Was Saint Augustine Post-Conservative?

There is a well known phrase which is often attributed to Saint Augustine, it says:

In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.

Whether or not the great saint was post-conservative in all matters and whether or not he even was the one who first said this, the bottom line is that this quote captures the heart of post-conservativism!

In The Essentials!

In the essentials of the faith (that is, when the very gospel is at stake, when the fundamentals of the Apostles Creed is considered when reviewing the ‘basics’ list of Hebrews 6:1-3 – the very essence of what makes Christianity what it is; i.e. the essentials) let us have absolute unity! If someone declares Jesus not to be God we need to stand up and call a spade what it is. If someone denies that Christ came in the flesh let us stand up as one! These are examples of the unity of the faith in all matters pertaining to the essentials.

In The Non-Essentials!

What are the non-essentials of Christianity? Is God presently in the future yes or no? That is a non-essential question. Which is closer to the truth Calvinism or Arminianism? That is a non-essential question. Post- Pre- or Amillennialism? That is a non-essential question. Dispensational or Covenantal? That is a non-essential question. Contemporary or Hymnal worship in churches? That is a non-essential question. Is the Kingdom of God present or is it future? That is a non-essential question. Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation or symbolic? That is a non-essential question. Tongues as evidence of Spirit Baptism or not? That is a non-essential question. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I realize that these areas are considered essential by those who hold to them but the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the fundaments of the faith do not hang on the outcome of any one of these questions. That is not to say that these questions are not important ones, they are! It is to say though that because they are important Christians should be allowed to debate them, wrestle with them, work them through, attempt to find common ground and if necessary, agree to disagree. This is the heart of Post-Conservativism.

In All Things Charity!

And this is where the rubber meets the road. There is where seasoned, tempered and mature spirituality shines! Are we to condemn people and their theological musings because they don’t jive with our traditions (whether they be Dispensational or Covenantal)? Are we to call people heretics and declare that they have stepped ‘out of bounds’ because the idea seems novel to us (Free will theists or omni-determinists)?

When the essentials are not at stake (and I cannot see which of the essentials are at stake, for example, in Open Theism – though I am not an Open Theist), how we respond to a brother or sister in the Lord whose theological musings are different from our traditions will often be the mark of our spiritual maturity.

The post-conservative pleads with his brothers and sisters in Christ with this prayer: In the essentials unity; in the non-essentials liberty; and in all things charity.

Derek

I have written this blog as a compliment to the last, to clarify certain points. Some people are fearful that a post-conservative approach to Christianity and to the scriptures places the very gospel at stake; that it may very well disappear. To react with fear is to miss the mark altogether! Post-conservativism is rooted in the Reformers principle of Sola Scriptura and is wholly committed to the fundaments of the faith. The gospel is not at stake with a post-conservative worldview and neither is the Tradition of the Fundamentals. Only our tradition are and if this scares us then that fear is a check.

Why I Am Post-Conservative

When I first began to write this post I fully expected it to be no more than two short paragraphs long and even considered simply adding it as an addendum to my last blog, Why I Am Evangelical. However, as I reflected on what I would say, it soon became obvious how important this worldview – that of being ‘post-conservative’ – is to me. Important enough to set forth a pleaded articulation of what it is that makes one ‘post-conservative’. It became my goal – and my hope – that the reader will get a “sense” of what I am talking about, because being post-conservative is difficult to define and perhaps to many it may sound like little more than exercise in semantics. I hope to show this not to be the case.

Let me begin with what my wife refers to as a “lovely metaphor”.

Have you ever been constipated? It is a horrible and painful ordeal. It is the sensation and awareness that something’s gotta give, you just have to get something out but for reasons you can’t explain there seems to be something else in the way. You become overwhelmed with frustration, you grab your stomach and buckle over in pain and you pray for relief so that what needs to come out can finally flow freely as nature intended. This, brothers and sisters, is analogous to my experience as a ‘theological conservative’. I was more or less raised up with the worldview that says, ‘don’t question this so far’ or ‘don’t think too much about that’ because if you do you are sure to wind up as a ‘liberal’. When that happens we’ll have no choice but to call you a heretic.

