I’m trying out a new theme. I’m not convinced that my old one (and I do mean old – it didn’t even use widgets!) was used up yet.
But, if you have an opinion, please let me know.
I’m trying out a new theme. I’m not convinced that my old one (and I do mean old – it didn’t even use widgets!) was used up yet.
But, if you have an opinion, please let me know.
I just read a post about the apparent failure of “The Evangelical Manifesto,” something I didn’t even know existed. I guess that would support the idea that it failed. I skimmed through the post and the Manifesto, and was left thinking, “why in the world do they think they need one?”
Everyone seems to need to define themselves, and these evangelicals are no exception. This is not a confessional document, although it does make a poor attempt at this. It doesn’t deal with any specific error. Rather, it seems merely to attempt to define what makes one an evangelical, or perhaps more accurately, to define what is not an evangelical. I still wonder why this is needed.
The document, which is needlessly wordy (obviously written by men who are used to taking 45 minutes to deliver a sermon that could have taken 10), identifies three evangelical mandates, the first of which is to reaffirm the evangelical identity:
Our first task is to reaffirm who we are. Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth. (Evangelical comes from the Greek word for good news, or gospel.) Believing that the Gospel of Jesus is God’s good news for the whole world, we affirm with the Apostle Paul that we are “not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation.” Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.
I wonder who they think they are leaving out? The Manifestites, as the document explains, believes that “right belief and right worship” was restored at the reformation. They are, therefore, excluding the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics from their definition; they also exclude fundamentalists, liberals and by inference, much of the “emerging” movement. They claim to want to be defined theologically rather than culturally, however they do not seem to be able to so.
The problem, in my opinion, is that are trying to define a generic term in a specific way. Martin Luther was the first to use the term to identify himself, but most contemporary evangelicals would not accept his broad definition (Lutherans aren’t usually considered protestant enough for these folks). The Manifestites claim “Amazing Grace” as their own, which means that they accept some Anglicans as evangelical. But then again, those they would define as liberal or fundamentalist are out. Their intent to be restrictive is even clearer in their claim to be “the narrow way.”
Without dealing with the whole 20-page document, here are a few of my thoughts:
Overall, it seems like this manifesto is a shot in the dark, and looking back it seems to have missed anything worth shooting at; again, I have a sense that this was written with a sense of desperation as Western Christianity becomes more and more post-evangelical.
I remain much more impressed by The Call, a 2006 document spearheaded by the late Robert Webber, which calls the evangelical church back to more historical faith and practice.
I am “The Architect” – at least according to Carl Jung and Isabel Myers-Briggs. I ran across an online Jung Typology Test, aka the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment. Being the test I took this time didn’t refer to Myers-Briggs, I’m guessing it’s a cheap imitation. However, my results were consistent with one I took a dozen years ago.
I am, still, an INTP, along with folks like Descartes, Pascal, William James, Einstein, Bob Newhart and Rick Moranis. We “architects” are, according to the site, only 1% of the overall population, which makes us a scarce resource, and therefore more valuable than the average person. It also makes us a minority, which means we should be getting special treatment. The fact that neither of these are true means that either the information is questionable, or that the public needs to be better educated. The fact that I am analyzing this proves that I am indeed an INTP.
Someone by the name of Joe Butt has written a profile of the INTP personality type, in which he writes
INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to almost anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible. They prefer to return, however, to a reserved albeit benign ambiance, not wishing to make spectacles of themselves.
A major concern for INTPs is the haunting sense of impending failure. …
Anyone who’s read this blog or my comments on other blogs knows that this is pure crap, but what else could you expect from someone named Joe Butt. He also writes
INTPs and Logic — One of the tipoffs that a person is an INTP is her obsession with logical correctness. Errors are not often due to poor logic — apparent faux pas in reasoning are usually a result of overlooking details or of incorrect context.
Of course, he’s provided absolutely no support for this conclusion, an obvious but poor attempt at an argument from authority. And listen to this:
Knowing the Truth is enough for INTPs; the knowledge that this truth can (or could) be demonstrated is sufficient to satisfy the knower. “Cogito, ergo sum” expresses this prime directive quite succinctly.
How arrogant. I really don’t need him to tell me anything. Seriously…
Someone who is not named “Butt” has written a nicer overview of the INTP, otherwise known as the architect:
For Architects, the world exists primarily to be analyzed, understood, explained – and re-designed. External reality in itself is unimportant, little more than raw material to be organized into structural models. What is important for Architects is that they grasp fundamental principles and natural laws, and that their designs are elegant, that is, efficient and coherent.
Architects are rare – maybe one percent of the population – and show the greatest precision in thought and speech of all the types. They tend to see distinctions and inconsistencies instantaneously, and can detect contradictions no matter when or where they were made. It is difficult for an Architect to listen to nonsense, even in a casual conversation, without pointing out the speaker’s error. And in any serious discussion or debate Architects are devastating, their skill in framing arguments giving them an enormous advantage. Architects regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, which can make communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many.
Ruthless pragmatists about ideas, and insatiably curious, Architects are driven to find the most efficient means to their ends, and they will learn in any manner and degree they can. They will listen to amateurs if their ideas are useful, and will ignore the experts if theirs are not. Authority derived from office, credential, or celebrity does not impress them. Architects are interested only in what make sense, and thus only statements that are consistent and coherent carry any weight with them.
Okay, I seriously think I need to rename this blog, except that people would think I liked to design buildings, or that it was a reference to the character in The Matrix. I’m not quite that delusional.
Seriously, I do think that the Myers-Briggs test is pretty accurate in many things, and this information can be useful. It can also be used to justify behavior, which it shouldn’t. I’ve always thought that it was most important in pointing out where you were most likely to fail… but, that’s probably just that impending sense of failure talking.
My friend Duncan posted the following video on Facebook this evening. It’s worth watching, whatever your theological background; it’s especially worth watching if you’ve no familiarity with Eastern Orthodoxy.
I have a very deep respect and appreciation for Eastern Orthodoxy, although I do have some disagreements with various points. (Of course, to the Eastern Orthodox, my issues don’t matter.) I have just finished reading Three Views of Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, in which a number of theologians discuss various differences in approach. I have perhaps more disagreements with evangelicalism than I do with Eastern Orthodoxy; as I’ve remarked before, I tend often to side with Luther, who tends to be somewhere in the middle of these two camps. This is not because I was raised Lutheran (I don’t think, anyway), but because Luther just seems to echo what Paul appears to say.
So, while I do agree with much that is said in the video, the Orthodox position on cooperative salvation – our work being added to the work of Christ – is something I have an issue with. I do agree that we were saved 2,000 years ago, that I am currently being saved (Luther seemed to agree with the Orthodox understanding of theosis or deification), and that at the final judgment I will be saved. Again, this is simply an echo of Paul.
My problem with the Orthodox view comes from 2 main sources: Paul, and Jesus. And yes, these are pretty good sources. The Orthodox view of cooperative salvation seems to beg Paul’s rhetorical question in Galatians 3:3: “Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” Paul seems to be clearly saying in this letter that to add any human effort to the work of Christ is to lose the Gospel completely.
To this, add the words of Jesus in John 10:27-29:
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
I do believe that we are to continue in good works; that is the work of the Spirit in us. I just don’t believe that this contributes at all to our salvation, and in fact, can be as dangerous as Peter’s reverting to kosher food. That’s not me, that’s Paul. I’m guessing that there is an Orthodox interpretation of Galatians, and I would be very interested in seeing it.
Without further commentary, here’s the video. Again, I do agree with most of it, and very much appreciate the spirit in which this is presented: