Feb

14

Good article on church music

Filed Under Ideas, Theology | Leave a Comment

From Mere Comments, this article expresses a perspective that some segments of evangelicalism seem to have lost almost completely. The ensuing discussion is worth reading too.

(I initially found it from Bob Bixby’s blog)

Dec

4

Recovering fundamentalists?

Filed Under Theology | 5 Comments

Do these people really mean to imply that fundamentalism is a kind of sickness?

Lincoln has recently posted his observations about a Facebook thread called “Recovering Fundamentalists.” Since he has closed comments, I will make a couple of observations here.

1. Victimization in Fundamentalism
Sure, so-called fundamentalists have abused people. The people whining on the Facebook thread are almost certainly not among the more serious cases. Besides, we shouldn’t critique an ideology because of the way people have abused it. If we did, we should critique Christianity itself (think Inquisition, Crusades, etc.). We critique ideologies for what they say. Fundamentalism (as an idea) does not condone spiritual abuse–quite the opposite.

2. Ingratitude
Lincoln fails to make a subtle point in his initial post. He corrects it in his last comment. The problem is not necessarily that these people aren’t grateful. It’s that you can’t tell. One commenter observes that gratitude does not preclude criticism. Of course it doesn’t. But one should still be grateful, even if criticism is justified. The problem with these Facebook conversations (and I’m sure there are other forums for them as well) is that few seem genuinely grateful. It’s all criticism (and other less refined sniping).

3. Myopia
I think these threads are myopic, but maybe not in exactly the sense Lincoln mentions1. Many on these kinds of threads seem to be unable to see past their own nose. There are factual inaccuracies, hasty generalizations, fallacies of accident, and a host of other logical and rhetorical blunders. The funny thing is, these people seem to think that their time away from BJU (for that is really the topic most of the time) gives them an outsiders considered perspective. In reality, most of their thinking is still governed by the fundamentalist (BJ) culture. They’re just reacting to ideas they disagree with, rather than offering substantive original ideas. Their methods offer little for edification.

A word on my view2: I tend to think that a number of the more thoughtful commenters on these threads actually have some decent ideas and criticisms. But the ideas are buried so far beneath the caustic rhetoric that they are no longer powerful.

I think fundamentalism, even the BJ variety, could stand a little more self-criticism than it sometimes gets. Not everything in the movement is worth keeping. In some places, tradition and cultural distinctives have supplanted biblical truth. In some places, theology has become suspect (though this is rare in the BJ circles, IMO). But regardless, the tone and substance of the few Facebook discussions I’ve seen are doing nothing to help solve any problems, much less help anyone reading and participating.


  1. I’m not sure that these people have enough impact on those around them to seriously damage the future cause of the Kingdom. Maybe some do, in which case, Lincoln’s comments are sound back↩
  2. In thinking about this subject, I considered the difference in content and tone between the Facebook threads I’ve read and a site such as SharperIron. SI has its share of people who don’t care for BJU or certain aspects of fundamentalism. However, the tone with which people criticize BJU and fundamentalism in general is quite different from that on the Facebook threads. There are some interesting demographical differences between the sites, which actually may contribute to the difference between their treatments of the issues at hand back↩

Mar

29

Simply Christian by N. T. Wright

Filed Under Books, Philosophy, Theology | Leave a Comment

Many fellow Christians of my generation have found C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity a very helpful and thoughtful expression of their faith. In a way, this phenomenon is a testimony to the quality of Lewis’s thought and writing. The book was edited from radio talks he gave in the 1940s. Since then, arguably no one has made as good a case for Christianity.

In 2006, N. T. Wright published Simply Christian. Critics have lauded it as a worthy successor to Mere Christianity. It is. Wright reintroduces many of Lewis’s arguments, but comes at the issues from a different perspective, providing helpful clarifications and some novel thoughts as well.

In fact, the perspective of the book is one of its greatest virtues. Wright, like Lewis, comes at the topic of Christianity in a fairly non-Christian way. The book’s subtitle is “Why Christianity Makes Sense.” It reads like a grand (if brief) tour of biblical theology intended for those who have little knowledge of Christian ideas. Wright tries to demonstrate that Christianity is more than a run-of-the-mill religion, and that it makes a compelling case for belief. However, as Christian readers of Mere Christianity have seen, sometimes a thoughtful examination of Christianity from the outside (or what seems like the outside) can be immensely helpful.1 By the end of the book, it is sometimes hard to decide who Wright’s intended audience actually is. He still targets unbelievers, but an honest believer will find plenty of food for thought. In fact, if a Christian reader has never considered Wright’s ideas, he might think that Wright is trying to convince him.

Wright begins by addressing four areas that modern ideas of life and the world fail to adequately address. Read more


  1. Wright himself has reviewed Mere Christianity and his thoughts are quite helpful. back↩