smerickson.com the personal website of steven m. erickson

Many of you know that I love hymns. While I do appriciate them being played on an organ, I also enjoy it when musicians, in an act of creativity, set them to new tunes. It should come as no surprise then that I have really been enjoying the new Jars of Clay cd, “Redemption Songs”. It is fully of great hymns all done in that great ‘Jars of Clay’ style.

Another resource I should mention is the Reformed University Fellowship. This group, based out of Nashville, has also put together some great hymn arrangements. They also make available their entire hymnal. Both are great. Enjoy.

LINK: Jars of Clay website Redeption Songs on iTunes Indelible Grace RUF Hymnal

Lately, I have encountered among many Christians a desire to rename and re-identify themselves. This desire usually manifests itself as attempting to forge a new way between so-called, conservative Evangelicalism and Liberalism. The contexts for these terms is both theological and political. These proposals can be seen in the writings of Jim Wallis in politics or Stan Grenz or Brian McLaren in theology. Indeed, much of the so-called emergent movement can be conceived of in this fashion.

Not only are they critical of specific positions within both Evangelicalism and Liberalism, but also of the entire framework. They see both groups (conservative and liberal) as being stuck in the modern mindset of being able to have a corner on truth and therefore excluding others from that claim. They are quick to point out that modernity is dead and so we need to move beyond the problems which plagued it.

One online writer frames the conversation this way:

On the one hand is a dominant conservative evangelical theology, often involving a higher view of Scripture than Scripture itself warrants (inerrancy, sola scriptura) in combination with a “moral majority,” “Christian nation” American supremacist politics. In addition, conservative evangelicalism fosters a sense of enmity towards popular culture and always construes “secular” film, art, and music as a spiritual threat. On the other end of the (Protestant) spectrum is liberal theology, whose politics I find vastly preferable to that of the Christian right. But the whole enterprise of liberal theology, the privileging of universal human capacities of experience and reason over God’s special revelation of Godself, seems an intellectual dead end to me.

As stated above, the main critique driving their ecumenical concern is that the theological and denominational divisions which have occurred in recent history are the result of the now out-dated modern mindset. Now that we have moved past all of that into a new era, those things which separated Christians now fade out of view. They say that the entire conservative/liberal mentality is misguided and we should move on to addressing new, more pressing issues. Perhaps an analogy could be drawn from the arena of mathematics to help clarify the specifics of the proposal as well as some of the misunderstanding that could occur. In some sense Grenz and others are proposing that we are stuck in a two-dimensional plane (2-D). There are only certain types of questions which can be asked in the realm of 2-D and therefore only certain solutions can be offered. For example, it makes no sense to find the volume of a 2-D object. The proposal is that we need to move into a third dimension (3-D). This, they say, opens up a whole new set of possibilities and allows us to focus on different issues than those that plague a 2-D world. The difficulty as I see it is that their proposals are often times misunderstood. People simply cannot grasp what they are proposing because it seems so different from what they experience. It is like trying to explain what depth is to someone who only knows of the two dimensions of height and width. The fascinating thing is that just as three dimensional objects can be represented in two dimensions; the proposals of the emergent church can often be cast into the conservative/liberal, orthodox/progressive categories which they are attempting to transcend. And so some have questioned whether this new group is simply a new form of liberal Christianity.

The inevitable question that must be asked is whether or not the possibility of some new “third way” even exists. Going back to our analogy, it is to ask whether we live in a 2-D plane or a 3-D one. I’m not in a place at this point to discuss the plausibility of this new proposal, but I would like to offer two thoughts on the matter.

