A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life

A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life

This blog is a place for the discussion of all things significant and not so important as well. If you read something you disagree with, don't get angry; post a comment and join the discussion.

Passionate and lively debate is encouraged in the context of civility. Comments that include name calling and profanity will be deleted.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Reading Because You Disagree

Henry Neufeld has published a post listing five websites he reads regularly, not in spite of the fact he often disagrees with the writers, but because he disagrees. He also explains why he disagrees, but continues to read.

I think more people should be like Henry in this regard. It is too easy for us to insulate and relegate ourselves to the safety of the like minded. Political conservatives watch only FOX News, political progressives watch only MSNBC. Evangelicals read only evangelical theology, liberals read only liberal theology. Frankly, I think the refusal to open ourselves up to other points of view and consider different perspectives results in a limited and miserable existence. I suspect that many people box themselves into such a narrow frame of reference because while they may have the courage of their convictions, they lack the confidence of their convictions. They may be afraid that someone might indeed challenge their sacred cow assumptions in a way they can no longer hold on to them with integrity. They prefer indoctrination to education.

There are issues on which I have changed my mind over the years. A significant reason for this is because I was willing to entertain differing perspectives that assisted me in revising my views. There are other perspectives on which I have remained steadfast. As a Christian, the issue for me is not protecting my beliefs by walling myself off into an intellectual fortress of like mindedness, but rather as one believes that Jesus Christ embodies the truth, I must be tireless in my pursuit of the truth. I cannot pursue the truth if I refuse to entertain other perspectives.

Years ago I was speaking with an elderly gentlemen. During our discussion the topic turned to this very subject. He said to me that at one time he would read and listen to voices with opinions different from his own, but that now in his old age he knew what he believed and he didn't need to be challenged anymore. Thus to continue to entertain different perspectives was now a waste of his time.

I'm glad that in his twilight years he had it all figured out. I doubt that I will be so fortunate. So, like Henry I will continue to follow some websites, some pundits, and some bloggers, not in spite of the fact that I disagree, but because I disagree.

Monday, August 30, 2010

There Is a Fine Line Between Disclosure and Exposure

Periodically I am asked by students how much of one's personal life should one disclose while preaching. It's an important question that is worthy of serious consideration. Telling personal stories and relating important experiences can be a great way to connect to the congregation and offer one more way for the congregation to come to appreciate the humanity of its pastor. But, as most things in life, one can take things too far and share too much. As the old adage goes, there is a fine line between disclosure and exposure.

When I was in seminary one of my professors in a pastoral ministry class said one day that to share from one's personal experiences during a sermon is a helpful way for the pastor to communicate that she or he is indeed made of flesh and blood like everyone else. The problem, he went on to say, is that some pastors have a tendency to bleed all over the pulpit. So, when is opening oneself publicly in the pulpit helpful disclosure and when does it cross over the line into obscene exposure?

Prior to offering my own thoughts, I need to state the obvious that all congregations are different. What a pastor might be able to share in one congregation may be quite problematic in the pulpit of another. I've know a few pastors who were drug users or dealers prior to their conversions. Some congregations who are very open would have no trouble with their pastor offering testimony as to how Christ transformed her or his life in sharing such a truth, while in other churches people would find such public confession of their leader in the pulpit to be quite scandalous. So, discernment is necessary on the part of the pastor. Nevertheless, while every congregation is different, let me offer some general observations about the motivation for what one shares as well as what not to share.

First, every pastor needs to ask why he or she wants to share something of a personal nature. Does it really relate to the sermon in a way that the congregation will be illumined? The reason I bring up motivation is that some emotionally needy pastors have a knack for turning the sermon time into one big therapy session where they are the patient and the rest of the congregation is the therapist listening to their anguish. If the motivation is of a nature where the pastor just needs to get the problem off her or his chest, it is best to keep silent.

Second, when it comes to sharing personal experiences in the pulpit, I follow Bevere's time-tested rule, "When in doubt, chicken out." Failing to tell a story will offend no one. Telling one you are not sure of may. I want to be clear here. The task of the preacher is not to tickle the congregation's ears. St. Paul reminds us that the gospel is an offense. But if we are to offend in our preaching, let it be based on the substance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and not on account of an embarrassing personal experience.

Third, keep family out of the sermon unless it is a harmless story or one that will truly make the point without embarrassing anyone. Years ago, I knew a pastor who regularly made fun of his wife's terrible cooking in his sermons. What's the point of that? Moreover, pastors need to refrain from speaking of marital and/or financial problems from the pulpit. They also need to keep their children's issues out of the sermon as well. To speak of these things in such a public venue will not only not help the situation, it may in fact make things worse. (By the way, this also applies to what pastors share about other people who are not family. Many years ago at a funeral I attended the officiating pastor shared how the deceased' second marriage was the reuniting of the man's first and true love with the family of his former first wife sitting right there!)

Fourth, while sharing appropriate personal experiences can enhance a sermon, it is the better part of discretion not to share personal experiences too often. People who talk about themselves too much not only give the impression that they are self-centered, they reveal that in fact they are self-centered. I do share appropriate personal experiences during my sermons, but such disclosures are not often. The purpose of the sermon is not to focus on the preacher, but the One the preacher should be speaking about-- Jesus Christ.

Fifth, it must be remembered that in every sermon pastors share something of themselves as they express their convictions and what's important to them as they focus on a particular text of Scripture. I reveal something of myself when I refer to something I have read that relates to my sermon. In other words, pastors do not always have to share personal stories to share of themselves. It is impossible for us to keep our narrative experiences out of the sermon, even if we never share anything autobiographical in the proper sense. Autobiography is not required for personal disclosure.

I am sure there are other important considerations I have missed, but the point is that especially as we in the West now live in the reality TV culture, where it is fashionable for people to share all their failings and foibles without shame, the last thing we need is to bring reality TV into the pulpit. Parishioners need to know that their pastor is a human being; they don't need to come to the conclusion that she or he could be a guest on The Jerry Springer Show.

