Comments on: What's Worth Dying For?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 01:05:27 +0000

Bill, I think I understand what you're saying. I agree that there are different levels of certainty for different doctrines that would lead me to die for some and not others. I just think that the emergent conversation is not interested in building up strong convictions in young Christians, and I think this general attitude is not likely to lead people to be willing to die for Jesus. In this case, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
Incidentally, I think it's possible to be extremely certain about something and still be willing to dialogue about it. I'm sure you've done this yourself before, discussing Jesus with people who aren't Christians and don't believe in Him. You're willing to die to affirm who He is and His place over you, and yet you're still willing to discuss this with people who disagree.
This is why I don't think that strengthening our convictions necessarily changes the way we treat others or whether or not we're still able to learn.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 03:38:45 +0000

Amy, I believe that someone like Burke might be able to both be very open to dialogue and exploration and also be willing to die rather than renounce his faith in Jesus Chriist. I understand that there is propositional content to our relationship to Christ, but wouldn't you agree that there is something very deep and fundamental about stating our aliegance to God through Jesus Christ or denying and renouncing it? We might phrase this differently or imagine it in different ways. Still, I believe someone like Burke who is very averse to letting any issue to be considered settled might also easily choose death if at the point of a gun he was asked to either renounce his faith in Jesus Christ (not just say it but do it) or die.
Where does this lead? I'm not willing to give me life to promote a calvinist interpretation of the faith over a Lutheran, or to promote nearly any other theology. I am, though willing to die rather than renounce my place of submission under Jesus Christ.
I am not articularlting very clearly. Perhaps you get the gist of what I am saying.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:55:01 +0000

Bill, thanks for your comment. I would like to hear McLaren address that, and I hope you're right. I've had a general sense, though, from many emergents that they shy away from taking stands. At the recent EC conference at Biola, Burke stated that he didn't like the idea of having to take a stand on any position--he said that the thought of having to defend any statement he's made in the past (even if it was only last week) scared him to death because he probably didn't believe it anymore anyway. And not long ago Marko did a whole post on how questions are better than answers. Strong convictions (in the sense of discovering answers and standing on them), to him, means you've stopped thinking and growing. There's a general aversion to settling on any truth, but if you don't settle on a truth, you're certainly not going to be willing to die for it. I think that if you were to question these men fully, they would agree that strong convictions are important; but I think that since our culture dislikes those who take stands on religious truth, these emergent leaders--in trying to attract the culture--are adopting the attitude of the culture against strong convictions. They may not believe it deep down, but I think it comes across in what they write and say as they try to attract the culture. Unfortunately, the young people they're teaching aren't hearing what the leaders really believe deep down, they're hearing that strong convictions cause bad things to happen. Maybe McLaren, Marko, or Burke will stop by and clarify where they stand on this.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:56:17 +0000

I'm not sure how he would answer that question- it'd be interesting for sure. I would expect that he would say something about strong convictions being dangerous, but at the same time he holds strong convictions. He seems quite certain that certainty is a horrible thing. He holds quite strongly that modernism (Cartesian foundationalism to him) was bad.
I agree Bill, we should be willing to die for our faith, however that decision comes about. I think it is legitimate to question someone's commitment to a faith they're not willing to die for. Not that we should go around promoting martyrdom as a sign of piety, and perhaps in that seek to achieve salvation through it, but we should be able to answer the simple question. I maybe have misunderstood McLaren, but this does seem to fit right in line with the rest of his worldview (as I understand it).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:41:37 +0000

I am interested in this aspect of McLarens ideas and faith. I disagree with McLaren, at least as you understand this interview, Roger. One of the most salient aspects of my own faith has been my self perceived willingness to die for it. I don't know practically how that would happen, but I genuinely believe that if I were given the option of denying Christ or death, I would resolutely choose death.
My engagement with postmodernity has not led me where you suggest, Amy, though I recognize your concern. Though it is possible that McLaren has arrived at point five, I suspect that this isn't true. If he were asked, should we then not have strong convictions because they're dangerous, I bet he would not agree. I may though be wrong.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 20:21:24 +0000

I hate to say it, but although it's possible we have misunderstood McLaren's intent, I think this perfectly illustrates the concern I was expressing in our discussion yesterday on “The Wedge” post.
It's a logical outgrowth of postmodernism:
1) there is no ultimate right and wrong
2) therefore, no idea is better than any other idea
3) therefore, saying you are right and someone else is wrong is meaningless and just mean
4) saying this is the worst thing you can do and leads to atrocities
5) therefore, we should not have strong convictions because they're dangerous
The result? Christians who are embracing the ideas of the postmodern culture (not just embracing the *people* in that culture) are rejecting strong convictions and decreasing their effectiveness because they're not able to stand up for goodness and truth in the face of opposition and persecution. It's simply not possible to do so without extremely strong convictions.