Well, the issue has actually been brewing for a good bit with me and the Slice of Laodecia page. I really do like a good bit of what they put up on the blog and personally like Ingrid Schluetter's radio program that is on daily out here. Much of what is talked about really is bringing compromises to the forefront of evangelicalism and calling for integrity in the church, that I am wholly in support of. However, what has seemed to be a trend on Slice has been a "guilt by association" kind of argument posited against many of those of a more "emergent" persuasion. The guilt by association argument was actually used today by Ingrid on her radio show, in reference to Donald Miller. She said (paraphrase) "Donald Miller's has said his favorite author is Mrs.X (some very questionable "Christian") so that should tell you right there the kinda person we are dealing with." Stuff like that bothers me.It is actually a fallacy of guilt by association, in which the conclusion that Donald Miller is basically a corrupt teacher simply does not follow based upon the fact that he may like some non-Christian author. Some bloggers actually were trying to nail John Piper on a similar charge because he quoted Dallas Willard in one of his books...the same Dallas Willard who hangs out with all these liberal theologians and new agers! To be blunt SO WHAT?! At the Pyromaniacs blog Phil Johnson written on this quite well on this very issue with Slice and in the end he has continued to support Slice, and I agree with him completely.
However, for me the straw that broke the camels back is when one of my blog buddies Tim who is a bit "emergent" leaning was on Slice and was disagreeing with Ken Silva on some issues. Tim did it very respectfully and in the end he was banned from the page. Now my problem is that if Slice is going to continue to crusade against emergents and not dialogue with them, that simply is not responsible. I compare it to me making a page dedicated to shredding Mormon theology and then ban Mormons who have the gall to try and correct me. That's just not healthy. Now I like Slice and many of its contributors, as well as a lot of what has been said there, and I agree with their stance against a lot of emergent trends. However, when you refuse to respectfully dialogue with those who you disagree with I don't think you have any right to disagree with them.
16 comments:
ahhhh . . 6 degrees of seperation from matthew fox
i agree, but i still like to lurk over at slice and i hope my blog roll will not become as homogenous as theirs.
What would the Puritans say about your Emergent friend's views? Just wondering.
I just want to reemphisise that I do like A LOT of what Slice puts up and I DO agree with their stance against the Emergent trends. That's why the link was up to begin with. The guilt by association issue in itself was not enough for me to stop endorsing the page, which is why I said I completely agreed with what Phil Johnson said as to why he still had his slice link up.
However, for me I have some problems when an Emergent fellow wants to talk about why he disagrees with some of the stuff put up he gets silenced (banned). I would have no problem if he was simply ignored or banned if he was being disrespectful. However, when we are going to basically call a groups theology bad, I do not think it is healthy that we silence their rebuttals.
That's my hang up. I still do like Slice, particularly Ingrid's stuff (I actually just listened to her radio show) I think what they are doing is needed (content wise), I just have problems with the manner in which things are being done.
Jim asked:
"What would the Puritans say about your Emergent friend's views? Just wondering."
lol, well I doubt that the Puritans would be in any way sympathetic to the Emergent movement. The whole premise of notions like "How are we going to reach postmoderns?!" is grossly man-centered. And when we respond to the spirit of the age with worldly techniques I think it really is simply unbelief in the power of the gospel to convert sinners, whether modern or post-modern. So, I frankly have more problems with the Emergent than Slice (I really like Slice).
I think I am lineage of the Puritans with this sort of problem with the emergent.
As for my internet friend, we have hashed these things out and I have strongly disagreed with him over his emergent ideas, I am not shy to critique the Emergent movement (see the last post). But, my point is that having talked with him I see where he is coming from more and have gotten a better understanding of why he thinks the way he does on this stuff. I am not saying Slice NEEDS to be like me and respond and dialogue with every Emergent Johnny come lately, however I do not think silencing their objections is right. That's all.
I've noticed that at Slice. They print comments they support and delete most others. Seems to be operating more out of fear than love - even (dare I say it) mildly cult-like in its overt control and guilt-by-association.
Well, I definitely wouldn't go and throw the "C" word around ( I think that word is far to misused thus I don't even use it to refer to the LDS or JW's anymore). Again I like Slice, and what its contributors have to say. I just have some hang ups with the manner in which some things have been handled.
p.s.That doesn't mean I wont go there or anything...just don't want to endorse it at this time. I do not see this as a "Slice of Laodicea is EVIL! And Cultish!" matter. Rather, I compare it to different types of hugs. Some people you will hug with both arms, others get the side-car hug with one arm. Slice gets the side-car.
