One of the most common principles found in theology is the pendulum swing. Someone will take one aspect of the truth of God and carry it to an extreme. Others will see the problems with this view, made obvious by its extreme nature, and jump to the opposite extreme to avoid the error. And both sides will stand, picking out the obvious errors in the other's extreme view and using them to justify being extreme themselves in the opposite direction. And the truth may lie somewhere in between. Someone comes from a rigid, legalistic background and takes to extremes the claims of Christian liberty. Another feels that the current Christian church is too lackadaisical in its zeal for God and pushes for strict obedience to the rules. Some react to an other-worldly Christianity that goes to great lengths to avoid contact with the world and end up being conformed to the current culture. Others react against the evils of the current culture and end up withdrawing into their own little Christian ghetto. And both sides stand at opposite ends, throwing stones at each other and using the most extreme examples of the other side to justify their actions.
Now I am not saying the truth always lies in the middle (though I find real extremes to be suspect). Sometimes it may be on one side or the other. Sometimes it may even be at an extreme. What I am suggesting is that we avoid reaching conclusions simply by reacting. That we carefully weigh out the pros and cons of the positions before reaching a conclusion, rather than merely trying to get as far as possible from some extreme view of the opposite position. I am convinced that most errors exist because they minister to a legitimate human need. Otherwise there would be nothing to make them attractive. But what they do is isolate that particular need and blow it out of proportion, ignoring other legitimate needs. There is a real virtue in being self-controlled and calmly thinking things though. There is a virtue is in having genuine feelings, of caring deeply about other people and being able to enjoy life. You press either to the extreme, and they can get you into trouble. And using the weaknesses of either position to justify doing this is a mistake. For reaction is a bad basis to build any position on.
Methinks you might have a few Calvminianism tendencies. :)
ReplyDeleteIt is always hard to come to the proper balance of God's sovereignty, human sinfulness and human responsibility. But if this be Calvminianism, make the most of it.
DeleteDoubtful that any "ism" presents a balanced view.
DeleteThe problem with labels and "ism"s is they have a virtue and a drawback. The virtue is it allows you to state your position in a simple manner without a long drawn out explanation. The problem is it can often l lead to simplistic divisions and admittedly can lead to taking things to extremes. Certainly to slavishly follow an "ism" just to follow an "ism" is a mistake. But they can also make clear communication possible. And as I mentioned in the post, I am not convinced that the truth always lays precisely at the center.
DeleteThey might work for you Mike but I do not know of a label or an "ism" that is sufficient to describe my theology. The issue with denominational labels and theological "ism"s is how they continue to over-simplify and fail to communicate the complexity of an individual's theology.
DeleteI am totally opposed to denominational labels (they remind me of the church in Corinth). And I do not want to oppose theological complexity (I outgrew any simple categorization long ago). But I do not think we can totally do away with any kind of labels without making it hard to communicate. Take the title of my old blog "Mediations of a Charismatic Calvinism Who Does Not Speak in Tongues". It would be hard to convey the idea involved without a full blog post, without the labels.
DeleteThe problem is that we think that we have communicated when we have not. When I read "Charismatic Calvinism Who Does Not Speak in Tongues" I might think that you:
ReplyDelete1) are part of a Word of Faith church or
2) want to speak in tongues but can't or
3) only accept part of Calvin's teachings or
4) occasionally handle snakes ...
I think that you get the idea. Some of the people that I attend church with say that they are Methodists (I do not say that) but they disagree with certain Methodist tenets. And then think about how many Roman Catholics do not accept the Vatican's position on birth control.
So I guess that I just do not see the value in labels and labeling people. IMO stereotypes do more damage than help.
All that said, I do find that one descriptive word applies to you Mike - brother! Hope you are doing well Brother Mike!
I am not sure I am interested in in mounting a steadfast and determined defense of the use of labels. Certainly they can be misused and abused. I have myself been abused by they in the past. I just do not think we can totally do without them. I do not wish to be a total labelist or anti-labelist. I want the take the middle ground :)
Delete