Haters Gonna Hate, Lovers Gotta Love

"I know many young evangelicals barely have any stomach for controversy, let alone strong words about a serious topic. But if there is no way to be simultaneously bold and humble; if there is no way to be a gentle, caring person while still speaking in clear tones about hurtful error; if there is no way to correct those who oppose sound doctrine without being a moral monster; if there’s no way to love truth and grace at the same time, then there’s no way to be a biblical Christian. Judgmentalism is a sin and Calvinists can be jerks. But not every judgment is sinful and not every truth is cruel just because Reformed people teach it."
--Kevin DeYoung

In the context of my last post, I have found myself characterized by that first sentence: I barely have a stomach for controversy. While I will regularly debate things of theological weight, I find myself cringing and the helping hand I am lending to conflict. And there is a simple reason for my disdain: conflict sucks.

Conflict sucks even worse among Christians, because we are supposed to exemplify love (1 John 4). And this theological argumentative conflict does not appear to be helping that exemplification in any way. It literally pains me to hear the rough equivalent of theological hate-speech being tossed in either direction.

Yet, as DeYoung points out, there must be way to do both. The example of Christ clearly demonstrated both: from caring for the widow and orphan, or even those without faith, to his explicit and almost virulent statements toward/about the Pharisees. Jesus valued truth as much as he valued love, because they complement each other.

In my last post you can easily state Furtick is hating on haters, therefore becoming hypocritical. But I understand where he is coming from. There are people (and I think these are the types of people he is talking about) who carelessly and lovelessly criticize anyone in or out of their or the church who they decide deserves it. They are not demonstrating love. Likewise, those people who are infinitely emphasizing love and attempting to prevent conflict simply for the sake of peace are not demonstrating truth.

It comes down to a simple point: your theology. I do not mean Reformed or Liberal, Catholic or Protestant, Pre or Post Millenialist, but rather the way you view God and the way in which he has acted toward humans. If God is not a sovereign, just King, then your life could demonstrate mercy but without need, for why show mercy if there is nothing to be save from? Contrarily, if God is only a sovereign, just King with only a sliver enough of grace to save you, then your life could become focused on those who escaped that sliver.

However, if God is both sovereign and just, but slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love (as he identifies himself: Exodus 34:5-7) then we will find ourselves able (though not without difficulty) to live lives following Christ's example, fulfilling both love and truth.

Sippin' On Dat Hater-ade

When I first watched this video, my first thought was inclined generally toward the ways in which Furtick's argument seemed a little off base, and the small miscalculations he had made through the course of what he was saying. Then I realized that I was who he was talking about. I am a hater.

I don't know when exactly this happened, probably sometime around the time of my birth (you know, original sin, total depravity and all that). The thing about being a hater is, hate blinds you. Not only does it blind you to the object of your hate, but it blinds you to your own condition, it keeps you from grasping the sinfulness and the effects of your hate. Hate is subtle in your own heart but blatant in the face of others.

So when I watch someone call out haters, and make the implicit connection to what they are saying to who I am, my hate kicks in. Now, this is not to say that I agree with everything Furtick has to say, but I at least think he has a point: as someone who is Reformed, proudly and adamantly so, I have a grave tendency to cast down small judgments on others from my throne of theological supremacy. And that is not right.

Good theology, orthodoxy, is important. Yet, equally important, is love. When Christ came into the world, he did it to do two things: share the love of God, and provide a correct theology. He cared for, healed, and helped people, demonstrating the mercy of God on earth. But he also told them what was up. Forcefully.

Christ came from a position of infinitely more correct theology--you could argue that he was the only person on earth who had a completely 100% correct view of God. And yet, while he called out those whose views were wrong and destructive, he simultaneously showed grace and mercy. I think I could do with a little following of his example.

Being Right Isn't Always Right

Lately on his blog, Donald Miller has talked about civil dialogue, how having the right theology doesn't make you a Christian, and why correct doctrine is only half of what's important. This is something that has weighed heavily on me for quite a while.

As someone who is heavily reformed, I tend to take the arrogant Calvinistic approach to theology, constantly critiquing people's views and pointing out the errors in the way the think about God. That being said, I have also found it in myself to really appreciate groups or individuals who effectively communicate the Kingdom to the world.

In one of his posts, Donald Miller says "We commonly believe that the Evil One wants us to teach bad theology, and I suppose he does. But what he wants to do more is to have us teach right theology in a way that devalues human beings, insults and belittles them, and so sets them against the loving message of God." That sounds like someone straight from The Screwtape Letters (which I am reading by the way).