Bob, you said: But, my point is that having talked with him I see where he is coming from more and have gotten a better understanding of why he thinks the way he does on this stuff.
Thank you for that. I appreciate it and our conversations. Hopefully as our conversations will continue, it can be said that I'm more interested in "what does following Jesus really mean?" rather than "how are we going to reach postmoderns". It has only been the last few months that I even really starting using and understand (somewhat) terms like modernity and postmodernity. My desire all along has really been removing myself and my faithful journey with Jesus from the man-centeredness of churchianity (which I am believing more an more is a product of modernity, not postmodernity), and moving to what Jesus originally intended.
And it is great to have others who are willing to converse along the way with all sorts of beliefs, interpretations, and especially experiences within the faith of Christ. In fact, I find that a bit heavenly.
Cheers, my brother.
Hi Bob,
I was wondering if you might be able to help me out with something. Do you happen to know which branch of theology that the Westboro 'Baptist' church (Fred Phelp's infamous group) hails from? Someone once shared the answer with me, but I cannot recall what they said. Maybe it was you who told me about it? Could it have been what is called "hyper-Calvinism"?
Anyway, I have a commenter at my blog in this thread who has asked me the difference between how the Phelps group protests about homosexuals verses what I disagree with regarding homosexual indoctrination bills being thrown at us by the left-wing liberal radicals in California (a.k.a. the California legislators!).
I was hoping to recall what was shared about the Phelp's group and their skewed theology and philosophy in order to show how extreme the differences are between true Biblical ministry and the heresy that Westboro spews as "truth" through their protests.
Thanks, in advance, for any help you can give me!
In Christ,
Christine
I cannot believe that Westboro cult planned to protest the Amish funerals. They have come to our city here twice.
Bob, would you consider using the "C" word for those fools?
Hey Christine,
Well officially they say that they are Calvinistic in their theology, on their page they have TULIP as what they believe. Now the term "hyper-Calvinist" isn't just some made up term by me, it is actually a heretical twist to what the Reformed tradition believes.
For instance hyper Calvinists don't call people to repent in their preaching because they think if they are elect they will and they don't need anybody to call them to do so. Likewise as you can see with the Phelps group there is a heavy emphasis upon the wrath of God, when you don't see the churches role to be (at least in part) to call sinners to repentence the only message you have for sinners is that they are hellbound. Hyper-Calvinism isn't new its been around for a good while, a HC said to William Carey "God doesn't need your help saving the heathen" trying to detur him from missions. If you go to their page "God hates fags" it becomes clear that because they believe only the elect can believe, therefore they don't call anybody to repent/believe. Here's a good quote summarising the error of hyper-calvinism:
The hyper-Calvinist, then, makes the same mistake as the Arminians and free-willists, only he draws a different conclusion. Both think that to command or demand repentance and faith of dead sinners must imply that such sinners are not dead and have in themselves the ability to repent and believe. The free-willist says, then: "To command must imply ability, therefore, men have the ability." The hyper-Calvinist says: "To command must imply ability, therefore we will not command any but the elect."
-Ron Hanko
In contrast orthodox Calvinism (which I hold to) says that God has not only ordained (predestined) who will believe through His soveriegn grace, but also has ordained the means, which is men calling sinners to repentence. Thus, election and missions are not irreconcialable. Hope that helps...
For a really good book on this issue of Hyper-Calvinism I would recommene Iain Murray's "Spurgeon vs Hyper-Calvinism".
Hi Bob,
Thanks so much for your informative input here and at my blog! I really appreciated it!
The more we can expose the fact that the Westboro church is not a genuine Christian denomination, the better it will be for Christianity, in general. I don't know why Fox News gives that group a platform at their microphones. Perhaps they want to expose their lunacy?
Anyway, thanks again!
Christine
Oh, I don't think its so much about exposing lunacy as it is about getting ratings from having idiot "Christians" on their shows...like why is Pat Robertson on there all the time telling the nation his latest prophetic words from God? They just want to make Christianity look stupid and get ratings (Info-tainment). I mean most people wouldn't even know about these nutcases if they didn't get media air time.
Yeah...I miss the level-headed (and Biblically correct) Christians who were often interviewed on that channel during the "Passion of the Christ" controversy. Where's Billy Graham when we need him??
Hi,
Love the blog.
I'm a musician and I'd be honored if you'd check out my music. All my music is free on my site, and I just wanted to share it with you.
I don't want to be an annoyance, so if this message bothers you please delete it and accept my humble apology.
___________________________
www.SeanDietrich.com
"All my music is free."
Post a Comment