Don’t believe me? Consider this experience. I was a first year bible college student with many questions on my mind, and not many answers. A class discussion on original sin taught that the sin of Adam was a physical genetic disease that was physically passed down from one generation to another. However, since Jesus was perfect and born of a woman we must conclude that the “sin gene” was transmitted through the male chromosomes. Since Jesus had no earthly father we can conclude – so the theory goes – that this is true. Well I was no brilliant mind, but on all accounts this talk sounded pretty silly (as it still does). Not knowing any better I raised my hand and offered an alternative: the bible says that Jesus was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin. Could this passage not suggest that Jesus, who was perfect from birth to death, had a sin nature yet overcame it perfectly by not sinning? Wouldn’t this add substance to Jesus’ being tempted as we are?

No sooner did I present my theory – I winged it off the top of my head and was not presenting what I “believed”, but was trying to understand this situation better, certainly better then the hogwash presented by the teacher – when murmurs of heresy began to circulate throughout the class. Later that evening I called a respected pastor who took the time to guide me and explain to me some things. While my class was quick to judge me a heretic, my friend recognized that I was an inquisitive Christian who needed direction. There is a difference.

It was not outright said: ‘Don’t think’, but it was more or less implied: ‘Don’t think outside of your tradition, don’t question what we’ve always believed’. But here is a problem I developed by way of observation: Catholics: people who are born and raised in this tradition or first get converted to it remain there and believe it to always teach the truth. Baptists: people who are born and raised in this tradition or first get converted to it remain there and believe it to always teach the truth. Pentecostals: people who are born and raised in this tradition or first get converted to it remain there and believe it to always teach the truth. Lutherans: people who … Anglicans: people who… et cetera. In other words, people tend to believe that their tradition is the right one by default of being their tradition. Even many who are in search for “Truth” often fail to consider the possibility that maybe they don’t have it.

Yet I had the fortunate misfortune in my youth of coming across a quote by the ancient Church Father, Clement of Alexandria, who said: “if our faith is such that it is destroyed by force of argument, then let it be destroyed, for it would have been proven that we do not possess the truth”. I thought ‘this is a man who is more committed to finding ‘truth’ then firmly (stubbornly) establishing his ‘tradition’’. Then – foolish me – I took Clements’ statement a step further and applied it to all areas of the faith, and this is where my “theological constipation” – and my anguish – came in.

Q: Is “tongues” truly the evidence that someone has had the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as my tradition taught)? Then what about the majority of Christians through the ages – many of who claimed this experience – where tongues were absence (John Wesley)?
Q: Why is it that no matter how I read the bible, a seven year tribulation theory makes no sense at all and can be found nowhere (as my tradition taught it), at least not by way of a most natural reading of Daniel 9:24-27?
Q: If salvation is by grace through faith alone, if sacrifices could not take away sin, if God’s plan all along was to redeem creation through the sacrifice of Christ, then why do we (as my tradition taught) say that salvation in the old testament was by the law? How were the Old Testament saints saved?

These are just a few of the questions that I began to have, but the backlash was more then I was prepared to handle. ‘Heretic’; ‘crazy’; ‘get out of our church’; ‘to question “such-and-such” is heresy’, et cetera. In other words, ‘these are our traditions, you don’t like it? Leave!’ So I became constipated. I had these questions brewing within me but I was fearful of the backlash from the Christian conservative community (theological conservative is not necessarily “right wing conservatives”; you may be a “liberal left winger” and still be stubbornly conservative when it comes to your liberal beliefs).

It is crucial to note that my questions were not polemical; that is, it wasn’t as though I read a book against the seven year tribulation theory and so challenged it, or that I read books by Reformed scholars and then challenged tongues evidence of Pentecostals. I was simply a bible reader with real questions. I read the bible and certain things which I was being taught (I knew nothing else) did not make sense, “here are my questions. Help me”. It was a situation of “I want to believe, help my unbelief”. But instead I was sent to the proverbial guillotine. So I spent several years with my lips tightly sealed for fear of the consequences of honest reflection in search of truth.

So what is the answer to constipation? How about a good large Bran muffin or better yet, a good dose of ex-lax! Roger Olson’s book (quoted in the previous blog) called, How to be Evangelical without being Conservative, was my ex-lax. “Conservative” throughout his book is not to be understood as a political Conservative (which I am); his issue is with theological conservativism. He says, “When I claim that it is possible to be more evangelical by being less conservative, I mean by ‘conservative’ that habit of the heart that reacts against anything nontraditional and tends toward an idolatry of some perceived past ‘golden age’” [p.25]. He says that it is his impression that “conservative theologians tend to place tradition on the same plane of authority as Scripture without admitting it” [p.145]. He clarifies himself by saying: “My concern is that too many conservative evangelical theologians, pastors, teachers, and laypeople inadvertently elevate some tradition as the authoritative interpretive lens through which Scripture is read and understood. But that is, in effect, to place tradition on the same plane as Scripture” [p.146]. However, in all of this he is also quick to admit (as am I) that tradition itself is not bad and should not be dismissed ad hoc. He says, “We all think along with some tradition as we read and interpret the Bible… [but it is important to recognize] that everything in Christian tradition is open to question in light of Scripture” [p.145].

And this is where ‘Post-Conservative’ comes into play. He understands post-conservative evangelicals as Christians who are on a theological pilgrimage (and suggests that N.T. Wright – renown biblical scholar by all accounts – is post-conservative. As I side note, in Wrights newest book, it seems he read another of Olson’s books and embraces that term [Justification, p.26]). “Out of the Reformation came a principle for all Protestants always to follow: reformata et simper reformanda – reformed and always reforming. In other words, Christians are always to remain open to changes in doctrine and practice insofar as they are required by Scripture” [p.150].

I am post-conservative because I believe all of our traditions must be open to question and even change in light of further biblical reflection. I am post-conservative because I firmly believe that Christians need to remain in an attitude of “Reformed and Always Reforming”. I am post-conservative because I am truly Evangelical, placing ‘scripture supremely’ over and above all traditions. I do not reject or discard traditions ad hoc; I respect tradition, but with such an array of “Christian Traditions” in the world today I believe it would be both naive and arrogant to suppose that my tradition – on merit of being mine and on merit of being the lens by which I interpret the scriptures – is the correct one. And all others – by merit of not being mine – are by default wrong. As a post-conservative I agree with renowned scholar N.T. Wright: “The problem is not that people disagree with me. That is what one expects and wants. Let’s have the discussion! The point of course is to learn with and from one another” [Justification, p.20].

And that is why I am post-conservative today. Will you join me on this theological and biblical pilgrimage?

Derek

Why I Am Evangelical

Before I answer the question of why I am Evangelical, it is important to define terms: what is an Evangelical? There are essentially two answers to this question:

1. An Evangelical is anyone who is sincerely and passionately committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is inspirited in the Bible. (This is the broad definition)

2. Theologian Roger Olson says, “Evangelicals are mostly Protestant Christians who display four characteristics: biblicism (belief in the supreme authority of scripture for faith and life), conversionism (belief that authentic Christianity always includes a radical conversion to Jesus Christ by personal repentance and faith that begins a lifelong personal relationship with him), crucicentrism (piety, devotional life, and worship centered around the cross of Jesus Christ) and activism (concern for the involvement in social transformation through evangelism and social action). [Olson, 2008; p.240]

Both definitions are kosher for me. Obviously the first is broader and may include all Christian’s except perhaps liberals since it is still based on a divinely inspired bible (and I don’t know enough about the mysterious “Greek Orthodox Church” to have an educated opinion). The second definition would – by default – exclude Catholics since by definition it holds the Bible as the “supreme” authority whilst Catholics at the council of Trent, and more recently during the Second Vatican Council, maintain that the Bible and Tradition are equal parts.

Therefore I probably find myself more in line with the second definition since I too believe that tradition – even the Great Tradition of the Church – must be kept in check by something outside itself, and this is where Sola Scriptura comes in. But I want to be clear (again) in saying that I acknowledge the first definition and wholly embrace Catholics who may be Evangelical, they are my brothers and sisters in the Lord. (Ironically, in saying this I alienate from myself both stubborn Catholics and stubborn Protestants who sometimes each think the other is going to hell.)

So what’s the point of embracing the label “Evangelical”? Essentially this label serves to maintain a distinction between "us" and “nominal Christians”. Nominal Christians are those who don’t take their “faith” seriously and fail to allow it to change their lives. It also maintains a distinction between “us” and “liberal Christians” who – frankly – don’t take the scriptures seriously enough (i.e. the Resurrection didn’t really happen, etc). However, many people – it seems – are hiding from the label “Evangelical” because with it comes – sometimes – a certain amount of baggage. That baggage is called “fundamentalism” and may also be called – as least when considering theology – “conservativism”. But this will be the subject of the next blog in this series.

I am Evangelical because I affirm strongly that the Bible is the Supreme authority for faith and life, not because it has authority all its own, but because it was inspired by the Spirit of God. Therefore the phrase “Sola Scriptura” (by scripture alone) should be discarded – while its principle should remain intact – in favor of “by scripture supremely” which itself is shorthand for actually saying: “the authority of the triune God as it is exercised through the scriptures” – N.T. Wright.

I have tried to keep this note “lighter” and less controversial, only time will tell if I succeeded.

Derek

Why I Am Protestant

There are three major “wings” of orthodox Christianity: Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox (I use capital “O” when speaking of this branch of Christendom, and small “o” when speaking in general of “right belief”) and Protestant. When someone is baptized in the Catholic Church or in the Orthodox Church they are Catholic or Orthodox respectively. But the term “Protestant” seems to be a catch-all phrase for everybody else – all other orthodox Christians (obviously excluding cults such as JW’s and Mormons which are not “orthodox”).

In spite of this, I don’t like the term or what it implies.

Working in a Protestant book store I received a call one day by an angst customer. He was seeking books in our store that have been written against the “Homo-filled Catholic Church” (as he called it). I could not think of any books on our shelves that targeted against the Catholic Church; this fact enraged the caller. He began to accuse me of conspiring with the Harlot of Revelation. When I told him I did not share his view that the Harlot of Revelation was the Roman Catholic Church this infuriated him even further; he demanded to know if our store was Protestant which it is. He then wanted to know if I was Protestant, which I am. He then asked why I was not “protesting” against the Catholic Church. He had me there.

Protestantism received its’ name by way of the Reformers “protest” against Medieval Catholicism, and the term stuck. Yet both movements have grown and matured over the years (consider a type of ecumenical common ground that was reached and signed between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism in 1999) and I for one am not wholly interested in fighting doctrine with the Catholic Church, especially since I have so many to fight with within Protestantism itself (do we baptism infants or don’t we [Lutheran or Baptist], are the spiritual gifts for today or are they not [Reformers or Charismatic’s], do we have “compatibalistic” free will or “libertarian” free will [Calvinists or Arminian]… I could go on). The point is that while I obviously cannot be Catholic (I reject wholesale certain doctrines revolving around Mary and the Pope among others), my Evangelical convictions [which cannot be found in the Catholic Church) gives me options and permits me to work out my own salvation by way of study and independent thinking which I feel is restricted within Catholicism.

Even still, I do not accept wholesale some “big” doctrinal positions that define Protestantism. These doctrines include Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, while I hold to both, I feel Protestantism needs to better articulate and nuance what they mean. And I am not alone. Many Evangelical Protestant scholars are – by way of returning to the scriptures – also calling for a more faithful way to understand these two doctrines.

Take Sola Scriptura as our first example. It means “by scripture alone” as a matter of authority in all areas pertaining to the faith. However, many who leave the definition at that have tossed out every tool given us by God to correctly understand the scriptures. Tools such as “historical context”, “literary context”, “literary genre”, “reasoning” and others. The bible has become a banquet of piece-meal for scavengers and vultures. When many think of “scripture alone” this concept rules out all other tools of interpretation because that would mean we are not using scripture “alone”, but with other tools. A good example of this is in the recent debate between two Reformed teachers, John Piper and N.T. Wright. Wright argues that we need to understand what a particular word meant in its’ original context, how was it used and what connotations did it carry. In response John Piper says that it is not how a word was used or what it meant in its original context that matters, what really matters is the word itself. This is a HUGE error as a result to a wholesale commitment to Sola Scriptura because the scriptures no longer mean what they were intended to mean, they now mean whatever we want them to mean depending on how we now use certain words today.

I suggest (along with other evangelical scholars) that instead of Sola Scriptura we adopt the phrase “Scripture as our Final or Ultimate authority on matters pertaining to the faith” (I don’t know how to say this in Latin).

Now consider Sola Fide. This Latin phrase means “by Faith Alone”, but in what sense are we to understand faith “alone”? Like Sola Scriptura, how far do we take the term “alone”? Many Reformers (especially of the deterministic wing – i.e. Calvinism/Lutheranism) have taken this term too far. I was listening to a Christian radio program just yesterday that well illustrates this extreme Reformed commitment to Sola Fide. A young man called in requesting clarification of terms; he said he was very confused. What was the problem? He said he always hears preachers and evangelists claim that one must “repent” in order to be saved and he heard a popular Christian band tell the audience that Jesus is not just our Savior, he is also our Lord. So where is the confusion? To this young man’s Reformed sensibilities, salvation is "by Faith Alone", repentance is simply not required because that would constitute a “work”; as a matter of fact if you “repented” to become a “Christian” you probably are not a Christian at all, because one becomes a Christian by Faith Alone and not by the “work” of repentance.

And the umbrage this man took with what the Christian band claimed (that Christ is also our Lord) is that Christ is not our Lord – according to him – he is only our Savior! Why? Because if Christ is our Lord as much as our Savior then that means we must be obedient, and obedience constitutes “works”. We are not saved by our LORD Jesus Christ, for that would mean we are saved by works of obedience to Jesus Christ as our Lord, this cannot be true because we are saved by Faith Alone. The absurdity of this position is astronomical, and how it can be maintained in light of the New Testament is beyond me. I changed stations when the host (a Reformed specialists or scholar?) began to affirm all that the caller said and to criticize everyone who thinks otherwise.

This (narrow) interpretation is probably a result to the previous commitment of Sola Scriptura as I illustrated above. It is a wholesale commitment to a traditional doctrine (Sola Fide) at the expense of understanding the scriptures in their own context. I believe Sola Fide should be understood this way: We are saved by Faith Alone and not by the Works of the Law that maintain a distinction between Jews and Gentiles and that give Jews privilege by way of ethnicity, rituals or nationality, to God. In other words, we are not brought into the family of God by circumcision; we are brought into the family of Abraham by faith and Abraham’s faith was seen by his obedience to God. This is why James explicitly says that we are justified by “works” and not by “faith alone” in agreement with both Paul and Jesus. Paul says by our faith we fulfill the law and Jesus says that the “works” which God requires is that we “believe”.

So while I strongly affirm Faith Alone, I believe Protestants need to better articulate this doctrine in light of the scriptures. A faithful commitment to the scriptures reveals that we are justified by Faith Alone and not by “Works of the Law”. But Faith itself is a verb; so it is not as though nothing is accomplished on our part in order that we be saved. The crowd shouted “what must we do to be saved”, Peters answer: “Repent”. A soldier once asked, “what must I do to be saved”, Paul’s answer: “believe and you shall be save”. Some Jews once asked the Son of God, “What are the works that God requires”, Jesus’ answer: “The works of God is this: that you believe in the One whom he sent”. (For a full treatment of this subject by me see my blog "Responding to a Catholic Friend".)

Protestants and Catholics alike owe a great deal to the Reformers, to Luther and Calvin, Zwingli and Huss, and especially their forerunners, Tyndale and Wycliffe among others. If not for the Protestant Reformers we – all of us except the Orthodox – may still be listening to the bible read in church each week in some irrelevant archaic Latin jargon. While I admire the Reforms to some extent – and I certainly owe a lot to their work – I do not have any type of a priori commitment to them. In other words, they are not “canon” for me, and neither, I might add, is their teaching. Quite the contrary, by returning to the scriptures as my ultimate authority on all matters of the faith I believe I am keeping with the heart of the Reformation (Reformed and Always Reforming), and in that, I recognize I am Protestant. My a priori commitment then is to the Word of God and not to any man, movement or era.

In my unwavering commitment to the scriptures the label I prefer over “Protestant” is “Evangelical”. Yet Evangelicalism was birthed in the camp of the Protestant spirit. And that is why I am a Protestant today.

Derek

Let me be crystal clear about something, I am neither anti-Catholic or am I anti-Protestant, I am just a guy trying to find his way. In point of fact I have a great deal of respect for the current Pope and for the great headways which the Catholic Church has made since the Second Vatican Council. They have redefined their understanding of the Priesthood and of the concept of the Church and I only look forward to the day when they bring their doctrines of Mary closer in line with the scriptures... but one step at a time is all anyone can hope for.

Furthermore, Protestants could learn a thing or two from Catholics. I was quite disappointed several months ago when I attended a public March for Life, and discovered that there were very few Protestants while almost everyone marching to save a babies murder were Catholic. How do I know? I was getting "Hail Mary" in surround sound.

Why I Am Still a Christian

The very title of this blog presupposes a sad situation. It may shock many who know me that I have – on more than one occasion – considered abandoning this thing called Christianity and joining the ranks of the atheist.

I can relate with those who either refuse to become Christian or those who leave the Christian faith on the grounds of hypocrisy, and I believe that the standard Christian response is inadequate to address the emotive thinking of such a one. To say for example “if you ever find a perfect church, don’t join it because it won’t be perfect anymore”, while being true, this cliché response fails on so many levels to address the real issue: I think for most people the issue is not that there are imperfect people in a church that ought to be perfect; the real issue is that the church ought to be held to a higher standard then secular society, a standard that is, which reflects a Christ-likeness. When the church – it seems – is as bad if not worse than the secular society then this is what the critic means by saying we are all a bunch of hypocrites.

Now let me get personal: It took a good five years from conversion before my rose colored utopian styled classes came off and I began to see “the Church”, the people in it, and its’ leadership for what it really was - human. When this happened it rocked my world and shook my foundation. Since then I have seen friends more or less sent to the guillotine for reading the bible and asking questions. I myself experienced my own inquisition by way of a preemptive strike by a young arrogant pastor who perhaps feared my influence or else (and more likely) feared the fact that I would dare use my brain without his permission. I have seen Jelly Fish with more backbone and godly conviction then board members. I have seen entire “spiritual churches” filled with young “Christian” guys knocking up all the young “Christian” girls, while nerdy kids in youth group get ignored by the “cool” youth pastor, and I have seen the adults who preached a “loft Christian-ise” who were more interested in maintaining the status quo and keeping traditions “as usual” then in living with sincere Christian conviction. Gossip, backbiting, judging, criticizing, two-facing and the such, all the while “playing Church” at their finest.

That was when I looked at the outside, at the Christian community around me. But I am a reflective guy, it did not take long before I could no longer avoid the ugly truth in side of me: that I was just as bad, just as susceptible to being corrupted by the alcohol of power and authority as any pastor is, just as tempted to sleep with any pretty girl as any young guy is, just as quick to judge from my lofty throne as any elder is. Hadn’t I read somewhere in the Old Testament that the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?

So yes, I have considered leaving this Christian religion in the past. After all, where is this Christianity which the bible speaks of? But the secularization of the church (and of my own soul) is but only one poignant reason among many. There are other issues. For example, I have struggled in the past with science and the creation account of Genesis. I believe that it is impossible for the earth to be only 6,000 years old (following James Usher’s date of creation: 4004 BC, October 23rd – my brother’s birthday). Yet macro evolution is an absurdity (the Darwinian concept of macro-evolution is hogwash gift wrapped in the guise of science). I have now solved this nagging problem (if you are interested in why there is a problem for me and what my solution is, just email me), but in the past it was a real struggle. Furthermore, what about the issue of “theodicy”? Theodicy addresses the question: If God exists, if God is all powerful and if God is all good then why is there evil in the world? If God is good he is obligated to stop evil; if he does not it either means that God is not “all good” or else he is not “all powerful” – that is, he is either not strong enough to prevent evil or he just doesn’t care (or worse, he is the cause). If none of these answers are adequate then perhaps the only answer remaining is that God doesn’t exist at all. There is no easy way to answer this question; brilliant holy men have addressed it for centuries (the best answer – I believe – is found in the doctrine of Atonement called Christus Victor which is a forthcoming blog). And if these issues are not enough, the worst of all is the biblical teaching of Hell. I have known friends and relatives who have died over the years, and for most of them, unless some type of thief on the cross experienced occurred which (let’s face it) is possible but no likely to have happened all the time, at least some of them went down stairs instead of up. This reality probably more than any other makes me wish God didn’t exist because I would rather my loved ones die and go into oblivion then for them to be burning right now in the horrible down under. As a faithful bible believing Christian I must accept the reality of Hell (and Hades), but I hate it!

What more can I say? Many have left the faith for less and yet, despite all of this I remain a committed Christian, why? It is because when I lie awake at night and ask myself if God really exists (where did my childhood faith go?) and when I ask myself if I cannot still find purpose in life by caring for others without the prerequisite of believing in God (C.S. Lewis would swiftly and decisively take me to task here), there is one reality that I cannot escape: the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This is not simply an intellectual response (though it is partly that); when the Resurrection creeps into my forethoughts it does so from the deep recesses of my soul. What about the Resurrection; if God doesn’t exist then how did Jesus rise from the dead? The Apostle is surely right when he says: “If Christ has not risen from the dead then our faith is in vain”. And if the Resurrection of Christ is true then surely so is the gift of the Spirit, for He was given as a result of the Resurrected Christ to us as a down payment (a seal, a guarantee) that we too will raise from the dead. If we have the Spirit then it must also be true that it is by the power of this Spirit we may live Christ-like; that is, the evidence of the Holy Spirit (Paul uses the term “fruit”) is that we are being transformed into the character of Christ. From this reality I am overjoyed whenever I meet humble and godly pastors, teenagers, and everyone else who I must take up as examples of Christ to imitate! They’re out there and they are not hard to find. My church is filled with them… and so are many other churches I’ve attended over the years. When you live from the perspective of the Resurrection you see things differently.

