Of Labels and Creeds

October 12, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

A commenter recently asked, “Does not some of the confusion result from the fact that we often direct the lost to Jesus via Calvin?”

If someone thought that’s what was going on, they’d certainly be confused. However, I’ve never met anyone who directed the lost “to Jesus via Calvin.” Perhaps those people exist, but I don’t think they’re normative.

There is a danger, as the commenter raised, in putting too much stock in a person other than Jesus, but if it’s suggested that this is what “Calvinists” or “Arminianists” do, then the point’s been missed. The fact that I label my theology Calvinist doesn’t have much to do with John Calvin, rather it has to do with what I believe the Bible teaches about salvation. I don’t care what it’s labeled as long the theology the label represents is in tact.

Why are labels necessary? For the same reason creeds are- to distinguish a set of beliefs from other sets of beliefs. The differences may be minor or fundamental, but if we lose the labels or the creeds, we will fall into misunderstandings and possibly heresies. Arius called himself a Christian. So did Athanasius. However, Arius believed that Jesus was not fully man or
fully God, while Athanasius believed Jesus was both fully man and fully God. Simply calling them Christian doesn’t cut it since there are salient details not conveyed by the label. And so Arius was a (type of) Dynamic Monarchian and Athanasius was a Trinitarian. These labels began to be used so a bad view could be easily distinguished from a good one.

Prior to the debate between Arius and Athanasius there were no universally accepted creeds (although forms of the “Apostle’s Creed” were very popular). However, it became necessary for churches to agree upon what was good teaching and what was bad teaching. This led to the formation of the Nicene Creed in 325 A.D., authored by our brother Athanasius. The creed doesn’t
replace the Bible or distract from it, rather it draws our attention to the truths of the Bible so that we will not be misled by the heretics who distort it.

Holding to the Nicene Creed doesn’t mean that I think it’s more important than the Bible, rather I hold to it because it accurately
represents biblical teaching. Being a Calvinist doesn’t mean I worship John Calvin, or lead the lost to Jesus through John Calvin. What it does mean is that I’m not a hyper-Calvinist, an Arminianist, or an Open-Theist, and that I believe the Bible teaches particular things about salvation. That it was John Calvin who prominently taught these same truths is practically accidental. It
could have been Cliff Clavin, and then I’d be a Clavinist. It’s not about the name, it’s about what the name represents. And whether you call me a Calvinist or a Clavinist, I’m proud to bear the label because of what it represents- which I believe is accurate biblical teaching.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology 8 Comments »

Help for the Earthquake Victims

October 11, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

I've been watching the reports about the earthquake in Pakistan/India, concerned for Reena Digal, an Indian missionary I support through Gospel for Asia. I couldn't tell from my little map how close she lives to the center of the earthquake.

Fortunately, it seems that she's okay, but I would appreciate it if you would take a moment right now to pray for Reena and for all the Christians in the area who will need strength and courage to minister to the people in the (mostly Muslim) affected area; and then pray for everyone who is suffering, that they would receive the words of the missionaries, and that the rest of the world will be generous with their help.

For the last couple of days, I couldn't understand why I wasn't receiving requests for donations from relief organizations. Then today I read a report from Gospel for Asia saying that relief organizations aren't being allowed into Kashmir. Once again, human sin is intensifying the effects of a natural disaster. It's so frustrating!

For now, it seems that prayer is the best way we can help these people. You can also donate to the World Vision SAVE fund which appears to be a general fund–not necessarily for this specific earthquake, and I'm sure they will help as soon as the government allows. Keep an eye on the Gospel for Asia website as well. Hopefully, they'll be able to accept donations for the earthquake victims soon. Since that money goes directly to native missionaries, they may be allowed into the areas more quickly than western organizations.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous No Comments »

Think I've been Exaggerating?

October 10, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

While looking through some atheist blogs yesterday, I came across a post promoting an article titled “The Republican Nemesis” by James Kroeger (a college professor).

Kroeger suggests the following purposeful strategy for defeating Republicans [red letters added for emphasis]:

Like it or not, the only way Democrats can win against the modern Republican Party is by defining them as a group that is [morally] defective and threatening. (When the Bad Guys do this, we can accurately describe it as “demonizing” your opponent.) Swing Voters will vote for the Democrat if they end up with an image of The Republican Politician that they find threatening. Unlike the Republicans, we Democrats do not need to fabricate any Republican character flaws out of thin air in order to “define” them effectively. We simply need to point out the truth. Our goal should be to define The Republican Politician as a shrewd, cunning, deceiving, manipulative, mean-spirited, Con-Artist who willfully and gleefully assassinates the character of any innocent victim who stands in his way. We need to describe them in this way with palpable emotion. In terms of basic, overall strategy, Democrats need to constantly remind themselves that it's not the economy, stupid! It's the IMAGE CAMPAIGN!

The emotional argument must be at the core of all the Democrats' arguments:

Any time a Democratic candidate speaks out on an issue like the economy, or the environment, or foreign policy, final comments should be made that refer to the Republican politician as a scheming manipulator, a threatening deceiver. We must make our logical points on the issues, but then we must always bring it back to the image of The Republicans that we are trying to establish, the scary image that reflects the truth of who they are…Make sure that your fundamental lack of respect shows through.

The key to Kroeger's winning strategy is to condition people to fear Republicans:

Democrats need to understand the importance of showing Swing Voters that they fear Republican rule. The more apparent it is to Swing Voters that a lot of Americans are truly scared of George Bush & The Republicans, the more they’re going to wonder if maybe they should also be afraid of him. (Typically, we first learn to fear things that we didn’t fear previously after seeing fear in the faces of others.)…We should never be reluctant to show our fear of Bush, but we need to make it clear in our tone that our fear is appropriate and that our anger is controlled & justified.

All of this emotional propaganda, this side-stepping (and purposeful destruction) of respectful public discourse is acceptable–but only for Democrats. Since they are good and Republicans are evil, manipulating the public in this manner is not only justified, it's praiseworthy:

When such fears are used to intentionally mislead citizens into voting against their own best interests, then the use of fear is unethical. In contrast, if the fear that politicians inspire is legitimate–and their intention is to alert voters to a danger that they can protect themselves from–then the use of fear is virtuous.

Much has been said about these types of tactics before (see here, here, and here for previous posts on this blog)–their effect on truth and civility and their ability to shut down rational arguments–so I won't comment further here except to say this: I find this extremely disturbing.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Politics 19 Comments »

Looking For Your Creative Ideas

October 8, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

Next weekend at the GodBlogCon, Roger and I will be leading a breakout session on apologetics blogging. Part of our session will be devoted to discussing creative ways bloggers have initiated conversations on their blogs with people who are not Christians.

I've seen some interesting examples of this in the blogosphere. For instance, Chad from Eternal Revolution initiated a “blog swap” with an atheist blogger and has now created a theist/atheist blog carnival, “God or Not.”

If any of you out there have witnessed other, similar attempts by bloggers to engage people outside the Christian circle, we'd love to hear about them! You can leave your comments and links here, or click on my link under “About the A-Team” and email me directly.

Thanks for your ideas! Our hope is to share your stories and inspire attendees of our session to have a greater impact on our culture.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Miscellaneous 11 Comments »

New Blog Alert!

October 8, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

Keep an eye on my friend Bobbie Frega's new blog. In the past, she has often tipped me off via email to news stories that have worked their way into my blog postings. Now you'll all have access to one of my information sources!

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous No Comments »

Every Person is a Missionary

October 7, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

I received the following quote of the day yesterday:

Every man is a missionary, now and forever, for good or for evil, whether he intends or designs it or not. He may be a blot radiating his dark influence outward to the very circumference of society, or he may be a blessing spreading benediction over the length and breadth of the world. But a blank he cannot be: there are no moral blanks; there are no neutral characters.

–Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847)

This is very similar to what a relative of mine said in his grief after his sister committed suicide. He was overwhelmed by the realization that every word spoken and every action taken towards his sister by all those with whom she had contact affected her for good or for bad, for life or for death.

He told me that what he wanted above all else was for people to realize that even our smallest actions affect others, and we'll never know the extent to which this is true for any particular action…cutting someone off in traffic, smiling at another and offering our help, encouraging, avoiding, insulting…explaining the truth about Jesus….

The truth is that we know tens if not hundreds of people in desperate spiritual situations. They are hurtling towards death without God's forgiveness and grace while we stand by. I want to call you all to prayer today both for the people in your life who are in need of God's mercy and for your own effectiveness as a missionary in prayer, in actions, and in words.

There are no neutral characters.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Religion (General) 3 Comments »

An Eye on Emergent

October 6, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Are you part of the “emerging church conversation?” Sometimes, as a
critic, I'm treated as though I'm not part of it- as if we can only
converse with people we agree with. It's no surprise that I'm not a fan
of much that is considered “emerging church,” but I'd like to give some
major kudos to the Next-Wave Ezine. They voluntarily published one of my book reviews in their latest issue. Allowing critical voices to participate is a trend I hope will grow in the emerging community.

Christianity Today's Leadership Journal has started a blog “Out of Ur.” Their first feature is an interview with Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo.

Does salvation mean wanting to be like Jesus?

Dan Kimball explains why I miss Psalty. Thankfully, my experience of Psalty wasn't as frightening as the one pictured on his blog.

You can now pre-order Brian McLaren's next book- The Secret Message of Jesus.
Does he realize that when people like me hear that title we
automatically think of gnosticism? Does he want us to think that? He
gives a little more detail about the book on his site.

Category Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts 10 Comments »

What is He Thinking?

October 5, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers has left many conservatives confused, but certainly not speechless. My initial reaction was best summarized by Bill Kristol’s, “I'M DISAPPOINTED, depressed and demoralized.”

We must first understand what qualifications should be in place for a nominee to the Supreme Court. (Remember that I’m not an expert and I’ve probably missed something.) The most obvious one is that (1) the nominee should be immensely qualified for the position with a strong record indicating competence, wisdom and experience. (2) The nominee must be of good character. Filibustering judicial nominees used to be done solely on the basis of poor character. The next criterion, perhaps more beloved by conservatives, is that (3) the nominee be an originalist, meaning they interpret the Constitution leaving it’s authority with the authors- not with their political agenda. It is additionally helpful if (4) the nominee is not too old, and if (5) the nominee is not too closely tied to politics (as this may compromise the third criteria).

My concerns over Harriet Mier’s nomination have to do with (1), (4), and (5). It appears that we have plenty of evidence she is of good character (2). And it appears that we have reason to trust that she is an originalist (3).

However-

(1) Initially I thought this nomination was like throwing a fresh rookie into the starting line-up. I’ve learned that though she has not been a judge before, she does have a ton of legal experience and qualifications. I would still prefer someone with experience as a judge, at an appeals court would be nice, but it’s possible that she has enough of a record in this area.

(4) Roberts was 50. Miers is 60. She may live another 20-30 years, but wouldn’t it be safer to choose someone younger? Is there really no one else qualified who’s younger than 60?

(5) We can trust that she is an originalist because Bush knows her well. Why? She works for him. This frightens me. As much as I agree with much of what Bush does, to put someone on the Supreme Court who has intimate ties with the Executive Branch seems to jeopardize the accountability that is suppose to exist between them. Bush may legitimately do something that is out of line. Will Justice Miers be objective enough to side with the law?

I generally trust Bush. But I also agree with Joe Carter that this smells like Cronyism. For these reasons, the final one especially, thorough hearings need to be conducted. The Roberts hearings went overboard, since there’s really nothing to object to about him. But with Miers there appears to be justified shadows of doubt as to whether or not she’s the person for the job. This isn’t just any job, but the highest appointed position in the nation short of the Chief Justice.

Hugh Hewitt, of course, likes her. I think he’d be satisfied if Bush nominated just about anyone who sounds conservative. Hewitt does, however, point to people who are making interesting points- like Beldar and Marvin Olasky. However, most of Olasky’s research points to Miers’ good character, but little else.

Most of us conservatives are in a hesitant wait-and-see mode. Here’s what I’ve been reading:

Justin Taylor– “But my question for Hugh is: Didn't conservatives trust Ronald Reagan, too? And he gave us Sandra Day O'Connor.”

TenNapel– “This is absolute proof that Bush is a moderate and not a flaming right wing conservative.”

Joe Carter– “Like the Gipper, Bush prefers to appoint women who have no apparent qualifications and are a complete cipher as to how they will serve once they become a justice.”

David Frum– “It is simply reckless for any conservative president, especially one backed by a 55-seat Senate majority, to take a hazard on anything other than a known quantity.”

Lores Rizkalla– “All I know is that, for many of us, this is the reason we voted for the president: to choose men and women committed to upholding and not re-writing the constitution.”

Category Posted in Main Page, Politics, Roger's Posts 6 Comments »

Book Review: 5 Paths to the Love of Your Life edited by Alex Chediak

October 4, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

With so many books currently on the market on dating, some
might ask themselves why we need another one. Perhaps the greatest attribute of
this book is that it explains and advocates five different perspectives, so
reading this one will eliminate the need to read many of the others. In 5
Paths to the Love of Your Life, Alex Chediak has brought together a select
group of leading thinkers to make the case for their perspectives so that the reader
can decide for them self.

The Counter-Cultural Approach is the first path proposed by
Lauren Winner. She calls on couples to counter the culture by shifting the
focus of dating away from themselves to Christ. Community also plays an
important role in this approach for feedback and accountability. Despite
Winner’s excellent writing style (the best in the book in my opinion) and
intriguing explanation of the history of dating, I was ultimately disappointed
with the position she advocated. For instance, her standard for physical
intimacy in a dating relationship is basically to only go as far as you’re
comfortable going in public. Unfortunately this principle would lead to sin for
some couples.

Douglas Wilson advocates The Courtship Approach. Fundamental
to this approach is the involvement of some sort of parental figure, either the
actual parents or the headship of the church. Additionally fundamental is that
the courting relationship be conducted with marriage in mind. Wilson also
emphasizes the headship of the male in the relationship, which, while not
necessary to a courting model, does reflect the biblical order. He does make
some comments about platonic relationships being impossible without adequately
substantiating the claim.

The third approach is the Principled Approach by Rick
Holland. Distinctive to this path is that the rules of “dating” or “courting”
aren’t significant. What is significant are the general principles for
relationships given by the Bible, such as each individual being a Christian,
each of good character, and each finding contentment in God. Holland’s argument
against dating and courting is that the rules for each system distract from the
biblical principles. This is a fallacious argument since it presumes that the
rules aren’t biblical principles, which is what the advocates of each position
hope to convince us of. The pertinent question is whether the rules do reflect
biblical principles or not.

Jonathan Lindvall puts forward the Betothal Approach. There
is not dating or courting; when a guy is interested in a girl he seeks the
advice and permission of his parents first, then her parents, then asks for her
hand. The betrothal period is much like engagement, except that it is a
committed covenant that cannot be broken (like marriage) and no physically
intimacy whatsoever is allowed. While there are some good qualities to this
approach, it an incredibly faulty application of a theological analogy- that
Christ is betrothed to the church. The Bible does offer certain principles about
how marriage relationships should persist, such as husbands loving their wives
as much as Christ loved the church, but to apply these principles to
pre-marital relationships is to step outside the indications of scripture and
if followed to their logical extent would result in absurdities.

The final approach is offered by Jeramy and Jerusha Clark-
the Purposed Approach. Contrary to most of what the others said, the Clarks are
fine with dating for couples who are not likely to pursue marriage any time soon,
such as high school students. The key factors are that romantic relationships
are pursued within the guidelines of holiness, trustworthiness, and the support
of family and friends. Heavily discussed in this approach is dependency on the
Holy Spirit, especially by way of listening for his “still small voice.” Aside
from this unbiblical principle, this path seems to approach romantic
relationships with too much frivolity.

Alex Chediak closes the book outlining the major agreements
and disagreements between the approaches. Several of the points made in this
section are helpful for better understanding the big picture of the book as
well as the individual paths.

My one major disappointment with the book is that the
contributors don’t interact with each other, which is usually a feature of
books advocating multiple perspectives. I would have really liked to see how
Winner would respond to Holland saying that her standard for purity is too
subjective, or how Lindvall would respond to Wilson citing the theological
absurdities of his position. Defending one’s view under criticism is one of the
best tests for correctness.
Even without interaction between the authors, the book
is generally helpful for mapping out the various perspectives with their
strengths and weaknesses. For those who’ve been brought up considering only one
or two of the perspectives, this will expand their knowledge to some relatively
new ones, such as betrothal. I would recommend this book to anyone who is
interested in deciding upon a formal approach for their romantic relationships.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts No Comments »

No Need to Fear a Conservative Justice

October 3, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

This morning, President Bush announced his next nominee for Supreme Court Justice. Many people on the left are afraid the person ultimately selected for this position will be a conservative originalist (i.e., that he or she will stay too close to the original intent of the writers). This seems odd to me. If I were on the left, facing the prospect of judges chosen by my political opponents, I would want them to be bound to an objective text as closely as possible. Such candidates would be far less likely to base their decisions on thier own authority and opinion than those who believe the Constitution is a “living document” that can (and should) be shaped by the rulings of judges rather than by amendments from the people. Originalists who consider themselves bound to the authority of an objective text will not promote the ideas of a particular administration, be swayed by the ebb and flow of anyone's opinion, or find new “meanings” in the text that were never before considered.

In his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Roberts said the following about the role of judges:

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.

The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.

But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.

No one, left or right, has any reason to fear a judge with this philosophy–one who is strictly bound to the laws passed by the people, no more and no less. Ultimately, his or her own political opinions will not matter.

So why do so many activists fear this? Possibly because they know that if the Supreme Court Justices actually do take what the Constitution says literally, they [the activists] will have to change the minds of a majority of the voting public to get what they want rather than those of only a few judges. In short, there will be no more short cuts. The playing field will be leveled, and everyone will have an equal opportunity to persuade the people and bring about change through the democratic, law-making process.

It remains to be seen whether Harriet Miers will achieve this, and whether this will then lead to more intelligent debate or merely to more of the kind of propaganda I described last week.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Politics No Comments »

Of Labels and Creeds

October 12, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton