Calvin & Hobbes

Using a word game that seems to be more at home in the Sunday comics, some philosophers and theologians argue that determinism is not inconsistent with free will.

They say that a person is free as long as he can choose to do what he wills.

(For more background, read this.)

This seems to make sense. But the problem is that the words don't mean what they seem to mean.

R. J. Rummel Professor Emeritus of Political Science from University of Hawaii explains:

What does it mean to say that we are free? One answer, proposed by Hobbes and Tolstoy and favored by the contemporary empiricist, is that we are free insofar as we may do as we wish without hindrance or constraint. If thus free the question about the will's freedom is meaningless, for freedom then refers to whether a person can do what he chooses, not to the choosing itself; it refers to the freedom of the action, not to the choice of act. A person's will could be enslaved by the passions, chained to Freudian complexes, bound to the body's needs, limited by heredity, and necessitated by environmental causes, and yet by this meaning of freedom, he could be totally free to do that which is determined.

Translation: Free will defined in this way is meaningless. In this definition, free will only means that I am "free" to do what I am compelled to do by my completely-determined will. This is a category mistake. It confuses the freedom to act with the freedom to choose. In this view, a brainwashed person is free.

Rummel continues:

Freedom thus defined may resolve simply and satisfactorily the determinism-free will controversy for some, but at the cost of ignoring its essence, for freedom as simply measuring a lack of constraint or opposition is not freedom as usually intuited by those posing the question. It violates common sense to call free a person who is determined in his course like an object thrown through the air and following its trajectory without opposition.

Translation: While this definition may allow people to win philosophical or theological arguments, in practical terms it is bankrupt. This "freedom" is not freedom. This is doubletalk worthy of Orwell's label of Newspeak. Inevitability is really choice. White is really black. Manipulation is really freedom.

Rummel again:

For Kant, freedom is an independence of the will of motivations, character, and external causes. It is more than just the power to choose. Freedom is the power to fulfill our moral oughts (ought implies can), to will as reason directs, to be a first cause of events.

At the heart of this doublespeak is a reductionist view of the human will.

Calvin and Hobbes reduce the will to nothing more than a calculator, one that can perform only one operation: determining which of two numbers is greater.

In other words, this view of the will makes a human being no different from an animal in acting on desires. An animal "chooses" to act in response to its strongest desire. Yet humans seem to have the capacity to choose between desires on the basis of values.

This view of the will also does not allow for second-order desires: desires to have or not have a desire. As humans, we can want a piece of cake, but we can also want not to want the cake. We can choose to act on our second-order desire instead of being a slave to our first-order desire.

A robust view of free will does not require that people always can choose to act in a different way. It only requires that in some cases a person could have chosen a different course of action.

The compatibilist would argue that a person's choices are determined by his or her character. The answer is that, while character influences actions, actions also shape character. And at least some of our choices are free in a libertarian sense. If all a person's choices are determined, then in what sense is he or she a person?

If no choices are free in the libertarian sense, then most the Bible collapses into nonsense.

In Genesis 4:6–7, Yahweh says to Cain,

"Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

Is this just a piece of theater, or does Cain have a real choice?

Joshua's call to choose (Joshua 24) is pointless pilling on, if the people really are "not able to serve the Lord."

Paul explains to the Christians in Corinth (1 Corinthians 9:16–18):

When I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.

He is saying that

• He has no choice whether to preach the gospel.
  
• He is compelled by God to do so.
  
• The only free act he can choose is to preach the gospel "free of charge," not to insist upon his rights to receive compensation from those to whom he preaches.
  

The compatibilist would turn this argument into gibberish.

If I were all powerful, I wouldn't make everyone believe in libertarian free will. But I would make people stop using the word choice to mean something that is entirely determined.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Scientific Literacy

One prevailing plausibility structure in today's culture is "Scientific Literacy."

Steven Pinker writes:

Today, no scientifically literate person can believe that the events narrated in the book of Genesis actually took place.

How would you answer Pinker from the plausibility structure of orthodox Christianity?

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

A Plausible Gospel

The Apostle Paul says, "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18). "We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23).

According to the prevailing Greek plausibility structure, Jesus was a failure. According to the Jewish plausibility structure, Jesus was cursed by God and consequently a false Messiah.

But to those who have received the Good News, the defeated, humiliated, crucified Messiah is the power of God.

There are many who read 1 Corinthians 2:14 (The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.) as if the "man without the Spirit" cannot understand the grammar and syntax of plain language whenever the Gospel is communicated.

Rather, Paul is referring here to plausibility structures. (I'm not suggesting that he has this concept in mind or even was aware of the particular idea.) He is saying that according to the reigning belief system, the Gospel seems foolish and absurd:

• "Why would I want to trust in someone who couldn't even save himself?"
  
• "Everyone knows that the true Messiah could never have been crucified."
  

So what makes the Gospel plausible?

There are several factors involved, not the least of which is the Holy Spirit. But the primary reinforcement of the Gospel's plausibility is the community of believers.

It is only as we are truly "indwelling" the gospel story, only as we are so deeply involved in the life of the community which is shaped by this story that it becomes our real "plausibility structure," that we are able steadily and confidently to live in this attitude of eager hope. Almost everything in the "plausibility structure" which is the habitation of our society seems to contradict this Christian hope. Everything suggests that it is absurd to believe that the true authority over all things is represented in a crucified man. No amount of brilliant argument can make it sound reasonable to the inhabitants of the reigning plausibility structure. That is why I am suggesting that the only possible hermeneutic of the gospel is a congregation which believes it.

Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 232

This sheds a whole new light on the idea that participation in a Christian community (church) is optional. Living the Gospel is virtually impossible alone. The Gospel not only needs community to create a hospitable plausibility structure, but it also demands to be expressed in community.

The reigning plausibility structure can only be effectively challenged by people who are fully integrated inhabitants of another.

Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 228

Unfortunately, much of what is being proclaimed as the "Gospel" does not challenge the reigning plausibility structure or require a community to survive.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Why?

When tragedies such as the massacre at Virginia Tech happen, people want to know how a good God could allow such things.

Some respond with a defense of their particular theological view:

Even in the wake of such horrific terror and carnage, God remains sovereign. God remains holy, righteous, and just. God remains merciful and kind. God remains good.

The good that can come from this tragedy is this. Men and woman around the world may be brought to their knees in repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And this:

We serve an awesome God. A God who is in absolute sovereign control…

In God's sovereign economy, there are is no place for "what if's". Even in the midst of chaos, He is in ultimate control.

And believe it or not, this:

There is a very straightforward answer for the question, "Where is God when evil things happen?" it is the answer given by Scripture, "[He] rides upon the highest heavens, which are from ancient times" (Psalm 68:33). Where is God? God is in heaven, from whence he judges the heavens and the earth and will exercise his wrath upon men who will [not] turn to His only way of salvation, Jesus. It is that salvation, that answers the inevitable question as to whether God is loving or not. Is God loving or not[,] sinner? [Are] you worthy of judgment? Absolutely, just because these souls at Virginia Tech have experienced massive tribulations does not mean that they are being judged any more than the masses dying from any variety of evil things, or the most natural, death. The reason that these become so tragic, is that we are all likewise trying to avoid death.

And then there is the theological equivalent of a punt:

Many will ask, "Where was God in that?" Well, the answer is confusing, because we are incapable of fully understanding God and His ways (Rom 11:33-36).

We can say this for sure, He is either sovereign, or He is not God (Job 2:1-10). We can also attest to this fact--the tragedies of our world affirm the claims of scripture, not the opposite--namely, that our world is fallen (Rom 8:18-24). Lastly, we must ask the question, well, if He is not absent, and if our world is fallen, does He provide any hope? That hope is found in Jesus, His Son (Jn 3:16-18). The outward affects of the Fall are unfortunate outward expressions of our own corrupt nature.

For many who do not question if God really exists, a more disturbing question arises amidst these events-- does God care? The answer is yes! Read verses 17-18 of John chapter 3 very closely. If He did not care, then He would not provide a means of rescue and restoration in a glorious relationship with Himself. The world is fallen, but we can be redeemed. And only those who are redeemed can find comfort amidst tragedy (1 Thes 4:13-18).

I'd like to think that Christianity has better answers to offer than these.

So here's an attempt to sketch out a more satisfying, yet admittedly incomplete, response to this tragedy.

• God created a good world in which his creatures were given the freedom to submit to his authority or to rebel against it.
  
  
• Because God made humans in his own image and granted them a degree of freedom, they have the ability to make real choices with real consequences that affect others as well as themselves, for good or for ill.
  
  
• Yet in the midst of this creaturely freedom, God remains in control.
  
  
• He accomplishes his purpose in human history without fail.
  
  
• He accomplishes his purpose in the lives of those who trust in him and depend upon his grace.
  
  
• He showers his grace upon even those who are rebellious and temporarily protects them from the ultimate consequences of their choices.
  
  
• He even uses the very acts of disobedience and rebellion to accomplish his purposes.
  
  
• God does not remain distant and detached from human suffering, saying, "I told you so."
  
  
• Rather, he participates in our suffering, offering comfort and healing.
  
  
• Earthly life is about more than just "getting signed up for heaven."
  
  
• God opposes evil in every form in which it appears and calls his people to do the same.
  
  
• Our choices really matter. They affect us and the people around us.

(If you are wondering where the Scripture references are for each of these points, click here.)

So what do you think? Tell me what I left out. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Belief & Community

I've been exploring the concept of plausibility structures and how this insight can help us to think more clearly about the church's relationship with culture.

One important component of a plausibility structure is community:

A plausibility structure is not just a body of ideas but is necessarily embodied in an actual community. It cannot exist otherwise.

Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 99.

Every plausibility structure grows out of a community. There is no such thing as a disembodied plausibility structure.

• Scientists have their own community with its plausibility structure.
  
• Public universities and colleges have a distinct community and accompanying plausibility structure.
  
• The inner city minority community has its own plausibility structure which includes the idea that the police and the courts cannot be trusted.
  

This has several implications for the Gospel.

• The alternative plausibility structure of the Gospel cannot survive outside the community of the Church. If a person attempts to be a "Lone Ranger" Christian, the reigning plausibility structure of society will eventually swallow up the competing beliefs of the Gospel.
  
  
• There is no neutral, benign environment for the claims of the Gospel. These audacious claims need the community of the saints to survive.
  
  
• One cannot ossify a particular community and its plausibility structure as a timeless reference for "biblical Christianity" (e.g. 16th-century Geneva).
  
  
• Furthermore, there is no "pure" Christian culture. Every genuine expression of Christianity is always in the context of a particular culture at a particular time.
  
  
• Any community that does not embody the plausibility structure of the Gospel is not truly a church.
  

This concept of plausibility structures does not mean that there is no absolute truth. It is an observation about how people understand, process and practice truth. The idea that truth can be apprehended and adopted in an objective and detached manner is as much a fiction as the idea that people buy cars for entirely non-emotional reasons.

We are really not in a secular society, but in a pagan society—not in a society which has no gods, but a society which has false gods.

Lesslie Newbigin, Interview

Here's the assessment of Dave Chang:

Reading Newbigin's works is dangerous business. It puts fire in the intellect, courage in the heart and motivation for action for the universal mission of Christ to a despairing world. A modern-day prophet has walked amongst us. We would do well to rally to his call to leave our privatized ghettos and ride forth to engage our pluralistic culture.

So what do you think? What are the implications for individual congregations? What are the implications for denominations? What are the implications for how we do theology?

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Misplaced Certainty

There's been a lot of hand wringing about the lack of certainty in parts of the contemporary church.

At issue is a number of amorphous "movements" within Christianity, the most visible of which is the Emerging Church. One of the distinctives of these groups is a relaxed attitude about doctrines perceived to be not at the core of the Christian faith.

But many see this relaxed attitude as a threat to the Gospel.

In fact, there are many Christians who see almost every doctrine as crucial. They have a long list of teachings that they consider essential to Christianity. In other words, if you don't accept these, then you are not a true Christian:

• A young earth and a 144-hour creation
  
• A Bible that is free of any inaccuracies (from a modern scientific perspective)
  
• A particular view of the schedule of the final days
  
• Restriction of certain ministries to men
  
• Total abstinence from alcohol
  
• A particular theory of the atonement
  
• A specific system of theology
  

There doesn't seem to be any lack of certainty here.

Unfortunately, these people cannot distinguish between

• Their idea of God and God himself
  
• Their interpretation of the Bible and the teaching of God's Word
  
• Their apprehension of the truth and the objective, ultimate Truth.
  

Newbigin had something to say about this situation:

Fundamentalists are often dismissed as obscurantist or crazy fanatics, and some may be. Whatever their defects, they recognize the problem. If we cannot speak with confidence about biblical authority, what ground have we for challenging the reigning plausibility structure?

Lesslie Newbigin. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. p. 97.

Their diagnosis is correct, but their solution is faulty.

But the fundamentalist case has been flawed. If the Bible is treated as a compendium of factually inerrant propositions about everything in heaven and earth, then it is impossible to explain both the contradictions between parts of the Bible and things we certainly know as the results of the work of science, and also the obvious inconsistencies within the Bible itself on factual matters. Even the most convinced fundamentalist who lives in the modern world has to rely at innumerable points on knowledge provided by science and not by the Bible.

Lesslie Newbigin. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. p. 97.

Part of the problem is that fundamentalists have tried to make Christianity fit into a modernist plausibility structure. If the Bible is true, then they assume that it must satisfy the definition of truth in the reigning plausibility structure. In this view, any inconsistency betrays a lack of veracity.

But this idea of truth is not "self-evident" except in certain plausibility structures. In fact, a degree of inconsistency is often an indication of veracity.

In a court of law, for example. If four witnesses tell exactly the same story, without a single variation in detail, a wise attorney will quickly recognize that the testimony has been tampered with. In the real world, witnesses have slightly different perceptions of what happened.

Statistics has a term for a model that explains the available data too exactly: overfitting. With limited data it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the noise from the data. Our understanding of God's truth always involves a degree of "noise," because we must process revelation through our limited reasoning capacity.

But many Christians crave certainty. Andrew Sandlin calls this Hyper-Realized Epistemology:

It's certainty, not faith in Jesus, that they're really after. Jesus helps them with their certainty addiction; He's a means to an end.

Our commitment is to the Truth, not to our version of the truth.

Our commitment is to God, not to our theology about God.

Our commitment is to the authority of divine revelation, not to our analysis of that revelation.

Certainty and humility do not need to be mutually exclusive.

• We can be confident without being arrogant.
  
• We can be open-minded without being tentative.
  
• We can be gracious without being accommodating.
  

So what do you think? What would you put on the "short list" of essential Christian doctrines? What are some things that you think should not be open to debate? What do you think about the idea that the Bible might contain some "inaccuracies"?

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

That’s Impossible!

"Self-evident truths" are a reflection of society rather than a reflection of reality.

This is the argument of Peter Berger.

Every society constructs a plausibility structure through which it processes "reality." It is impossible to process experiences or information except from within a plausibility structure. There is no objective reference point from which to understand "truth."

This is not to say that there is no such thing as objective truth. But it is to say that there is no neutral authority to which we can appeal to determine what that truth is. All evaluations of "truthiness" and "realness" can only be made from the context of a community.

My first exposure to this concept of plausibility structures was in the writing of Tim Keller. He focused on the negative aspects of this phenomenon and referred to the "implausibility structure" and "defeater beliefs."

Recently, I have learned more about this from reading Lesslie Newbigin's book, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. He explains the key conclusion of Berger's model:

All use of reasoning depends on and is embodied in a tradition.
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 53.

This has many implications for followers of Jesus Christ. It explains why so many efforts to present the truth of the Gospel fall flat. If a person's "implausibility structure" (to use Keller's term) considers something impossible, no amount of evidence will persuade that person to change his or her mind. This is what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 2:14:

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This doesn't mean that "the man without the Spirit" cannot understand the words that are used to communicate the truth about Jesus Christ. It means that "they are foolishness to him" because they are outside his plausibility structure.

The gospel gives rise to a new plausibility structure, a radically different vision of things from those that shape all human cultures apart from the gospel. The Church, therefore, as the bearer of the gospel, inhabits a plausibility structure which is at variance with, and which calls in question, those that govern all human cultures without exception.
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 9.

This has several implications for evangelism, apologetics, biblical interpretation, theology and preaching. I'll explore some of these topics in subsequent posts.

So what do you think? Is Berger's model a good fit? Does it explain things that other ways of looking at the world can't adequately address? What are some of the implications of this perspective?

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Missional, Shmissional

There are many critics of the emerging church and the missional movement.

Many of them simply dismiss anything new or different as heresy. Many of them would have difficulty identifying their own cultural assumptions that have nothing to do with the gospel. Many of them misunderstand the issues to the point that is too difficult to try to straighten out all the misconceptions.

But I read something today that is worth responding to. Phil Johnson says,

"I'm starting to hate the word missional. Apart from the fact that it's useless jargon, I suspect it is often used to disguise a strategy that is actually anti-evangelistic, where the gospel never even enters the picture at all, much less becomes a focus of ministry."

He seems to conflate the Emerging Church movement and the missional movement. He implies that all they are really interested in is "how cool the Church is." He argues that the Church can stand apart from culture altogether: "How about let's forget trying to accommodate the fickle shifts of contemporary culture and worldly thinking altogether?"

He calls for the Church to discard all "vagueness, ambivalence, hesitation, wavering, apprehension, a cloudy message, fickle opinions, obsessive self-criticism, or any of the other qualities postmodernism falsely equates with 'humility.' " What we need is more "certainty."

He suggests that we recover holiness as a priority in the Church. But then he seems to equate holiness with being against "tattoos, cigars, beer, poker, and other stylish emblems of worldly culture."

Now I know Phil to be an intelligent man. Even when I disagree with him (which is rather often), I can usually respect his position. But this time…

• The emerging church and the missional movement are not the same thing. Sure there is some overlap. And there are many superficial similarities. But anyone who thinks they are the same just hasn't done his homework.
  
  
• If Phil understood what the word missional means, I'm sure he would not be saying that he hates it. He might as well say that he hates the gospel.
  
  
• With just a little more effort, Phil would have discovered that being missional is not about being cool, hip or even relevant. He might even have found out that it is not a reaction to post-modernism.
  
  
• Phil seems to think that he and John MacArthur
  
  • Are free of all cultural baggage,
    
  • Live in the same culture as Paul, or
    
  • Have some kind of timeless culture that all Christians in all places and at all times should adopt.
    
    
• Phil complains about "teachers who invent their own doctrine on the fly and see nothing wrong with the practice." He apparently thinks that theology is like mathematics. Our primary job is to learn our "sums." I suppose I can understand why he might view theology that way, but his "received theology" would not even exist if everyone had taken that view back in the 16th century.
  

I can respect Phil's passion for the Truth. And I agree with him that the Truth is absolute. But he seems to be confusing his understanding of the Truth with the Truth itself. He must have found a way to avoid the difficulties of 1 Corinthians 13:12.

But back to the essential meaning of missional.

Missional is primarily a shift in thinking about what it means to be the church.

• It's a shift from attractional ministry to incarnational ministry. Instead of putting on programs and trying to "bring them in," a missional view seeks to "go into" the community and live the Gospel. (This is not in place of proclamation. It is the context for proclamation.)
  
  
• It's a shift from a dualistic view of reality to a holistic view. A missional mindset does not divide life into sacred and secular "parts."
  
  
• It's a shift from a hierarchical view of the Church to a "flat" view of the Church. This was one of the emphases of the Reformation. All believers are priests. We all are called to real ministry.
  
  

[If I were as skilled as Phil I'd insert a picture here of a three-inch wide paint brush dripping with red paint.]

There are many foolish (even dangerous) things being said in the Emergent Conversation. But let's be careful to identify them specifically and carefully. It's a dangerous thing to attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to the forces of darkness (Matthew 12:24).

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Monday, Monday

Many people find Monday to be a difficult day.

The Mamas and the Papas said, "Whenever Monday comes, you can find me cryin' all the time." Most people seem to hate Monday because it means the weekend is over and they have to go back to work (or school).

Some people have specific reasons to dislike Monday. According to Survey.com, IT workers hate Monday because they are swamped with support issues from the weekend. But pastors find Monday difficult for different reasons.

So what can be done to salvage Monday? Australian scientists say we should stop sleeping in on weekends. Someone at iPetitions is trying to get Mondays banned. Pastor Bob Hyatt responded to the aftermath of Sunday by not taking Monday as his day off.

The editors at DM Review suggest that IT departments implement self-service support to avoid the big backlog on Monday. Big Cheese Coaching suggests some positive thinking strategies to change Monday attitudes. Daryl Gibson posts Monday Morning Motivation every week for salespeople.

But I'm more interested in the weekly dynamics for pastors.

It seems that there are two main factors that cause such angst on Monday.

• Enormous importance is invested in Sunday.
  
• Enormous importance is invested in the pastor.
  

While these values are deeply ingrained in North American evangelical culture, I maintain that they are both misguided and dangerous.

Christianity is not about what happens on Sunday morning in a special building. This is one of the emphases of the missional movement. The Church is a community, not a crowd that meets once a week. What happens during the week is even more important than what happens on Sunday. The gathering on Sunday is more like a backstage pep talk than a big theatrical production. The congregation doesn't gather to be the Church, it assembles as people who have been acting as the Church all week.

The pastor is not the Church. The pastor is not a CEO. The pastor cannot be a lone ranger. Too many pastors feel pressure to build the Church. They are expected to measure up to a business model of success. Pastors feel that they cannot afford to be transparent because they must be more advanced spiritually than their congregations.

And let's be honest. It's not just that high expectations are placed upon the pastors. Pastors place these expectations on themselves. They like being in control. They like being the star. They like feeling indispensible.

Here's a news flash: None of us is indispensible.

The only person indispensible in the Church is Jesus.

He's the only one who can build the Church. He's the one who is responsible for the future of the Church. He's the only reliable role model.

Jesus said, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:30). But you would never believe that by watching most pastors. There doesn't seem to be anything easy or light about being a pastor. Nor does there seem to be anything easy or light about being a member of one of their churches.

Seems to me that's it's time to change that.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Image of God

The Bible tells us that we are made in the image of God.

In another post, we can explore just what that means. But I've been thinking about how the image that we have of God shapes us. We tend to emulate the qualities we imagine God possessing.

At various times in the history of the Church, Christians have seen God as a harsh, judgmental overseer. And that led to embarrassments such as the Inquisition. If God is viewed as the ultimate warrior, that tends to spur movements such as the Crusades. (Though I must point out that the Crusades have gotten a bad press.) If God is seen as the Great Philosopher in the sky, that leads to Scholasticism.

Some Christians seem to think that God is obsessed with his own glory. They argue that he cannot be charged with arrogance because God is God. It would be wrong for him to love something more than himself. Since there is no good higher than God's glory, it is only right for that to be God's highest objective.

In other words, behavior that would be sinful in other people is holy because of who God is. (I know that this is not how they would describe their own position and that this is an overstatement. But I also think that this a fatal flaw of this position.)

Those who hold this view tend to behave in a similar way as they envision God acting.

They redefine love to include any action or attitude used in the service of the truth (as they see it). Because they are convinced that their particular brand of theology is the ultimate truth, they deny the possibility their attitudes could ever be arrogant. They are intolerant of those who hold differing theological views, even though those views are well within orthodoxy.

So that's my impression. What do you think?

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Test

Wiki-Sermon: Resurrection Sunday