Opinion Central Poll 2010.28: Final Results

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Weekend Whimsy

Little Tim was in the garden filling in a hole when his neighbor peered over the fence.

Interested in what the cheeky-faced youngster was up to, he politely asked, "What are you up to there, Tim?"

My goldfish died," replied Tim tearfully without looking up," and I've just buried him."

The neighbor was concerned, "That's an awfully big hole for a goldfish isn't it?"

Tim patted down the last heap of earth, then replied, "That's because he's inside your stupid cat."

---

From Michael E. Hodgin, 1002 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speakers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2010.24.235

IMPORTANT NOTE: During the month of September, I have a quite a hectic schedule. I will be taking a long Labor Day weekend for some R & R and then after just a handful of days, I will be leaving for two weeks of study leave at the College of William and Mary. So this will be the last Weekly Roundup until the end of September and also, therefore, the Methodist Blogs Daily Links. I will be blogging while on study leave, but I have an important project that must be completed, so I will have very little time to surf the Methoblogosphere while I am away.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links will return on September 27th.

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in the Methodist Blogs Daily links (MBDL), email your post to umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

If you discover that a link is not correct, please email me at the above address.

*Thanks to everyone for their email submissions*

The week in review in the Methoblogosphere:

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Monday 8.23.10

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Wednesday 8.25.10

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Thursday 8.26.10

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Friday 8.27.10

This week's Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Jay Voorhees: "Travails of a Fat Pastor"

Sally Coleman: "No Apologies"

Friday, August 27, 2010

Donald Bloesch (1928-2010)

He paved the way in evangelical systematic theology.

Refusing to choose between liberalism and fundamentalism, he [Bloesch] nevertheless expressed his preference for a kind of Christianity that preserved the doctrinal deposit of orthodoxy: "In liberalism truth is dissolved so that only an amorphous experience remains. In rigid orthodoxy truth is frozen into a formula or credo. But there is hope that it can be brought back to life."

A tribute to Bloesch can be found here.Link

Truth Is Stranger than Fiction 2010.17: Man Gets Shot in the Head But Does Not Know It

Man shot in head, but notices only 5 years later

From Associated Press
August 24, 2010 11:28 AM EDT

BERLIN (AP) — Police say a man living in Germany was shot in the back of his head, but that it took him five years to realize it.

Police said Tuesday that the 35-year-old man was hit by a .22-caliber bullet in the western town of Herne as he was out in the street partying and drunk on New Year's Eve five years ago.

They say the man recalled receiving a blow to the head, but told them he didn't seek medical assistance at the time.

The bullet did not penetrate the skull, and police say the Polish man only went to see a doctor recently when he felt a lump on the back of his head. An X-ray showed an object under his skin, and doctors operated and found the projectile.

Police say it may have been a stray bullet fired by a reveler in celebration.

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Friday 8.27.10

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in the MBDL, email your post to me at umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will belisted more than once a week.

Posts to ponder from the Methoblogosphere:

Bishop Robert Schnase posts on the essentials.

Jay Voorhees reflects on the travails of a fat pastor.

Dave Morris wishes rebooting was easy.

Kathy James offers a midday prayer.

Are Jesus' miracles true? Andrew Conard asks the question.

Richard Heyduck on having a future.

Jeremy Smith asks, "What would Jesus burn?"

Thoughts on choosing a new church from Henry Neufeld.

Angela Shier-Jones writes on God's clearing house.

Jesus is a cool drink on a hot day according to Andrew Stoddard.

Sally Coleman is offering no apologies.

David Garvin reviews Sally Morgenthaler's book, Worship Evangelism.

How long the madness?-- a question from Guy Kent.

Blake Huggins ponders overcoming the sting of death.

Cathy Turner posts on judging and learning a lesson from Abraham Lincoln.

How could you lose Jesus? Michael Ledbetter wants to know.

Scott Endress wonders if a day off is the answer to clergy obesity.

Andy Bryan writes on the stone on his desk and the first stone.

Joseph Yoo comments on the full time pastor and part time clergy.

Pakistan needs help-- a reminder from Josh Tinley.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

A Brief Reflection on Mother Teresa's 100th Birthday

One hundred years ago today, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, who would become known to the world as Mother Teresa, was born.

Anyone who knows me knows how much I have admired Mother Teresa over the years. She brought the presence of God into so many deep and dark places of suffering. When her letters were published after her death revealing her own personal struggle with her faith, many of her detractors took it as one more demonstration of the sham of faith in general. I saw it quite differently. I imagined a women with a faith so deep that she was willing to enter into the extremely difficult places of life where God would seem absent. Even with her doubts she became the presence of God for the suffering and starving masses of Calcutta when others by their neglect and uncaring made them feel as if God himself did not exist.

C.S. Lewis argued that courage was not one of the virtues among others, but the quality necessary to inhabit the virtues. Lewis believed that living virtuously was quite difficult in an unvirtuous world, and without courage, one could not possibly inhabit the virtuous life.

Mother Teresa stands as a courageous example of virtue; but not virtue in general-- she stands as a shining example of Christian virtue. Her motivation for her work was nothing less than her faith in Jesus Christ. As she said herself, "Jesus is my life."

Happy birthday, Mother Teresa.

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Thursday 8.26.10

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in the MBDL, email your post to me at umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

Today's reads from the Methoblogosphere:

Pastor Mack writes on Abraham Heschel and Jesus the prophet.

Lorna Koskela has visited God's own water park.

Dan Dick posts on holy warps.

Seeing the love of Jesus shine through the church-- a post by Mark Conforti.

"Shelter from the Storm"-- a sermon by Ken Carter.

Kevin Watson writes on the role of the class leader in the 21st century Methodist class meeting.

Mark Winter hit a grand slam at Ridglea UMC.

Randy Olds wishes N.T. Wright had a blog.

The preacher's dilemma according to Andrew Thompson. It's good to see you doing some blogging again, Andrew!

Tony Mitchell writes on being under construction.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

If a Mosque Were Coming to My Neighborhood...

I have yet to comment on the "Ground Zero" mosque controversy since much has already been written and spoken on the subject. So, here it goes.

What I want to do is to get at this issue a little differently by asking myself what I would do as a pastor in the community in which I lived, if a Muslim congregation wanted to build a mosque in our town, and subsequently ran into some fierce opposition to it.

The first thing I think I would do is call the Imam and offer to host a meeting of all the clergy in town who want to participate-- priests, pastors, rabbis, and yes, the Imam. The matter would be too important simply to leave in the hands of the politicians. One's position on the mosque would be irrelevant, but I would want to have a respectful dialogue where religious leaders in the community could share their concerns whether they were for or against the mosque. Would it be possible for us to come to some kind of consensus? I don't know, but the discussion should be had. It would be more constructive than holding picket signs while one side screams at the other.
.
My second step would be to host a meeting for the Christian clergy alone for an in-house discussion. The major focus of the meeting would be on how the Gospel of Jesus Christ comes to bear on this issue. In other words, if Jesus were in the room with us, what would he say to his priests and pastors who lead the church?
.
Third, I would want the community to know that the clergy are attempting to deal with the situation in a way that brings healing and restoration. We do not have to agree with each other's religion to work together. I stand in the broader evangelical tradition. I am not one of those persons who believes that all religions present a pathway toward the divine. I think there are many things about the theology and practice of Islam that are simply wrong, but I do not see how that should prevent me from working with another clergy person from another faith for the good of the community in which we live. I've never understood the mindset of those who believe otherwise.

Fourth, I would ask those who oppose the mosque (and especially in my own church) what the implications would be for all religious communities if the government started telling the faithful of any religion where a congregation can and cannot build a building. It's a mosque today... but it may be a synagogue or a church tomorrow. I think it's always an interesting method of reasoning to put the shoe on the other foot, and ask how I would feel.

Fifth, at the same time I would ask those Christians who support the building of the mosque to consider the serious concerns of those who might have experienced great emotional pain on account of an event that has changed their lives forever at the hands of a group of extremists who distorted the Christian religion. I'm not talking about giving consideration to the bigots here. I'm speaking of sensitivity to people who feel that a group of individuals who claimed to embrace my Christian faith in extreme and distorted form murdered their relatives. I may insist that their terrorism was not Christian, but I must not ignore the fact that the perpetrators laid claim to my religion. I am not asking for anyone to change their position. I am just asking for a little understanding for those whose lives were truly changed. Even though we could build a church on the site, would we be so quick to push if the very act itself was now getting in the way of reconciliation? Again, I am just asking that we look at an argument from the other side for the purpose of mutual understanding.

Sixth, I would remind everyone I could that the problem here is not Islam in general. To equate what happened on 9/11 with all of Islam is to misunderstand what really happened and it is to misunderstand Islam. At the same time, those on the other end who want to take Islam completely out of the equation also misinterpret the situation. I have read more than a few individuals claiming the issue is not Islam, but Al Qaeda. Well, that is partly true. The issue is Al Qaeda and other extreme groups who hold to an extreme form of Islam that informs their terrorist activities. It is clearly incorrect to connect terrorism to all of Islam, but to reject that an extreme expression of Islamic faith is not at issue here is to stick one's head into the politically correct sand. Does this make a difference for whether the mosque should be built? I don't believe so. It's just a point of clarification that might bring a little mutual understanding to both sides of the argument.

Seventh, and finally, I would be bound by my faith and my conscience to support the building of the mosque whatever it may cost me personally in the way of reputation. At least, I hope I would do this. No one knows how she or he will respond in a difficult situation, but as a follower of Jesus Christ, I simply cannot come to any other conclusion. I may not be a Muslim and I may not agree with Muslim tenets, but I am having a difficult time imagining Jesus opposing the building of the mosque, not because I think Jesus was a modern progressive. I highly doubt that. I think he would favor it because Jesus came to reconcile all things to himself; and Christians fighting with their Muslim neighbors is hardly an effective approach to reconciliation.

What would Jesus do? Surely what he would do would be different from what we are witnessing.

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Wednesday 8.25.10

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in MBDL, email your post to me at umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

Posts to ponder from the Methoblogosphere:

Chad Holtz writes on demanding more of church members.

Kim Fabricius rants on the idolatry of the actual.

Sue Whitt on seating choice and Proverbs 25:6-7.

A look back on 1000 posts from Greg Milinovich.

Dale Tedder comments on Oswald Chambers.

John Meunier ponders speaking Russian and communicating the gospel.

Does belief change our lives? Kim Matthews asks the question.

Randy Willis comments on four ways we limit God.

Dave Camphouse posts his summer camp recap and the focus of the UMC.

Matt Kelley shares his sermon writing process.

Some thoughts on Facebook and the downward spiral from Jim Parsons.

Brian Russell posts his exegetical notes on Judges 6-8.

Steve Manskar writes on the need to recover the class meetings and class leaders.

Missy Buchanan posts on the sermon at the swimming pool.

Go green, save green-- reflections from Steve Heyduck.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Why Creeds Are Important

I love the Nicene Creed! I was not raised in a church tradition that emphasized creeds, In fact we avoided them. We were taught that we were about the authority of Scripture only and creeds undermined the Scriptures and added to them. Over the years, however, as I have read theology and reflected theologically, I have come to appreciate the Christian creedal tradition and see it's indispensable benefit to the church that seeks to be faithful to the Gospel.

So why are creeds important?

First, creeds are important because they remind us that there are non-negotiables when it comes to Christian doctrine. As an individual I cannot make Christianity whatever I wish it to be. I do not make up the faith; I receive it. Of course, I bring myself, my personal narratives, and my context to my faith, but there are certain affirmations that must be made for the faith to be Christian faith. Many years ago, the great neo-orthodox theologian, Emil Brunner wrote a basic primer on Christianity entitling it, Our Faith. Brunner knew that Christian faith would be distorted if each individual only assumed that her or his faith belonged exclusively and only to her or him. Without the faith of those who have gone before, the faith of an exclusively personal faith is not worth having. We cannot see over the horizon to glimpse the Kingdom of God without standing on the shoulders of our faithful mothers and fathers who have passed the identity they have received to us. Doctrine does matter. I have not been given the right or authority to reject the essentials of Christianity because they go against my modern sensibilities.

Second, creeds remind us that while there are non-negotiables, there is also plenty of room for diversity and difference of opinion. It must not be forgotten that the Creeds are brief. There is much they do not mention. The temptation for Christians throughout history is to major in the minors, or to, as in the words of Father John Wesley, place at the center those things that "do not strike at the root" of the faith. For some Christians inerrancy is an important doctrine, but never has the church affirmed or denied that in a creed. Historically, in the debates over the atonement, some have preferred one understanding of Christ's work over another, and some have even rejected one or more aspects of atonement in favor of only one. But never has the ecumenical church taken a position on which aspect of the atonement is the only correct one. In their wisdom they understood that no one "theory" of Christ's work adequately explains what it means for Christ to be our Savior. What Jesus has done for us is too rich and too wonderful to be reduced only to sacrificial substitution or exemplary love to the exclusion of everything else.

Third, and finally, the Creeds do not undermine Scripture, nor do they add to the Bible in a way that rejects Scripture. The creeds are the necessary result of a discussion that the church would have to have because of the testimony of the New Testament, particularly of the witness it bears to Jesus Christ-- who he is and what he has done. The Nicean theologians knew that what was finally affirmed about the person of Jesus made a difference for what his work accomplished. At the Council of Nicea, the central question swirling in the background was, "If we say "thus and so" about Jesus, what does it mean for our salvation?" They understood all too well that the answer to that question mattered.

I could add further reasons, but I do not want to lose the trinitarian character of this post-- That too matters; for our creeds rightly affirm on account of the New Testament witness, that the Trinity is the essential Christian doctrine of God.

So, as one who grew up knowing that creeds existed, but having no idea what they were, nor having ever recited one, I now utter those words in worship with great conviction, thankful to God that I have received and accepted these words as my faith, precisely because they are first and foremost, our faith.

Monday, August 23, 2010

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Monday 8.23.10

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in MBDL, email your post to me at umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

Today's reads from the Methoblogosphere:

Tim Good writes on the those who label the poor as street rats.

Dave Nichols lists the top ten questions that God asks us.

Pat LaPorte reflects on name calling vs. changing minds.

Reflections on President Obama and Franklin Graham and Islam from Shane Raynor.

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on Romans 12:18.

Robert McDowell is working his way through the homosexuality debate.

"The Old Rugged Cross"-- a sermon by Beth Quick.

Betty Newman cogitates between the cross and the empty tomb.

Brian Vinson writes on encouragement.

Melissa Cooper offers her thoughts on the Islamic Center Controversy.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Politics for Christians

Scot McKnight has posted a review I wrote of Francis Beckwith's book, Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft.

I thank Scot for his gracious invitation to write the review.

The post is here.

Caption Contest 2010.8... And the Winner Is...

Rev. Randy: "Order ready for Goliath of Gath!"

Friday, August 20, 2010

Can Gender Inclusiveness Be Taken Too Far?

I haven't done much reflective blogging this week (actually I have done no reflective blogging this week) as I have been teaching an intensive course in theology at Ashland Theological Seminary. So, today I will point you instead to a very thoughtful post by my colleague at Ashland, John Byron, on gender inclusive language and Bible translation. It is worth a read.

Here's the link.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Stanley Hauerwas on His Evangelical Audience

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2010.23.234

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in the Methodist Blogs Daily links (MBDL), email your post to umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

If you discover that a link is not correct, please email me at the above address.

*Thanks to everyone for their email submissions*

Special Note: There will be no MB Daily Links nor a Weekly Roundup next week. I am teaching a theology intensive all next week. Blogging will be at a minimum.

The posting of the Daily Links will resume the following week.

The week in review in the Methoblogosphere:

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Monday 8.9.10

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Tuesday 8.10.10

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Wednesday 8.11.10

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Thursday 8.12.10

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Friday 8.13.10

This week's Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Sally Coleman: "The Tyranny of Niceness"

Shane Raynor: "Pushing the Envelope on Perfection"

Friday, August 13, 2010

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Friday 8.13.10

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in the MBDL, email your post to me at umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

Posts to ponder from the Methoblogosphere:

John Meunier writes on sanctification.

Brian Russell offers exegetical notes on Judges 2.

Windows 7 was John Carney's idea.

Lorna Koskela says it is definitely nice to be home.

Steven Manskar on the harmony between doctrine and Scripture.

What's your alabaster box? Sean Peters asks the question.
.
Melissa Cooper reviews the book, What in the World is Going On?

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Who Are the Spirits in Prison?-- 1 Peter 3:18-20

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight people, were saved through water (1 Peter 3:18-20).

The identity of the "spirits in prison" Peter refers to in this passage is one of the most disputed subjects in New Testament interpretation, which usually (though not exclusively) divides along Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox lines. The New Testament is clear that between his death and resurrection (and Ascension) Jesus did something, but what precisely was it? The passage from 1 Peter gives us an indication, but what exactly is Peter affirming?

In his commentary on 1 Peter, Scot McKnight lays out the three possible options and the minor divergence within the views themselves.

The first view interprets prison as hell. Thus, as the historic creeds confess, Jesus after his death and prior to his resurrection, descended into hell and preached to the spirits there. There is a difference of opinion as to who exactly the spirits are. Some suggest that the spirits are fallen angels (Genesis 6:1-4) or those persons who died prior to Noah's flood. Origen suggests that Christ's descent into hell was for the purpose of proclaiming his redeeming message to the patriarchs and prophets. Jesus' proclamation to the spirits was not simply a telling of what his work had now accomplished, but it included an offer of salvation since they were never afforded an opportunity to hear the gospel. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, Going in his soul, Christ preached to those in hell that he might save all who would believe in him.

The second position suggests that Peter is referring to the preexistent Christ in the person of Noah. The spirits were Noah's contemporaries who had been deprived from hearing the word of God. Prison is a metaphorical reference to sin and ignorance. Some who hold this position, however, believe that prison refers to the spirits' actual location in the present. Jesus did not literally descend anywhere but refers to Jesus' proclamation to Noah's generation.

In the third option Peter is referring to Jesus' triumphal proclamation after his resurrection and prior to his exaltation. Jesus had a spiritual existence after his resurrection. The spirits, as in the first view, refer to the fallen angels of Genesis 6:1-4. Jesus' proclamation of victory was made as he ascended to the right hand of God. So unlike the first view, "he went" does not refer to descent but to ascent.

McKnight points out quite nicely that regardless of which view one takes, each position highlights Jesus vindication after his suffering for sinners. The significance of Peter's overall argument must not be eclipsed by getting lost in the minutiae of one difficult verse.

Nevertheless, it is also not unimportant to ask which view is to be preferred. I am not at all impressed with the second option. It assumes too much based on too little. I like the third interpretation because it makes sense in a Jewish context (Scot notes the connection to 1 Enoch). However, I simply do not want to reject the first possibility out of hand. The earliest theologians and commentators (through the fourth century AD) from the East and the West were unanimous in their affirmation that Jesus descended into hell. And while I do not believe that early Christian biblical interpretation was infallible, I also think that being much closer to the life and ministry of Jesus and to the subsequent Apostolic proclamation and teaching, these early Christians should be taken seriously in a preferential way. Jesus' descent into hell is also affirmed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds and have been said by millions of the faithful for centuries. If Creeds require ecumenical consent one wonders how many Protestants, who reject the notion of Christ's descent into hell, simply assume they have the authority to edit and revise an ecumenical Creed given by the church universal.

Is it possible to incorporate the first and third views into 1 Peter 3:18-20, or are they too incompatible for such a blending?

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Thursday 8.12.10

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in MBDL, email your post to me at umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

Methodist reads for today:

Drew McIntyre is suffering through The Late Great Planet Earth, part 1.

Keith McIlwain comments on the five reasons teens leave the church.

Sky McCracken writes on the future of the episcopacy, part 6.

Ministry to men, part 3, from Dale Tedder.

Dan Dick cogitates on the church and a time and place for everything under heaven.

Randy Olds is one busy Mr. Mom.

Thoughts on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero from Brad Smith.

Missy Buchanan reminds us that it's not your grandmother's church... or is it?

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on Psalm 16:11.

Jim Parsons asks, "Where would Jesus stand?"

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

The Origins of the Earth, the Environment, and Jesus: Following the Truth Where It Leads

Opinion Central Poll 2010.26: Final Results

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Wednesday 8.11.10

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in the MBDL, email your post to me at umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

Today's reads from the Methoblogosphere:

Robert McDowell offers the New Testament word/phrase of the week.

Randy Willis posts on their best financial practices.

Joey Heath writes on the end of the beginning on the recent ruling on Proposition 8.

Reflections on the Methodist People from Dave Warnock.

Mark Conforti posts on the church's youth retreat.

Chad Holtz comments on John Wesley on the scope and character of salvation.

Steve Heyduck writes on his youth group reunion.

The tyranny of niceness according to Sally Coleman.

Shane Raynor is pushing the envelope on perfection.

Will Rice reviews Kevin Roose's, The Unlikely Disciple.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

On Questioning the Questions, On Debating the Debate

One of the things I have learned as a student of Stanley Hauerwas is to continually question the questions being posed for debate on any issue and not to simply accept the terminology and definitions that frame so much modern theological and ethical discussion. Taken too far, of course, it can be forgotten that there are theological and moral issues that are currently framed quite well.

On this blog I have questioned such notions and their accompanying terminology. I have questioned the language of rights, fundamentalism, sectarianism, the politics of left and right, modern expressions of conservatism and progressivism, the dichotomy of church and state, the church's almost unexamined understanding of how it is politically involved, and other such matters. I get push back from my readers when I question such things and for that I am grateful. Such discussion and the back and forth of debate is critical as Christians seek to live as faithful disciples. But the point of this post is to reinforce my view that if Christians continually argue within the conceptual framework of modernity, our discussions will often fall short of the kind of theological and moral reflection that will offer something different to the world than simply the same old discussions that everyone can have apart from Christian convictions.

For example, I have suggested in past posts that the way the current debate over abortion is framed is unhelpful, and from a Christian perspective, quite problematic. There is no such thing as a right to life nor is there such a thing as a right to choose, and Christians should simply reject this conceptual framework. Choice is not a right; choice is a given, and the issue is not the choice itself, but what choices are made. Life is not a right; life is a gift from God. That is biblical. With this conceptual framework, the issue of abortion can now be seen in a different light. As Hauerwas also argues, the major issue for Christians when it comes to abortion is not whether life begins at conception, but that we hope it does, because Christians believe that God is redeeming this world and we should stand ready to welcome children into the world as a sign of that hope.

I use abortion as an example only because it has been a long time since I have posted on the matter. Other issues I have brought up more recently, so I won't belabor the point. The overall point, however, is that the followers of Jesus do not have to simply accept the questions and the terminology as they have been handed to us from modernity. That doesn't mean that modern philosophical reflection has gotten everything wrong, but it has drifted far enough away from Christian theological and doctrinal moorings that Christians should be wary when they are subtly informed, even by fellow Christians, that they have to play the rules of the debate game by the rules as they are already laid out in front of them. As Hauerwas also notes, "the way things are are not the way they have to be."

Once we truly begin to question the questions and debate the debate itself, we can also begin to inject the kind of wisdom and reflection into the discussion that will move us out of the box of an often stunted and myopic modern worldview, into something that might even allow us to peer over the horizon to glimpse the Kingdom of God in fresh ways. It might also mean that our theology and doctrine will no longer seem to be beside the point to be rejected in favor of a solely pragmatic argument and solution.

It could happen...

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Tuesday 8.10.10

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in the MBDL, email your post to me at umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

Posts to ponder from the Methoblogosphere:

John Montgomery writes on empty collection plates.

Joseph Yoo wonders if it's a lose-lose situation.

Has the consumer church gone wild? Read Matt Kelley.

Ken Carter ponders the option of atheism.

Kevin Watson lists and comments on the top ten ways to guarantee that your class meeting will fail.

Andrew Conard comments on the insider and outsiders of the church.

Jesus feels our pain-- a post from Michael Ledbetter.

Beth Quick preaches-- "Here I Am, Lord."

Mark Winter writes on GRACE Camp.

Daniel McLain Hixon reflects on the current situation with Proposition 8.

Monday, August 09, 2010

The Faith of Our Founders #4: John Adams

While the specifics of George Washington's faith have been subject to much historical speculation, the faith of John Adams, the second President of the United States is not. Adams was raised in the Congregational tradition of New England in the context of a stoic Calvinism. And while Adams would reject Calvinist doctrine as an adult, he would always hang onto a kind of "stiff upper lip" fatalism that forced him to press on in life in difficult and tragic times.

As a young man, Adams briefly entertained the idea of entering the ministry, but decided against it as he felt he had not the temperament. In addition, he did not care for what he witnessed growing up of the frightful engines of ecclesiastical councils, of diabolical malice, and Calvinistic good nature. (1)

Adams was an avid Bible reader but he did not consider the books of the Bible to be the only divinely inspired writings. When he read a letter from his adult son, John Quincy Adams, admonishing his children to follow "the biblic rule of faith," the elder Adams responded by asking his son which Bible. There were, after all, "thirty thousand variations."

Unlike George Washington, Adams actively attended church all of his life no matter where he happened to live at the time. But he complained about preachers who were, in his word, "orthodox" in their doctrine. Adam's father-in-law was one such preacher. Prior to their marriage Abigail Adam's father had hoped she would break off her engagement to John, the young unorthodox lawyer. Such would not be the case. Even though the tension between the two men in reference to religion troubled Abigail (who seemed to retain much of her theologically traditional views throughout her life in spite of John), she managed to use the situation in humorous fashion. When the two were married, Abigail's father permitted Abigail to choose the Scripture text for his first sermon after their marriage, something he did for all of his daughters. Abigail chose the verse, "John came neither eating nor drinking, and ye say, He hath a devil." (2)

Adams' comments on specific Christian doctrines reveal that he cannot be considered as evangelical nor orthodox. Adams rejected the doctrine of original sin. "I am answerable enough for my own sins," he stated. (3) Nevertheless, unlike many of his contemporaries, Adam had less of a positive view of human nature and reason. Thomas Jefferson believed that human reason could one day solve every problem. Adams was more circumspect. He too believed in the abilities of the human intellect and he may have rejected a literal reading of Adam and Eve, but he believed that the story taught a symbolic truth about the frailties of humanity that everyone should heed. For Adams, human beings were indeed guilty of sins before God.

On the Incarnation of Christ and atonement, Adams leaves no doubt as to where he stands: An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient author of this stupendous universe, suffering on a cross!!! My soul starts with horror at the idea, and it has stupefied the Christian world. It has been the source of almost all the corruptions of Christianity. (4) In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Adams wrote that the doctrines of incarnation and deity of Jesus were an "aweful blasphemy." (5) Adams strong words against such orthodox doctrines were offered not only as a polemic against Protestant believers of such a stripe, but like many of his contemporaries (especially Jefferson) Adams clearly seemed to be directly targeting Catholicism, which was often mentioned in the same breath as superstition.

Adams rejected the idea of eternal damnation as counter to an all-benevolent God. He also rejected the idea of demon possession. Adams believed in revelation but stated that one did not need miracles and prophecy to demonstrate it. God's revelation was obvious in "human understanding" and in the very fabric of the universe itself.

John Adams did believe in an afterlife of some kind. When Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Adams in their old age, he expressed his wish to the second president that if he could, he would like to return to his birth and live life all over again. Adams wrote back in disagreement. He preferred to live out his days and then face whatever came next. (6) When Abigail died, Adams wrote to Jefferson saying he could not believe in a God who would create "such a species as the human" simply to live and die upon the earth.

In his personal life Adams' morality was exemplary. Indeed, Adams, like many of his "Enlightened" contemporaries reduced religion to the realm of the moral. What was important about faith was not the doctrine one believed, but how it shaped and made virtuous citizens. During his time in France he was shocked by the frivolity of the French way of life, the almost scandalous dress of the French women, and the clear sexual innuendo present in many conversations around the dinner table (though he also freely admitted that he was not immune to "the temptations of the flesh.") For Adams discipline and frugality were Christian practices. Of course, there were those who interpreted Adams' stoic temperament as proof that he was nothing more than an old "stick in the mud." But Adams could not even imagine how his own family had prospered without the moral aspects of religious faith. In a letter to Benjamin Rush dated on the 19th of July 1812, Adams wrote, What has preserved this race of Adamses in all their ramifications in such numbers, health, peace, comfort, and mediocrity? I believe it is religion, without which they would have been rakes, fops, sots, gamblers, starved with hunger, or frozen with cold, scalped by Indians, etc., etc., etc., been melted away and disappeared. (7)

Charles Francis Adams, the grandson of John Adams summarized the faith of his grandfather: He devoted himself to a very elaborate examination of the religion of all ages and nations, the results of which he committed to paper in a desultory manner. The issue of it was the formation of his theological opinions very much in the mold accepted by the Unitarians of New England. Rejecting, with the independent spirit which in early life had driven him from the ministry, the prominent doctrines of Calvinism, the trinity, the atonement, and election, he was content to settle down upon the Sermon on the Mount as a perfect code presented to men by a more than mortal teacher. (8)

The next Founder-- Thomas Jefferson.

Previous Posts

The Faith of Our Founders #1: Introduction

The Faith of Our Founders #2: Deism

The Faith of Our Founders #3: George Washington

---
NOTES

(1) David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001).

(2) Alf Mapp, The Faiths of Our Fathers.

(3) Dean Merrill, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997).

(4) Alf Mapp, The Faiths of Our Fathers.

(5) Henry May, The Enlightenment in America (New York: Oxford, 1976).

(6) David McCullough, John Adams.

(7) Alf Mapp, The Faiths of Our Fathers.

(8) Alf Mapp, The Faiths of Our Fathers.

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Monday 8.9.10

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in the MBSL, email your post to me at umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

Today's reads from the Methoblogosphere:

Pat LaPorte posts on daily Great Egret.

"And What Will You Say?"-- a sermon by Tony Mitchell.

Sue Whitt writes on inward reality and outward force.

Betty Newman reflects on the blessedness of the pure in heart.

Scott Endress comments on public belonging and taking things personally.

Some thoughts on C.S. Lewis from Henry Neufeld.

Andrew Stoddard cogitates on a mind made up.

Tim Good connects Sodom and Gomorrah and church meetings.

Reflections on the bi-cultural church from David Garvin.

Guy Kent is alone (well, sort of) on a bench.

Kim Matthews wonders if our passion for Christ is contageous.

Sunday, August 08, 2010

Saturday, August 07, 2010

Markan Priority According to Mr. Potato Head

Now we need Dave Black to create the same kind of clip in favor of Matthean Priority!



HT: John Montgomery

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2010.22.233

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in the Methodist Blogs Daily Links (MBDL), email your post to umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo)(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

If you discover that a link is not correct, please email me at the above address.

*Thanks to everyone for their email submissions!*

The week in review in the Methoblogosphere:

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Tuesday 8.3.10

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Wednesday 8.4.10

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Thursday 8.5.10

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Friday 8.6.10

This week's Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Gavin Richardson: "Losing a Young Person: Grieving in the Digital Age"

Josh Tinley: "I'm Not Sure It Works That Way, Anne Rice"

Friday, August 06, 2010

Anderson Cooper Interviews Christopher Hitchens

Truth Is Stranger than Fiction 2010.16: Unhappy Thief Registers Complaint

Unhappy robber: Gunman calls restaurant to gripe

By Larry Hartstein
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution


A man who robbed a Wendy's at gunpoint Saturday night apparently was so upset with his haul that he twice called the restaurant to complain, Atlanta police said.

"Next time there better be more than $586," he said during one call. He made "a similar threat" in the second call, police said.

About 11:15 p.m., a man wearing a ski mask and holding a gun walked up to the drive-through window at the Wendy's at 1940 Piedmont Road, police said. He told an employee to put the cash drawer on the counter.

After grabbing the drawer and running away, the robber discarded the drawer in the bushes at the nearby InTown Suites. Police dusted the drawer for fingerprints. However, the robber was seen wearing yellow gloves at Wendy's.

Police also are checking to see if the robber shows up on hotel security cameras.

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Friday 8.6.10

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in the MBDL, email your post to me at umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

Today's reads from the Methoblogosphere:

Dave Nichols writes on sanctifying grace.

John Montgomery reflects on Gospel remakes and sequels.

Sue Whitt on Isaiah on Sodom and Gomorrah.

Women in church leadership roles and offices-- a post from Robert McDowell.

Some thoughts from Jennifer Smith on honoring our leaders.

Is the church relevant in the 21st century? Read Dan Dick.

Dave Camphouse asks, "For whom the church?"

"In Necessary Things, Unity"-- a sermon by Ken Carter.

Brian Russell reflects on the heart of idolatry.

Dave Warnock argues that the government is encouraging dangerous and violent driving.

Brian Vinson ponders competition and the love of God.

A post from Will Grady on Ann Rice leaving Christianity.

Thursday, August 05, 2010

Justified Anger, Misplaced Targets

In the wake of the Gulf oil spill, many BP gas stations in the country have seen their sales plummet because of individuals boycotting BP stations. Some have suggested that the stations revert back to the previous name of Amoco in order to begin the process of amnesia that might lead to increased sales again. Whether such a move would work remains to be seen.

Let me say at the outset that I understand the anger at BP for what appears to be obvious negligence on their part. They cut safety corners in their deep water drilling protocols and their incompetence and outright greed of company officials have affected many people living on the Gulf Coast who depend on fishing and oil drilling for their livelihood. What they have done will affect people in that region for years to come.

So while the anger at BP is justified, targeting individual BP gas stations for boycott is not. The individual owners of these stations have nothing to do with the oil drilling of the company nor were they involved in the decisions that led to the Gulf disaster. They are simply small and independent business owners attempting to forge a livelihood and give work to their employees. They are the small business owners we Americans like to brag about as the backbone of our economy.

I am not a big fan of boycotts or embargoes, whether they are government sponsored or the result of a popular movement. Boycotts only hurt the people who can least afford it. I am continually amazed that so often those individuals who support boycotts are the ones who tout how concerned they are for the common laborer and the poor; and then they are willing to engage in a practice that hurts the very people they claim to care about.

Over the years when I stop to get gas I am one of those persons who looks for the cheapest price; but lately I have been stopping at BP stations. I do so not because I approve of BP's willful negligence in reference to deep water oil drilling, but because I want to support those small business owners who have come on hard times through no fault of their own, and who are hurting because of the justified anger but misplaced response of so many who should think twice.

The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Thursday 8.5.10

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in the MBDL, email your post to me at umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

A selection of today's posts from the Methoblogosphere:

David Garvin affirms that God love us like he loves A-Rod.

Melissa Cooper reviews the book, Trusting God: When Life Hurts.

Matthew Kelley offers his thoughts on Anne Rice.

Reflections on a five day week from Angela Shier-Jones.

Betty Newman writes on the Beatitudes and happiness.

Daniel McLain Hixon writes on the sacramental life.

John Fletcher is reading what he preaches.

The Gospel According to Super Heroes according to Tim Good.

Dave Faulkner posts on clergy burnout.

Tim Conforti reports on reports from the mission field.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Caption Contest 2010.7


The Methodist Blogs Daily Links--Wednesday 8.4.10

Any Methoblogger who would like a link included in the MBDL, email your post to me at umwekklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com. Your link will be posted within two weekdays. No blog will be listed more than once a week.

Posts to ponder from the Methoblogosphere:

Chad Holtz on John Wesley on the nature of God.

"Bigger Barns"-- a sermon by Beth Quick.

Shane Raynor offers initial thoughts on Adam Hamilton's new book, When Christian Get It Wrong.

Guy Kent writes on faces and names.

Brian Vinson posts on weeding the church.

It is an ordination project for Randy Willis.

Gilbert Caldwell notes that the times are changing.

Steve Heyduck reflects on what it means to fear God.

Thoughts from David Hallam at the end of July.

Josh Tinley ponders the recent comments from Ann Rice and their relation to Christianity, and the church.

Scott Endress asks, "Why join the church?"

Mark Winter is keeping the fires lit at Lakeview UMC.

"Time Has Come Today"-- a sermon from Tony Mitchell.

Guy Williams ponders the secret to happiness.

Randy Olds reflects on The Imitation of Christ and dealing with interpersonal strife in humility.

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Opinion Central Poll 2010.25: Final Results

We Are All Fundamentalists About Something

I grew up in a Christian Fundamentalist tradition. I no longer consider myself to be a Fundamentalist. Indeed, I really do not like labeling myself nor anyone else. If I had to personally do so, I would say that I stand within the broad Christian evangelical tradition with enough Mainline in me to appreciate both traditions, while bewilderingly shaking my head at both at the same time. While I could never return to Protestant Fundamentalism because in many ways I have moved in a different direction in my thinking and perspectives, I do not have the animosity and anger toward Fundamentalism that many former Fundies seem to have as I read their blogs and their comments on blogs. While there are many things about Fundamentalism I strongly disagree with, I have also benefited from Fundamentalism in more than a few ways.

Having said that, I wonder if perhaps we do a disservice to all Christians when we label only one group as Fundamentalists. Yes, I know that the term was used originally by Fundamentalists themselves in proud fashion, and many still do so today. But I think that too often Fundamentalists think that everyone who isn't have no fundamental convictions about life and faith, and those who claim that they aren't Fundamentalists are not nearly as open minded as they would like to believe.

But it must be said that Fundamentalists come in many and various forms. Yes, there are conservative Fundamentalists, but there are also Mainline Fundamentalists who are suspicious of anything that looks remotely conservative. Politically there are Fundamentalists who are members of the Democratic Party and there are Fundamentalists who are members of the Republican Party. I know individuals I would call Progressive Fundamentalists and others who are politically conservative Fundamentalists. I have attended gatherings where almost everyone is conservative who simply write off liberals as being morally lax. I also remember very well the time I attended a clergy gathering whose political and theological bent was clearly liberal and whose members spent the whole time referring to conservatives as Neanderthals and intellectually shallow. And, by the way, having been exposed to such persons as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, we now know that there are atheist Fundamentalists as well.

The point is that all of us have our "fundamentalisms"-- those beliefs or practices or convictions that we have put at the center of our lives and our understanding of the world. All of us have non-negotiables, and in one way or another we do attempt to forces those non-negotiables on others. Whether for some it is going to war in Iraq because of the "non-negotiable" of freedom or whether we insist on more taxes for universal health care because of the "non-negotiable" of what we deem to be a human right, we are Fundamentalists about one thing or another. And we have no trouble accusing those who take issue with our fundamentalism of moral ineptitude at the very least. Those who opposed the war in Iraq were told that they were unpatriotic and those who opposed universal health care were derided for lacking compassion for children who had no insurance.

And that is precisely the problem with our fundamentalisms whether theological or political or social or moral. We use other people's fundamentalisms simply as a way of writing off them without having to engage their views; and we use our fundamentalisms simply as a way of writing other people off without having to engage their views. So, whether we employ the fundamentalism of others or our own, we get to color the lenses of reality so that we are always on the moral, theological, and political high ground.

I don't want to be misunderstood. I am not proposing a kind of theological, political, and moral agnosticism, where one view is just as good and as truthful as the next. It matters what we believe. It matters what we take to be moral and immoral. It matters whom we vote for and the issues we support and reject. The dilemma we face is that honest, sincere, and thoughtful people disagree on what is at the core of faith and life and the common good, and we will not serve ourselves well nor those around us if we simply label people in a way that we don't have to take them or their views seriously.

The temptation for all of us, at times, is to retreat to the safety of the like-minded, to surround ourselves with people who only confirm what we already believe. It can be quite uncomfortable to have our views challenged by thoughtful and rational individuals who have thought about matters as deeply and thoroughly as we have. It is much easier simply to label them with a fundamentalism. This way they cannot challenge our own brand of fundamentalism.

The problem is not fundamentalism per se. As I said, we are all Fundamentalists about something. The problem is when we let the our fundamentalism and the fundamentalism of others get in the way of serious and respectful engagement, and when we assign that term to others while refusing to embrace it as ours too.

So... what's your fundamentalism?