A principle

Here is a principle I have witnessed about Christians and their theology in today's context, though it doesn't peg all individuals.

Conservative theology is trying to save the world from the godlessness of liberal thought. Liberal theology is trying to save the world from the ignorance of conservative thought. Ironically though, many conservatives become godless with their vilification and hatred of others and many liberals become ignorant from their arrogance that blinds them.

Of course, conservatives can become arrogant and ignorant and liberals godless. But when I see something offensive from a conservative or liberal theological person, this principle I have found identifies the nature of their offense.

Oh, and you can call me liberally conservative...

I'm back, hopefully for good

Been an interesting and busy few weeks for me. I kept thinking things would eventually slow down, but they didn't. Things seem to have settled down now though. I am preaching each week on Sundays at two small Methodist Churches and will probably be appointed there soon. Finally got accepted into Asbury and will sign up for online classes soon enough (I can't tell you how excited that I am for all of that). Now I can fully realize how low I am in Biblical knowledge and theology, more than my reading of other theology blogs has placed a blow to my ego (a blow that I need because there is no room for pride in Christian theology).

So a topic I have been thinking upon is the topic of Biblical Inerrancy. I will make another post on it in further detail, but here are a couple of brief observations from reading the posts on other blogs. Biblical inerrantists and errantists (BIs and BEs for short) both paint the other in caricatured manners. From some BIs, there is the tendency to question the legitimacy of the faith of BEs and to be vitriolic towards them. On the other hand though, BEs tend to have the air of intellectual arrogance towards them, as if there were once "unenlightened" BIs, but now see the errors of their past ways and pour contempt upon those who hold it and even call Biblically Inerrancy the worst theological invention from the popular Faith and Theology blog. In addition, there are errors on the issue of the Bible itself that I find both sides tend to fall into. More to discuss in my next update though.

But just so where people can know where I stand, I don't hold to Biblical Inerrancy in fact, but most of the time you could not tell with me because I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt (just as we do for historical literature) and am not prone to strike away passages. But more on my view later also.

Also, to get a "liberal" view on things (though I hate using the terms liberal and conservative in theology), I've bought four books containing the works of Paul Tillich when I made a trip to Barnes and Noble last night. I picked up "The New Being," "A History of Christian Thought," "The Courage to Be," and "Systematic Theology: Volume One." Started reading "The New Being" (which is a collection addresses to colleges and universities) and got through the first address of "To whom much is forgiven...," which is a talk based upon story of the Pharisee and the sinner in Luke 7:36-47. Already, I am seeing disagreement between me and Tillich. I will expound upon more than I as get further into the book.

Finally, I've got a new project that I am going to take upon. I am an avid user of e-sword (http://www.e-sword.net) and it has suited its purpose for me for a while, but I have found it does not have the features that I need in a Bible program. Not to complain about it, but it is a free program. However, I don't have the funds to dedicate to some of the other Bible programs which charge hundreds of dollars, nor do I need everything that they have at the moment. So, I hope to brush off my programming skills (used to major in Computer Science) and write a Bible program using Java with the functionality that I look for (plus the other basic features). Of course this is a big project for me and I tend to start big projects but never finish them (of course have not started a big project the past few years). Plus it would be nice to use the ThML repository at CCEL if I could at all possibly incorporate the ThML format to the Bible program.

I am well aware there are other free Bible programs out there, but there is nothing that is free that seems to be geared towards a more academic study. For instance, a good way to search the Greek or Hebrew, or the ability to search for multiple words within multiple verses (as opposed to a one verse search), etc. etc. But we shall see though how far I get with this. Any input or help would be appreciated, and prayers for me in this endeavor even more so.

Do you think you are a bad person?

A repost from another blog of mine that I think fits here:

Do you think you are a bad person? If so, please answer yes or no to the following questions.

1. Have you ever given without expecting anything in return?
2. Have you ever done a good thing in secret and never mentioned it?
3. Have you ever opened the door for an old lady?
4. Have you ever told the truth when it had consequences?
5. Have you ever given money to charity?
6. Have you ever worshiped God sincerely?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are a not a bad person....... *tongue in cheek*

So a pet peeve of mine, if you can't tell, are those evangelistic approaches that do the whole "Do you think you are a good person" routine and then turned around and ask the question have you ever done certain sinful things all of done, which then in turn means that you are not a good person and therefore need Christ. Of course, we see how foolish the thinking is "If I have done bad once, I am bad" is in light of the reverse "If I have a done good once, I am good."

I agree that evangelism needs to reveal a person's personal guilt to a person. However, the theology about it and the approach are horribly off in those schemes. First off, evangelism needs to reveal the theme of good or sin in our life, not a one time action. People need to recognize how greatly disobedient they have been to God, not just that they have been at one time. Repentance is crucial to the Gospel and salvation, but how can a person repent of their whole sinful lifestyle when they don't really see it.

Also, it pretty much presents God as this person who is just waiting to see us fail and the moment we fail once, then he turns from this loving God to this angry God and in order to subvert this wrath that He has, He has to kill an innocent person in order to satisfy His wrath. If we had a father who was nice to us until we messed up once and then showed us only anger and the only way to appease his anger is to take it out on someone else (say abusing the innocent mother), we would call that person horrible. And yet the God whom we call good is portrayed in this way by many. See my previous posts on atonement theory.

Now don't get me wrong. Christ died for our sins, but in order to set us free from the life of sin, not merely to procure a pardon. We all need God's grace through Christ in order to be saved in this world and without that we can not live a life that is righteous and pleasing before God. And God is good, He just isn't the bipolar being that some portray Him as. I am just tired of the legalistic view of sin and salvation and the ultimately shallow evangelistic methods that result from it and the shallowness of some forms of Christianity that come from the legalistic view.

Revelation and knowledge without experience lacks true understanding. Experience without revelation and knowledge is subject to a person's impressions. Or another way: Head without heart is insensitive. Heart without head is foolish.

Apologies for the rather short comments recently. I just graduated and I am beginning to start as a student local pastor in the Methodist church so my time has been taken up. Plus I just found out a friend's dad is in the hospital so time right now is really short. But I really do hope to get things going again, I promise.

Oh, and something a bit humbling, in more ways than one. I found out that I am #100 on UnSpun's list of top theology blogs. Its humbling in one way because it is 100 out of 107 listed blogs. But on the other hand, its humbling because who knew my blog was even worthy of that much attention.

A paradox

The Church is supposed to be a plurality and yet it is to be united and singular.

How is the Church allow for a variety but yet maintain itself as one?