Proposal

The more I see of this infighting over theology, the more I'm convinced the "scholar/pastor" role is not for me. Not because I don't enjoy studying, learning, and even a good debate. It just seems like all of this is a long way off from the role of a shepherd, which is the role I feel called to.

A lot of these people pastor churches, right? This may be a bit presumptuous, but maybe their time would be better spent seeing to their spiritual well-being of their flock than trying to get everyone else in the "Reformed world" in line with their theological nuances.

I miss you too.

Keep the faith. I promise there are some nice West Wing episodes waiting for you back here, and a big hug to boot.

Aw, now I'm getting all sappy. My image as a cynical jerkwad is going to suffer after this.

Josiah, great thought on framing the term fundamentalism. I couldn't agree with you more.

Ignore you, Josiah? When have you ever made that an easy thing to do? Your proposal doesn't really clarify anything. First, by stating what fundamentalism no longer is, you have eliminated any easy means of referring to a category that still exists. Second, the definition that you propose is already taken: synonyms would be 'interpretive grid' or 'fundamental presuppositions.'

You are right that our calling, first and foremost, is to love God and to love our neighbor. However, unless it is your intent to become the darling of the Liberal theologians with their "Fatherhood of God and siblinghood of persons" mantra, then you cannot place this in opposition to the concern to get theology right. Also existing as a scriptural proposition is the notion that loving God entails keeping his commandments. Nor is this just a compact, circular argument- It is not, "If you love God, then you must follow the command to love God." It is another way of expressing Jesus' own words that the law and the prophets hang on the two great commands to love God and neighbor. The concern for proper theology is nothing different than the desire to know and to follow what the scriptures principally teach; namely, what we are to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of us. Without this, love of God and neighbor is not possible.

I think it boils down to this: systems. Somewhere in history the herd mentality has created the belief that society can only be one system fighting against another. Various molds to press people into. I think we need to realize that God's Word will stand today as it has in the distant and very alien past, as well as the alien and unforeseen future. God is not traditional family values, the civil war, grandma's home cooking, the republican party, the Christian college you subscribe to, the little community you sit in and fire criticisms against others from. It's coming to the point where God will prevail over the simplistic systems that people regiment themselves under. I know and feel the impulse driving what you're saying. I tend to just say it much less eloquently in a kind of "hell yeah, seize the day" way.

Let's remember the thief on the cross went to paradise with Christ simply by believing in Him. If you're looking for a free license in that then you're looking for another system. I see mercy and grace, free and abundant, and that is what I will cover myself with because only my King can save me from damnation. Not my large family of doctrine spewing rugrats.

I don't think it can be explained. There are those who do not have ears to hear. They live inside the box and claim their leaders are the box incarnate. It's pathetic and needs to be recognized as an evil root of pharisaism inside the church. When I see children who can recite the whole catechism in one breath but can’t laugh without feeling guilty, I see a tyranny of the worst kind. When I see a newly-wed couple stand up in front of a bunch of nodding, forgiving hypocrites and apologize for their firstborn I see a millstone tied around a neck.

Only love can set you free.

Kevin,

I'm not sure I see how your comment, "It is another way of expressing Jesus' own words that the law and the prophets hang on the two great commands to love God and neighbor," is saying anything different than what Josiah originally said. What concerns Josiah is that, despite the constant declarations that love emerges from proper theology, we see a good deal more theological scrutiny than love in the Reformed community. I have no desire to abandon theology, I just want to see a theology that leads to greater love for God and neighbor. Any objections?

K-Dawg, I'm being something here, but I'm tired and lack the energy to dig up appropriate adjectives, but I can't help but feel that you've "fundamentalized" your Reformed thinking, as in your experience in charismatic & pentacostle churches and your subsequent leaving of them was theological (as far as I can tell in this particular discussion) and not a change away from the fundamental assumptions about how to approach reality.

Doing rigorous & good theology is the way to loving God sounds little different to me (on the surface) from making sure not to drink and/or smoke. It's hard to categorize because it's a discussion of motivations, deep-seated desires, and "the heart."

Now one might think it's none of my business to judge along those lines, if that's what you want to call it. That's cool, I can respect that, like I can assume that the homeschool nazis are deep down trying to glorify the Lord & that the Holy Spirit is working in their hearts. That still doesn't mean they aren't being jerks.

I just spent a bunch of time answering Aaron before I saw Josiah's latest response... and then I lost it all at the touch of a button. Now there are other things that I need to be doing. I'll get back to it when I can. If I think of too much to say, I'll just use my own blog space.

Aaron,

I guess I'm not following you here. I can't see how my comment is at all like what Josiah originally said. I suspect that the two of you have had some face to face conversations on this topic, and so I will defer to your judgment as to what he meant. I have no objection at all to wanting to see a theology that leads to greater love for God and neighbor. The whole church, not just its Reformed manifestation, needs to be pushed in the direction of showing more love. On the other hand, theological scrutiny does not indicate a lack of love. I wonder if Josiah isn't painting a bleaker picture than what actually exists.

Then maybe we need to go beneath the surface. God has never expressed an opinion about smoking or about drinking on this side of intoxication. He has never stated that we should question the parental skills of people who do not homeschool. He has, however, given us some regulations about what we may or may not do and what we are to believe about him. Doing good theology is nothing more than caring to know what he has said on these topics so that, in obeying his commands, we may demonstrate our love for him.

Josiah, your comments on the unloving Reformed church are not that easy to follow. A surface reading is that the concern for getting theology right is unloving and so, the only theology that we should have is that we love; furthermore, this theology of love must be unqualified. It cannot be encumbered with more theology that might tell us what it means to love God and neighbor.

And none of this really bothers me because the surface reading is couched in irony. It's all stated in terms of what "Josiah thinks." It's about what those who accuse you of being arrogant would say. In this case, I could ignore the broad generalization about the unloving Reformed church and consider your comments to be against the rising trend of cold hearted legalism within the Reformed church. And I would agree with you.

It's when I consider your comments in a broader context that I start to get concerned. This is the context in which you question "the fundamental assumptions about how to approach reality." It is the ongoing context in which you have been speaking favorably of existentialism and paradox-theology. And so, whereas under a simple ironic reading of your comments I might infer that you don't mean to include classic Reformed confessionalism under the rubric of those who are more concerned with getting their theology right, now, I can't be sure. The Confessions were written under the very approach to reality paradigm to which you are now objecting. Perhaps I should be objecting to your implied characterization of Confessionalism as unloving.

Of course, it's entirely possible that I have misunderstood you. Indeed, I hope so. So I'll just ask: what are your fundamental assumptions about how to approach reality? The meaning of any proposition that we affirm is ultimately grounded in these assumptions. Bultmann, for instance, could affirm the resurrection; however, what he meant by this did not include the fact that 2000 years ago near Jerusalem a male Jewish corpse was revivified. Does your approach to reality allow for the possibility of theological error? If so, are there any serious consequences?

Incidentally, I was never anything approaching charismatic or Pentecostal.