communion wafer rather than consuming it.

In Protestant circles, this action would have been inappropriate.  But Roman Catholics, because of their belief in transubstantiation, would consider it sacrilege.  The incident was captured on (stunningly inconclusive) video and immediately the outcries against Harper arose, including accusations of anti-Catholic behavior by the Protestant Harper.

Only one minor issue — he didn’t pocket the wafer; he consumed it.

One of the priests involved in the service, Father Arthur Bourgeois, confirmed what Harper asserted when the accusations started flying — that he did consume the wafer.

Technically, Harper did break Catholic church law by taking communion as a Protestant.  And Fr. Bourgeois did note this.  He also implied that Harper followed the spirit of the law, and so did not condemn him for his actions.  And, Fr. Bourgeois even advised Harper on proper protocol for a Protesant in a Catholic service, should such an occasion arise again.

In short, Fr. Bourgeois did not conceal or back off of his beliefs, but spoke the truth (as he understood it) in love.

Hmmm — speaking the truth in love — almost sounds like a Bible verse.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?
:2 This only I would learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?
:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, do you now perfect yourself in the flesh?
:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain, if indeed it is even in vain?
:5 Then He supplying the Spirit to you and working powerful works in you, is it by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?
:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.
:7 Therefore know that those of faith, these are the sons of Abraham.

We have discussed the issue of salvation on this site many times and I can confidently say that we are in unity on this subject that salvation comes through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone and that we are reborn by the Spirit. The works of righteousness that follows rebirth are a result of that what the Spirit has already done inside.

Now I have these questions for you:

• Can any works of righteousness make us more righteous?
• Or can any sin make us less righteous?

What do you say?

This guy seems to think he has the answer (does anybody else see the resemblance to Nooma here?):

Click To Play

Most of us are, at various times, susceptible to using rhetoric that is inflammatory, illogical, careless, rude, or divisive.  This waywardness of the tongue (or typing, as it were) is often found in the presence of impatience, hastiness, defensiveness, passion, anger, pain, and a variety of other (often negative) thoughts, feelings and emotions.  Sometimes, however, it can simply be a failure in communication.  I had a college professor who would tell us that some questions are unanswerable because the question is faulty.  “Do you still beat your wife?” is a yes or no question that I personally cannot answer with a yes or a no because I have never beaten my wife.  We are sometimes prone to asking questions and making statements like this as well.  We like things to be either/or.

I have been somewhat surprised at the conversations that have been taking place on CRN.Info over the past couple of days.  The norm around here has been typical of many relationships in our lives, which involve 4 ways in which we respond to what others around us say: 1) we agree with them, 2) we ignore them, 3) we get upset with them, but agree to disagree, or 4) we fight it out.  Each response has its place; but sometimes I forget the value of the fourth one (fighting it out) when done in grace, respect, and forgiveness because it is so often done out of a heart and mind clouded by the previously mentioned attitutdes.  When we are willing and committed to fight it out (not fight for the sake of fighting) in the community of God, our hearts and minds, our very selves are challenged and stretched to grow.

What we say and how we say it can direct a conversation, but it can also redeem a conversation.  My desire has been to avoid asking questions (and making statements) that are fueled by ignorance, faulty thinking, and/or strong emotions.  This has led me of late to talk a lot less (often about even important matters).  But I suppose that if those things never came out, we’d all be agreeing with and ignoring each other.  Healthy, functional relationships rely on the ability to disagree and even argue, knowing that when all is said and done, we’re all growing to become like Christ.  Hopefully I can begin to listen all the time, and speak up when it matters.

Tags: anger, arguing, fighting, grace, language, words

Q: Why are Southern Baptists opposed to pre-marital sex?
A: Because it leads to dancing.

If you are now or have ever been a member of an SBC church (like I was at one time), you’ve probably heard that joke.

Sadly, for some, it’s not a joke, but rather another in a long line of (1) focusing on the wrong thing, (2) elevating opinion/preference to the level of doctrine, and (3) drawing definitive conclusions that have little or no basis in reality.

Such is the case for Mary Kassian in her criticism of William P Young’s The Shack.  Now, I am by no means a fan of the book.  It contains some (at best) questionable theology, has a troubling back-story, and many of its more strident fans often can’t seem to decide which genre it is in.

If you aren’t familiar with the book, Kassian’s criticism largely revolves around the fact that God the Father appears as a black woman named Papa.  Criticisms regarding this issue are numerous and have ranged from concern that Young has crossed a line to emphatic assertion that Young is promoting “goddess worship”.

It is fairly clear that what Young was probably trying to accomplish was to shake up the reader’s image of God, addressing the unfortunate issue that we have often created Him in our image, particularly in Western culture.  Unfortunately, Young’s attempt falls flat in that he trades in one humanly recognizable (and ill-conceived) image for another.  (Put another way, while it is true that God is not Wilford Brimley, He’s not Aunt Jemima, either.)

Setting aside the myriad negative motives that Kassian ascribes to Young, it would appear that she doesn’t even think that an assertion of goddess worship promotion is strong enough. Alluding to a mid-80s sculpture of a female Christ hanging on a cross, Kassian claims:

If you [don't think that The Shack contains terribly wrong concepts about God], then you’re well on your way to accepting the image of the Christa on the cross. In a few years, you’ll be hanging her up in your church.

No cautions that the wrong concepts could lead to other problems.  Rather, absolute and definitive statements of what will, without question, happen.  Do not pass GO.  Do not collect $200.  (Somebody call God and tell him that Kassian said He isn’t sovereign anymore.)

The only comment that I’ll make about her very next sentence (”I don’t think I’m overstating the case”) is to allude to gunplay, aquatic creatures, and large cylindrical containers made of wood.

Kassian’s criticism is not only over-the-top, but in some cases, just as theologically bad as — if not worse than — the book she is criticizing.  As part of her overall context of examining the imaging of God, she states (emphasis hers):

In the Old Testament, God instructed his people to reject female goddess images and images of God as a bi-sexual or a dual-sexual Baal/Ashtoreth-type collaboration. God hated this imagery so much that he had his people destroy it and all those who promoted it.

Combining these statements with others peppered throughout the article, Kassian comes dangerously close to (if not outright) implying that God’s main problem with Baal/Ashtoreth wasn’t the whole false god thing, but simply that those who worshiped Baal/Ashtoreth had imaged God wrong.  This is the same lousy logic that says that the Allah that Muslims worship is the same entity/person as Jehovah.

I have, on numerous occasions, cited my dismay with those that espouse an idea and then search the Scriptures for support of that idea (see also, “cart before the horse”).  But at least such eisegesis is only a misapplication of the text.  It’s sad that Kassian apparently feels that, in order to criticize the re-imaging of God, she must engage in the re-imaging of His Word.

(or Ingrid never ran over my puppy)

OK, people, time for a level-set.

It would appear that the (irrelevant and inaccurate) references to this site in the meta of Tim Challies’ post the other day have garnered us some new readers.  To them I say “Welcome”.  This post is actually in response to “pre-Challies” readers of this blog who seem to have missed something.  Before you new folks make the honest mistake of ascribing to the same misconception, maybe we ought to clear it up (again).

Many of the veteran detractors of this site routinely state that the purpose of this blog is to spew hatred against a select few.

The Greek word for such a viewpoint is “skubala“.  A (very) rough English translation would be “baloney”.

Some time ago, Chris Lyons (with input from other contributors here) wrote Our Mission, detailing what this blog is all about.  Chris outlines six guidelines for this blog, only one of which deals with the addressing of points in which we disagree with those that write the various watchblogs out there.  In fact, Chris calls this “the lowliest” of these six tasks.

Even if we throw several bones to the skubala-merchants and ignore the existence of the other five tasks, their viewpoint is still inaccurate.  Which brings me to the point of the title of this post.

I don’t hate Ken or Ingrid or Chris R or PB.  Regardless of the mutuality of the sentiment, I consider them all Christian siblings of mine.

Now, admittedly, I do hate theological error — very much so — especially when it is presented at the expense of others.  And this is what I write against.  This is why I am here.  The fact that it often happens to be presented by one or more of the afore-mentioned people (that I allegedly hate) is either purely coincidental or cited as an example.  While I sometimes cross the line, I do my best to remember that my anger is not directed at them, but at the error that they are presenting and the damage that it can do to others.

Sidenote: I do find it rather telling that one of the most vocal (and oft-repeated) accusations against Tim Challies’ post was that he didn’t “name names”.  The fact that he didn’t screams that his “beef” was with a concept, not a person.  Such writing demands that the reader not simply write Tim off as a “hater”, but actually determine if the points he made are applicable to themselves.  (Or at least gripe about the fact that he didn’t “name names”.)

As Chris noted about himself recently, I used to wield a weed-eater indiscriminately, too.  But God worked on my heart, both directly and through others, to see my sin.  My purpose here is to try to be the “others” for someone else.  Not as someone who has arrived, but as someone that’s been to a few “places” that you’re better off avoiding.

For you new(er) folks here, please be warned — the veteran dissenters on this site will state unequivocally that I am lying and what I have written here is not the true nature of what’s in my heart.  They will most likely misappropriate the first half of Matthew 7:16 as proof-text of their ability to read my heart.  These are people who apparently ignore passages such as 1 Samuel 16:7.  By tacitly stating that they are God (by the measure of this latter verse), they are committing nothing short of blasphemy.  I would ask that you think for yourselves, rather than take the word of a blasphemer.

Maybe even use a little discernment.