First, let me return to the mathematical analogy. If I am right in framing the new proposals in terms of new dimensions, one of the implications of this is that there are connections which exist between the dimensions. When one moves from the realm of 2-D to 3-D, it is not that the questions of 2-D become irrelevant, rather a whole net set of questions are now available. For instance, it is still appropriate to find the surface area of a three-dimensional object. Along these lines, one of the suggestions that I would make to the proponents of this new way would be that they cannot simply dismiss or disregard the questions of modernity. No doubt, they are free ask new questions, but without weighing in on the questions of the past they hurt their own position. This is because members of both liberal and conservative camps will not give them an ear if they do not enter into the conversations on such topics. Furthermore, they give the impression that their “new” third way can only be defined by negation and lacks any positive proposals. Instead of just saying that Evangelicals hold too high a view of Scripture, propose for us then a positive sketch of what you would like to see in its place. Or do not just dance around the question of whether or not Christianity is true (as Grenz does in Renewing the Center pgs 280-286). If one’s position is to be taken seriously, they must answer the questions which are asked of them instead of avoiding a response by dismissing the question.

The other comment I would like to make about these calls for new options is that they are oddly familiar of the calls of recent history. What I mean is that Carl Henry and others of the neo-evangelical movement of the 1950’s said almost the same things. They wanted a new option between the fundamentalism of the day and neo-orthodoxy. What I find is odd, is that somehow in the course of 50 years evangelicalism has become the “new fundamentalism” which this new group would like to move past. Yet, I haven’t been able to find any treatments of how present day evangelicalism has reverted back to fundamentalism. The closest I have come is Stan Grenz’ Renewing the Center, in which he recounts the history of evangelicalism and mentions the characteristics of some of the new inheritors of the group. But even in this, I have a hard time picking out just how the change has come to take place. Maybe some one can help me out and tell me what went wrong. Until then, I continue to stand in the neo-evangelical tradition set forth by Henry, Ockenga and others and yet remain engaged in the theological conversations of our day.

This past week I read Renewing the Center by Stan Grenz. Grenz is one of the theological think tanks of the emergent movement and this book has received a lot of attention. I felt that it was important for me to read it. From the start, I knew I that I going to have a difficult time reading this book. This is both because of the difficulty of some of the material as well as the disagreements which I knew existed between Grenz and myself. Reading the book did provide me with a better understanding of some of the critiques offered by the emergent movement. That said, it further confirmed some of my disagreements with the group.

In a curious act of providence Stan Grenz passed away early this morning. You can read about the specifics of the situation below. I had planned on writing a short review of the book but somehow that just doesn’t seem appropriate right now; although I do plan on posting my almost completed summary of the emergent church in the next couple of days. Right now, my thoughts and prayers go out to the Grenz family in this time of loss.

LINK: Details about Dr. Grenz

Recently, I’ve been added to the League of Reformed Bloggers. This is a group of individuals who are committed to the doctrines of the Reformation and who seek to interact with a wide variety of topics from this perspective. The group publishes an XML feed for the posting of all members in the League, which is very helpful. Here’s all the info:

- More information about the League - Aggregated posts and Member list - XML Feed

This past week I have been on spring break. I decided to stay at school in order to finish working on my Senior Project for my Computer Science degree. The project is a library-type website which will allow one of our professors here on campus to post and maintain a number of the books and articles that he has spent years “digitizing”. It has been a great project to work on and I look forward to developing it further in the future. I’ll post a link to the project when it is complete.

As some of you know, I have been considering going to seminary next year. Well, that has been decided now. I have been accepted to Gordon Conwell to study for a Masters of Arts in Theology. Right now I am also considering the possibility of adding an MA in Church History as well, but we’ll wait and se about that. It should prove to be a great time of study. Although it took some time to feel comfortable with the decision, I am now beginning to look forward to my time there.

Other than that life remains pretty consistent. I continue my involvement in the chapel program and I still attend the First Congregational Church of Hamilton. Then there is the list of assignments which need to be completed before the big graduation day in May. It all seems to be moving much too fast for my taste, but I guess that is just how it goes; and from what I hear from those older than I, it doesn’t slow down. Well, that’s a little update on life here in Boston.

For the next two weeks Michael Horton and the White Horse Inn will be discussing the Emergent Church. They have also provided some interviews with individuals from the Emergent Convention in February.

