To gather with God's people in united adoration of the Father is as necessary to the Christian life as prayer. Martin Luther
Wartburg Castle
Several years before we launched The Wartburg Watch, Dee and I served on the community panel for our regional newspaper. Dee encouraged me to apply for this one-year opportunity, and I was thrilled to be selected. Six months later, Dee applied and was also chosen. The twelve panelists ranged from extremely liberal to very conservative. Of course, Dee and I were the conservative voices. That six-month overlap when we served together was extremely memorable and helped to expedite the launch of The Wartburg Watch.
Why would the editors of a newspaper solicit feedback (positive or negative) from its readership? As you likely know, the newspaper industry has been struggling for quite some time just to survive. Increased competition from television and the internet as well as the economic recession have taken their toll on print media. The goal of the editors in establishing this panel was to make the newspaper the best it can be by accepting constructive criticism.
As we met with the editors once a month, the exchanges were pleasant and productive; however, toward the end of my year long commitment, Dee and I were able to provide concrete examples of how this newspaper was biased, at least from our conservative viewpoint. Incredibly, the two editors with whom we met each time believed they were being “fair and balanced” in their reporting. They were absolutely shocked that we claimed they were biased. In response, Dee and I contended that journalists (particularly those who lean left) are self-talking. Not only that, they tend to isolate themselves in the closed system they have firmly established. It was as though they were living in a bubble having minimal contact with the “outside world”. While we commended our newspaper for establishing a community panel, we believe that there is a definite bias among these journalists.
Perhaps this is the best illustration we can provide for what we believe is occurring among the New Reformers, whom we label “Calvinistas”. Have you noticed the closed system they have established? These techno-savvy crowd has taken full advantage of the latest communications tools (the internet, twitter, blogs, etc.) to magnify their presence; yet if you visit any of their websites, you see the same names and organization over and over and over again. They have done an excellent job of establishing a good ‘ole boy network (yep, it’s definitely male-dominated), and those with differing opinions are often ignored.
Just take a look at The Gospel Coalition website, for example. www.thegospelcoalition.org Check out the articles and blogs included there, along with the advertisements and associations. While they claim to be contending for the Gospel (albeit according to John Calvin), they have established what we believe to be a CLOSED NETWORK. Just how effective can they be in carrying out the Great Commission when they hold to such a narrow theological position?
Not only that, self-talking is widely practiced among the Calvinistas. It is incredible that not all of their websites allow for feedback via comments. Oh sure, you can communicate with Al Mohler or CBMW by private e-mail, but contrarian comments will never be allowed for others to read.
As a stark contrast, we at TWW allow freedom of expression as long as it’s not vulgar. Granted, there are some blogs maintained by Calvinistas which allow comments (and we are grateful for that), but it appears to us that this is not widely practiced.
Then there are ALL those conferences that are focused on a narrow theological viewpoint. When the same people attend the same conferences with the same speakers, that’s what we consider to be self-talking. Differing viewpoints are not allowed. It seems like it would be helpful to sometimes throw a little difference into the mix.
Here is some food for thought… It is widely known in the AKC world that when dogs are over breed, a number of genetic problems arise. While dog owners often demand purebreds, they sometimes fail to understand how harmful inbreeding can be to canines. The cure is to introduce other breeds into the mix to improve the overall health of the dogs being bred.
As far as Christian conferences are concerned (especially those with a Reformed bent), we believe it would be beneficial to include other theological positions that fit within the pale of orthodoxy. In all sincerity, we believe such a strategy would improve the spiritual health of both the speakers and the attendees. This will help miminize the self-talking that appears to be so prevalent in these closed systems (conferences).
Finally, as Dee and I have often stated, we despise labels because we find to be divisive. Furthermore, we refuse to be boxed into the Reformed or Arminian corner or the Egalitarian or Complementarian corner. We believe these labels have been extremely harmful to the cause of the Christ and have hindered the advance of the Gospel.