In my experience, I cannot deny the absolute validity of this idea. But what to do with it--do we abandon correct doctrine for the nuanced idea of "just loving people?" I think not. But I do think there is room for some preliminary bending of our of steadfastly stubborn grasping to it.

You see, when Christ came to earth, the two things he did was love/serve people, and spread the truth/correct their view of God and how they should relate to him. Some denominations nail the loving and serving half, but are weak on the theology (in my opinion). Many reformed believers, on the other hand, nail the theology (and don't we know it) but fall horribly short from our brothers and sisters in the "to look after orphans and widows in their distress" part.

I think what it really boils down to is that we really need to realize that methodology is part of the message (something Miller gets at in this post), if not most of the message. Because no matter how true something is, the methodology is what people more often pay attention to. If we present the right truth in a way that affirms rather than detracts, and honestly and humbly attempt to consider other points of view, I think it will make Jesus smile a little more, and maybe even chuckle.

They're Both There

While my theological excavations have been somewhat lacking of late, I came across a recent post by Steven Furtick, from the middle of his church-wide undertaking of the entire New Testament in 30 days. He is talking about how often opposing theological viewpoints are both to be found in Scripture. He says,

The sovereignty of God…
and the free will of man.
They’re both in the Bible.

God’s promise to prosper and bless His children…
and the certainty of hardship and suffering in the life of a believer.
They’re both in the Bible.

The mandate to preach the Gospel…
and the responsibility to care for the poor.
They’re both in the Bible.

And he's right. While as a reformed individual, I would like to take the more conservative of each of these viewpoints, I cannot deny the prevalence of seemingly contradictory opposing viewpoints in scripture.

I am often tempted to smooth over those that support free will or social gospel, to explain them away while consolidating and re-affirming the validity of Ephesians 1-2 or Romans 8.

Why do I do this? Easy as pie: because I'm a prideful, arrogant pr*ck. Why do so many people do this? Because pride is #1 favorite pastimes of those who claim humanity as their species of choice. I want to be right, you want to be right, we all want to be right. Except for Jesus, because he is right.

I have been coming to a prolonged epiphany that there is more to God than I used to know. (Surprise, surprise!) Now, I still hold firmly to reformed theology, but I am beginning to see how an unyielding grasp to doctrine often results in an unwillingness to do God's work--namely, loving people.

...more to come in this train of thought at a later date.

Dug Down Deep Video

I know I have mentioned Josh Harris' new book Dug Down Deep several times, and seems a little hypocritical that I haven't obtained and read it yet, but whatever.

Before the book came out, Josh had a short-film contest about the book, and this is one of the finalists. I like it as an artistic piece and because of what it is saying, a passage from the introduction that struck me before. Enjoy, and if you like it a lot, go vote for it on the website.

Dug Down Deep

This is a short promo video for Joshua Harris' (of I Kissed Dating Goodbye fame) new book Dug Down Deep. I am very interested in what he is talking about it in this book. I'm pretty sure I'm going to pick it up. Sounds similar to stuff I am learning about.

I Got 95 Theses and The Pope Ain't One

Few things entertain me more than a merging of the new and the old. And I'm a big fan of theology. So this video was quite hilarious to me. I mean, the 95 Theses put to Jay-Z's "99 Problems"? Gold.

Plus the authenticish garb adds a great deal of funny to the clip.

Of The New Calvinism

Apparently, according to Time Magazine, the New Calvinism is among the 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now. (#5 was Amortality, an interesting article, I recommend reading all 10)

They say, to introduce it,

"In the early 1900s you might have heard "The Old Rugged Cross," a celebration of the atonement. By the 1980s you could have shared the Jesus-is-my-buddy intimacy of "Shine, Jesus, Shine." And today, more and more top songs feature a God who is very big, while we are...well, hark the David Crowder Band: "I am full of earth/ You are heaven's worth/ I am stained with dirt/ Prone to depravity."

Now, I will admit, I am coming from the "New Calvinist" point of view, but the summary they provide for New Calvinism, "Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him," seems like nothing but good Biblical exposition.

The article cites the success of the ministries of John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and Albert Mohler, along with "The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible" selling out its first printing. I would also address Joshua Harris and C.J. Mahaney, and the growth in reading, especially among the younger generation, of such classic authors as John Owen, Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon.

The Religious Newswriter's Organization did a small conference about it, and here's Piper's conversation there, I thought it was a pretty good summary:


[If you're using a reader, you'll need to click through to see the video]

So what do you think? Would you consider yourself a New Calvinist, or do you sympathize with some of New Calvinism's doctrine? Do you think doctrine should even be emphasized? Or do you think New Calvinism's influence is even worthy of talking about?