LINK: The White Horse Inn The Interviews (mp3) Interview w/ Shane Rosenthal (White Horse Inn Producer) (mp3)

The past three days Al Mohler has posted three articles on postmodernism and the shape that it takes in different places in the culture. If you are still struggling to figure out just what this whole thing called “postmodernism” is all about, this would be a good place to start. Let me add one word of caution. There really is no such thing as a truly postmodern person. The system itself is internally incoherent and therefore cannot survive the long hall. This can be seen clearly by recognizing that in the places where it has its origins, like France, no one teaches postmodernism anymore. This month’s Christianity today has a pretty interesting piece on the rise of religion in France. But while postmodernism as a system is not on the rise, there are still evidences and influences of it all around. There are many forms of mild-postmodernism and we would do well to know how to interact with them. This is why I think that Mohler’s articles can be helpful; because they serve as an opportunity to see the system for what it really is and then allow us to know how to better respond to the more particular versions of it that we might encounter on a day to day basis.

LINKS: Day One | Day Two | Day Three

Lately I have really been wrestling with this whole issue of how to deal with those who differ from me. When I ask this question, I’m thinking mainly about theological differences, but the question is really broad enough to include a number of different situations in life. For, as sinful, we will inevitably come into disagreement with others about some issue. It is therefore important to consider just how to respond when differences arise. One essay, that I first came across a year or two ago, which has been very helpful along these lines is by Roger Nicole entitled, “Polemic Theology – How to Deal With Those Who Differ From Us”. You can find a copy of the essay here: Founders.org. Below I have included a summary of some of his main points as well as some of my own reflections and difficulties on this subject.

It is my understanding that the goal of communication and interaction with those who differ from us is always greater unity. There are many encouragements in the Bible that call Christians to be united in their view of truth. (1 Cor 1.10 – same mind and judgment; Phil 1.27 – standing firm in one spirit with one mind; Phil 2.2 – being of the same mind; Phil 4.2 – agree in the Lord; Rom 12.16 – live in harmony; 1 Pet 3.8 – have unity of mind). Furthermore, I believe in the unity of truth, as opposed to some who would tend to pursue the plurality of truth. By plurality of truth, I mean the understanding that conflict, tension or even contradiction can exist within truth. It is with this understanding that I strongly disagree. Truth is unified and it ought to bring about unity amongst those who acknowledge it.

In his essay, Dr. Nicole identifies three questions which we should ask when in disagreement with someone else. He stresses not only these questions, but also the order in which they are asked.

What do I owe to the person who differs from me?

“I would say we owe it to our opponents to deal with them in such a way that they may sense that we have a real interest in them as persons, that we are not simply trying to win an argument or show how smart we are, but we are deeply interested in them – and are eager to learn from them as well as to help them.”

The first thing that we should acknowledge is that we have obligations to those who differ from us. Negatively, we do not owe them consent nor indifference. Positively, we do owe them love. In an act of love, it is important that we understand them and what they are saying (read their stuff or better, talk to them) and what they are meaning (re-read their stuff and ask questions for clarification).

Nicole tells a story about quibbling with the wife about “never” taking out the trash which means “not recently”. He says that it becomes a side track to get hung up about the fact that “never” and “not recently” are not the same thing. Now, we should use this as a lesson to ourselves to ensure that we mean what we write and that we write what we mean, but in our conversations with others where these things differ, there should be an element of charity and a focus on semantics (meaning) instead of syntax (wording).

Not only are we to understand their words and meaning but also their aims or goals. What are they really trying to accomplish? Often times this can become a point of correspondence between two differing parties. I know that in my own life I have experienced times where I may disagree sharply with someone over a given issue, but we do share similar aims or goals. This provides a starting point for conversation and can be helpful in bringing together disparate parties.

What can I learn from the person who differs from me?