As we conclude today’s TWW “editorial”, we want to leave you with a few excerpts from an editorial written by Ted Vaden, who served as the Public Editor of The News and Observer and moderator of the N&O Community Panel. Ted took to heart some of the feedback we provided while on the community panel and expressed his thoughts in an October 7, 2007 article entitled “Looking for bias in The N&O”. If only the Calvinista crowd would be as forthright…
Here are the highlights of Ted’s editorial:
“Is The News & Observer biased? Lots of people think so. Rare is the day that I don't hear from a reader complaining that The N&O slants the news. "You are a company that's engaged in political content designed to influence what people think about the news," said a caller last week unhappy with the paper's portrayal of him.
That comment is typical of most complaints, in that it finds a political agenda in the news pages. I don't think that's the case, as I'll explain in a minute. (The paper is "biased" on the editorial page, but that's opinion.)
But let me introduce you first to a couple of readers who see a different kind of bias in these pages — a cultural and social disconnect between the paper and the readers, at least people like them.
Darlene Parsons and Wanda Martin, both of Raleigh, are members of The N&O's Community Panel, a group that meets monthly with journalists here to critique the paper and exchange views. Parsons, a self-described conservative Southern Baptist, said "the crowd I run with" is turning away from The N&O because of coverage of issues such as schools, religion and illegal immigration.
Parsons said a friend recently told her she was dropping her subscription because "they are constantly reporting the other side" from her own perspective.
Martin was disturbed by an August story about Southern Baptists fleeing public schools to send their children to Christian schools. "Instead of sneering at churches whose objective is to promote Christian education, I believe the community should be applauding their efforts," said Martin, whose two daughters went to North Raleigh Christian Academy.
Parsons said much of the problem is perception. "I believe from your perspective you're being as fair as possible. But still that's not the way you're perceived in the community," she said. "The problem for newspapers these days is that you're going to lose a lot of people who are professional and don't have a lot of time to waste. If they perceive a bias, you're going to lose them."
Is the perception a reality? People at newspapers certainly pride themselves on their objectivity in covering the news. If you looked at individual news stories, you'd find most to be balanced and fair… Still, I worry about the social and cultural disconnect between the paper and people like Parsons and Martin, whose world view I think isn't much reflected in The N&O.”
If only the Calvinistas would listen for a change instead of self-talking in their closed system.
Hey, we’ve got an idea. Our stint with the Community Panel is over, and we are more than willing to make ourselves available to provide a differing viewpoint to “certain” inbred organization…
Lydia's Corner: 2 Samuel 2:12-3:39 John 13:1-30 Psalm 119:1-16 Proverbs 15:29-30
Ted wrote in his N&O editorial:
“Parsons, a self-described conservative Southern Baptist”
Dee,
Yep, there was a time in the not too distant past when both of us were loyal Southern Baptists…
Dee,
I suspect you know what I’m going to say, but when has that stopped me 🙂
self-talking, if you will, is very much like a fractal…the smaller the view…the same pattern repeats itself, and if you take a long distance view…same pattern. What you see in the SBC and among Calvinists, etc. Is exactly what non-believers see when they look at Christianity overall along with the rest of the world’s philosophies and religions. We stand back in amazement at how isolated Christians are from the rest of the world, how little it seems they know or are aware of how other people think and feel and their reasons.
It seems to us, that Christians live in a bubble, surrounded by a million other voices all the same, reinforcing each others beliefs and each others view of what the outside world holds.
Just a thought.
Karl
And you know what I am going to say, so why are we talking? I guess hope springs eternal… 🙂 Christians are just as aware of and as much a part of the real world as atheists.
There is no doubt some Christians live in a bubble, but certainly not all of them. Tee hee I have pointed out the bubble for some myself.
Are they the only ones? No. There are different bubbles for different types of beliefs, etc.
If we look at history we can think of some famous one right off the bat. Hitler youth for one! What about the Taliban?
We have to remember the ‘legalists’ of any movement, faith circle, etc do live in bubbles, but they certainly don’t represent everyone.
I think they just get more airtime, because their extreme views make it interesting to talk about.
(shrugs) I know I certainly don’t handle others the way I realize some people of faith would. I’m aware of them, but they certainly don’t represent me. I don’t see the fear they see. I see an opportunity at times, and their narrow minds aren’t going to stop me.
Unfortunately, I can’t do much if people aren’t willing to look deeper when they encounter individuals. If they wish to label me living in a bubble as well just because of my faith? I guess they can do that, but that doesn’t mean I am.