Furthermore, if the Resurrection is a reality then nothing “pop science faith” can throw at us can change this fact and everything that flows from it. If Christ rose from the dead, then God exists. It’s as simple as that. And if Christ rose from the dead, then we have both the answer to evil and the answer to Hell.

If the Cross of Christ saved me, it is the Resurrection of Christ that sustains me.

Why am I still a Christian? Because of the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Derek

Why I Became a Christian

As a result of a learning disability I attended a Catholic elementary school which specialized in helping children with special needs – up to about grade five. It was a common occurrence to pass nuns and priests in the hallways and I attended a mass like service with the other students every Friday. I remember looking forward to the day when I would have my “first communion” like the older kids in grades six through eight, but I was transferred to a “regular” school from grade 5 – evidently I no longer needed such special needs; and my first communion (as such) never came.

Even though my family was essentially non-religious, these years instilled in me a fundamental belief in God and a sure awareness of Jesus (hanging on a giant cross). For me, belief in God was something like belief in oxygen. I couldn’t see it, but I knew it was there and to suggest it wasn’t was absurd!

From this it was only a small step to commit my life to God and to Jesus Christ. This happened when I was eleven. I was watching the Jesus film by Billy Graham and Campus Crusades (based on Luke’s Gospel) and for the first time I came to know the purpose for Jesus’ hanging on the cross: he died for my sins so that I could go to heaven, all I had to do was ask him to come into my life (thus becoming a Christian) and I would go to heaven when I died.

Sometime over the next two years I was baptized by immersion at a large Pentecostal church (despite the fact that I had been Christened as a baby) and about a year after that I had a supernatural experience that can only be summarized as a Spirit Baptism in a smaller Pentecostal church (though for the next decade I would be confused as to what this experience was because the Pentecostal’ teach that Spirit Baptism is accompanied by an evidence of supernatural “tongues” speaking, I had no such “shun-di”). I have never been the same since that experience.

Why did I become a Christian? Because belief in God (faith) was not a matter of closing my eyes tightly and wishing upon a star that God existed. It was not a matter of “I believe; help my unbelief”. Belief in God was as natural as believing in my own existence. But why did I become a Christian? Two words: “Jesus” and “Cross”. If belief in God and Jesus came so natural, all that I needed was to understand why he was hanging on a large cross behind the priest, why he died so painfully if he could have escaped at will… he died on the cross so that I could live!

I became a Christian because of Jesus and the Cross!

Derek

Why I Am...

Greetings,

The past three to five years have been formative for me in understanding and developing my theology without the restraints of a person or an organization telling me how to think and what to believe. So I have decided to take time to write a series of blogs titled “Why I am…” as a means of reflecting and summarizing where I am at on this journey. Obviously – as is evident from all of my blogs – I am of the opinion that orthodoxy (right belief) is just as important as orthopraxy (right living), if not more so. What we believe dictates what we do! That is a matter of fact, a reality of “worldviews”. And I have taken this journey of trying to understand the scriptures “rightly” by submitting myself to the teachings of great and holy scholarly men from various backgrounds and differing viewpoints – even at the expense of being criticized (ironically) for having a so-called “critical spirit”.

I think these blogs will be relatively “light” and easy to read. My goal is not to enter a defense of the positions I have taken but simply to summarize why I have taken them.

“Why I am…” will cover the following:

Why I became a Christian * Why I am still a Christian * Why I am Protestant * Why I am Evangelical * Why I am Post-conservative * Why I am Arminian * Why I am “Open Theistic” in practice * Why I am amillennial * Why I am “Christus Victor” * Why I am Covenantal

My sustained hope is that others will read these blogs and be exhorted to take up a call to “reflective Christianity”. This comes at the high price of being criticized (hurtfully so) sometimes by those closes to you. But if it is true that orthodoxy dictates orthopraxy then it is very important and hugely practical for the Christian life that we work these things out.

Derek

Evolution: An Article of Faith

Pro. Glenn Sunshine, in his recent book Why You Think The Way You Do, speaks of the introduction of Darwinian (Naturalistic) Evolution and in so doing he writes on the inability of the Darwinian Evolutionary theory to lay claims to "fact". As a matter of fact I felt he wrote so well on the subject that the rest of this blog will be a direct quote. If you like what you read I highly recommend you pick up a copy for yourself.

_________________________________

Interestingly enough, [Darwin's] theory does not fit the defination of science. For a theory to be scientific, is must be able to be validated through the scientific method:

A theory is proposed and predications are made from it.
These predications are then tested through scientific experimentation.

• If the experiment fails the theory must be discarded or modified.
• If the theory succeeds, it does not prove the theory true, but it does make it more probable that the theory is correct.

Darwinism is not subject to scientific method anymore then anything else in history. The past is over; you cannot revisit it, observe it, test it, or experiment on it. All you can do is look at the surviving evidence and try to make sense of it.

Darwin knew, of course, that he had no access to the past, but he reasoned that if his theory were true, then natural selection would still be operating today, and thus it should be possible to make specific predictions and test them. For example, Darwin thought that evolution occurred relatively quickly, as his experience with the beaks of finches growing longer during dry years suggested. He tried to breed pigeons into a new species to demonstrate this, but he found that while there was a great deal of variability in pigeons, the variability stopped well short of creating a new species. In other words, his experiment failed. You can take a goldfish and give it eyes that protrude, change its color to black, and divide its tail, but you cannot turn a goldfish into a goldfinch.

Darwin further predicted that innumerable transitional fossils would be discovered, probably within decades, and noted that if a sudden emergence of new species were to occur, his theory would be falsified [note from Derek: if a theory is "falsifiable" in science it is a good thing. In order for a theory to be true it must at least have the possiblility of being false. Otherwise it is just simply a "belief"]. What the fossil record shows is that species are remarkably stable, and the innumerable transitions that Darwin predicted have not been found. Further, during the Cambrian period (usually dated to about 530 million years ago), most major groups of complex animals emerged suddenly, not by gradual evolution, in an event known as the Cambrian explosion." According to Darwin himself, this simultaneous emergence of species without gradual ascent from earlier organisms should have disproved his theory.

Yet instead of falsifying Darwin, the basic concept of evolution has been retained, with alternative explanations suggested for the absence of transitional species. One popular theory, known as punctuated equilibrium, suggests that species tend to remain stable until, for some as yet unexplained reason, a series of rapid mutations takes place that produces new species. This happened so rapidly in terms of geological time that fossils, which are relatively rare things, were not produced in any of thes periods of transition. Unfortunately, as Darwin himself said, this rapid evolution cannot be accounted for via natural selection. Rapid emergence of species falsifies his theory. It also sounds like special pleading, a "Darwin of the gaps" explanation, to say that fossilization of the transitional forms predicted by Darwin never had the opportunity to take place in the emergence of any species on the planet, past or present. Nor is it much better to say the fossils are there but haven't yet been found. This is a statement of faith, not fact.

But, of course, none of this matters because Darwinism is not a scientific theory but a worldview assumption, and as such, it is not falsifiable. Certainly, naturalists think they have good reasons to accept natural selection, but people always believe this about their articles of faith. Ultimately, the evidence for Darwinism is circular:

• Naturalists assume Darinian evolution
• They use it as the framework for interpreting any evidence they find
• They proclaim that the evidence proves the theory

But as people employ this method, it is literally impossible to recognize evidence that would contradict Darwin because every explanation of the data begins by assuming that evolution is true and proceeds from there. In other words, Darwinism interprets the evidence rather than the evidence testing Darwinism. As a result, no matter how many failed predictions come from Darwinism, it can never be proven false. Simply put, naturalistic evolution is an article of faith.

________________________________

Note: Darwinan evolution is NOT scientific theory. It is NOT fact.

I have read so much in recent years - even by Christian authors - who claim and even emphasis that Darwinian evolution is a FACT. IT IS NOT!

I am tired of the rhetoric of the religous (Darwinian) evolutionist. Not because they promote their religion (all religions have that right in my opinion); but because they claim theirs is not faith, but fact; and in making this brassy and clearly untrue statement they claim a "high ground" over other so-called religions. They look down their high noses on "religous people" as though we are a bunch of simpletons, yet they are one of us, simpletons of the religion of Darwin. Religion has not been removed from the schools, rather the religion of Christianity has been replaced by the faith and religion of Darwin.

Just a thought.

Derek

(Quotes taken from pages 167-68)

A People of Grace (On Video)

I folks. If anyone is interested my sermon can be viewed on the Devonwood Community Church of the Nazarene website.

Just follow the link and click on the Video icon at the bottom. It will be available to watch up until next Sunday (August 16th).

Enjoy.

Click here to go to the sight.