For me, this question about what I can learn from those who differ from me is the hardest. As I understand it, this question addresses two separate things. First, we can learn from those with whom we differ about other issues not related to the one we are at present discussing. I confess that I find this very difficult to do. There are many times that when I find I disagree with someone about a certain issue, I have a hard time distinguishing that issue from some other one where I may really appreciate what they have to say. Perhaps this is related to my understanding of the interconnectedness of truth. We cannot completely separate out truth in the little separate compartments; there are always connections there. Another reason I think I have a difficult time doing this is because I am afraid that if this individual or group gains the respect of others in speaking about one issue, it will give them a platform from which to speak about their views on the issue over which we disagree. I recognize that this is not a healthy attitude to have. I should praise and uphold truth that is spoken regardless of who says it or their motives. Paul’s words in Philippians are most helpful at this point. Paul is in jail and he gets word that there are some who are preaching Christ while he is in jail. It is unclear about their motives for preaching, but Paul writes: “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.” (Phil 1:15-18) Let me clarify and say that Paul is not condoning the preaching of a false gospel or false content. This is because that is the very thing he criticizes the Judaizers for in his letter to the Galatians. What I think Paul is saying is that where the content is true we ought to rejoice. Undoubtedly, the goal is to preach the truth out of good motives, but wherever truth is proclaimed, regardless of motives, by Christians or not, we should rejoice. This is something I have to always keep in mind.

The second thing this question is addressing is that we can obviously learn something from those who differ from us about the issue that we are discussing. In matters not essential to the faith, we should acknowledge that we may be wrong and the other person right. Nicole writes, “A person who corrects our misapprehensions is truly our helper rather than our adversary and we should be grateful for this service rather than resentful of the correction.” Not only can we learn content from them but we also may learn that our presentation of the facts have left out a part of the whole truth. Sometimes, we would do well to thank those who differ from us by helping us grasp a fuller-orbed view of truth. Also, they may call to our attention certain objections, solutions to which we had not before considered. In all these things, we can learn from those with whom we disagree. Finally, with regard to logic, it is important that we distinguish the specifics of a certain view from some of the logical outcomes which we might perceive. It is fair to raise these and to use them as a way to persuade someone to hold a different view but we need to be careful to not confuse the view with its implications.

How can I cope with the person who differs from me?

The third question that Dr. Nicole asks is “How can I cope with the person who differs from me?” By this he means, how ought we go about actually engaging those who differ from us. There are always two sides to this engagement, protective and constructive. Protective strategies firm up the walls of our own arguments and presentations and respond to the critiques of others. Constructive strategies attempt to lay out a more positive case for the position which we hold.

In all disagreements, the Bible must always be the focus of the discussion. We should read it and re-read it in an effort to better understand what it is and is not saying. By doing so, we acknowledge our submission to Christ and his authority over us through his word. We would also do well to read how others in the past have understood the Scripture texts pertaining to the issue we are discussing. In doing so, we acknowledge our belief in God’s Spirit to work in the lives of others throughout time to lead them into greater truth.

One way that we show our genuine concern for those with whom we disagree is by praying. We ought to pray that God would allow us to be gracious towards them in the midst of our disagreement. We also ought to pray that God would soften our hearts and the hearts of those with whom we differ, that we both may come to a better understanding of and love for Christ and his truth. This focus on prayer helps us remember that God is sovereign and that he is therefore in control of whatever situation we may find ourselves in. We must acknowledge that we do not always know the full outcomes of our disagreements. We may not always persuade someone to hold our view on a given issue, in fact, we might actually become persuaded to hold theirs, but regardless of the immediate outcome we can affirm God’s sovereignty. For it is his effort upon which we are dependant, not our own and his truth will prevail in his time.

One passage of Scripture relating to disagreements which I have always found fascinating is 1 Corinthians 11:18-19. Paul is addressing the sad practices which have come up in the church at Corinth over the issue of the Lord’s Supper. In his address, he writes: “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” Here Paul seems to acknowledge the fact that there will be disagreements and in some sense it is good that disagreement is present because it allows truth to be displayed. Now, of course this is not an in support of argument and disagreement, but I think that it does serve to remind us that we are not always promised peace in this life and we will encounter disagreements and when we do it is important to remain faithful to God’s truth as revealed in the Bible and to trust in Him to guide his people into all truth.

I’ll stop here now. In sum, this whole issue of dealing with those who differ from us is to me very relevant. Pray for me as I continue to engage with all sorts of people on a whole host of issues.

UPDATED: Here are a couple of articles I came across after writing this reflection. Jollyblogger on disputations John Newton on Controversy