I’m not going to let some legalist’s define me. I can’t stop others from taking their word above mine though.
I guess that would be a different type of bubble huh?
I guess many of us have been in bubbles that we couldn’t see at the time. Only when the bubble ‘pops’ does one become aware of the watery prison was has confined oneself to. A transpersonal crisis is often the ‘pop’ that’s sent our way to help us individuate from the group bubble.
There is an old term for that: “Group think” A mind set that permeates a group and controls perceptions and conversations.
Gee Karl…replace the word Christian in your above arguement with any of the following: Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Atheist……you get the idea. Hanna is right….every belief system (including yours Karl) has members that reside in their own little bubble. Christians are no more or less suseptable to this than anyone else. It just seems that way to you because of your point of view. Perhaps you are in a bubble of your own.
Just a thought.
Your perception of The Reformed crowd and my experience with them greatly differ. I have found that the Reformed crowd seems to care more about theology,doctrine and truth then other groups. I have also found that they are more grace based than others. You are much more likely to hear verse by verse teaching in a Reformed church with context and application, etc. I’ve actually heard more about evangelism in Reformed churches than others. Sorry if this sounds awkward….typing on an iPad still seems kind of awkward for me.
I happen to be reading James White’s The Potter’s Freedom. I found chapter one a great simple explanation of the Reformed position. I think it might be helpful if you read a definition of what Reformed theology is. (The Dcotrines of Grace)
Jerry,
I’d be very interested in this answer…I spent 25 years as a born-again Christian and an almost equal time as an atheist…how would you describe my bubble?
What I am asking, is, how do you view me.
I would also challenge your use of the term “belief system” to describe atheism. There is no “system”, no “theology”, no “doctrines”. The only thing that ties one atheist to another is that neither sees sufficient evidence to justify belief in the supernatural. Apart from that, there’s nothing which molds or forms the beliefs of groups of atheists so that they form some type of collective. I participate in a round-table discussion with other atheists, agnostics and humanists on a monthly basis…I can promise you, apart from not holding a belief in the supernatural, they are all over the board, liberal, conservative, Democratic, Republican..and much more.
I think Christianity is different, it is based around a set of core values and beliefs, and while there can be significant differences in the details of the theology, there is still a pretty substantial core to which most, if not all Christians would claim adherence.
Bubbles (and Geritol):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTwuLgNXv7s
Shato
I have read, underlined and taught from The Potter’s Freedom. I find it rather amusing that some would assume that I might not have read, in depth, the teachings of Calvin and Calvinists. I can even quote from the Institutes. In fact, I went through a period in which i was determined to understand the Reformed point of view in order to compare it to other perspectives. i think I have may notebook in which I listed the points that made sense to me. Guess what? I came out out as neither Reformed or Arminian. I think it is far more complicated than either formula which seem simplistic to me.
And I have been in two nondenominational churches which were neither Calvinist or Arminianst and taught line by line through the Scriptures. I also show far more interest in theology and doctrine than many who attend Calvinista churches .I think that there is a difference in Calvinists and Calvinistas. The Calvinsitas self talk.
Shato said: “I have found that the Reformed crowd seems to care more about theology,doctrine and truth then other groups.”
Maybe.
But you will usually find an unhealthy emphasis on cowering submission to top-down leadership and “church discipline” for dissenters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kayRXtITyw
.
Ok Karl….how do I view you…well I don’t really know you other than you claim to be an atheist who loves to blog on a site with a bunch of Christians….that’s somewhat telling about your personality and I can draw all kinds of conclusions about it but I don’t. Like I said I don’t know you. This is the internet. Not real life. If you’re ever in California we’ll get together and try to change each other over a beer or a nice glass of Riesling. We can have a beer/wine summit…works for the Prez:)
As to the bigger question. Atheism is a belief system. You can no more prove that God (or the supernatural) does not exist anymore than I can prove he does. You just BELIEVE that is the case. That’s your faith. By your own ommission you get together with like minded individuals (“I participate in a round-table discussion with other atheists, agnostics and humanists on a monthly basis”) same as us Christians. That’s your “church” for lack of a better term. You do that because you need the support that comes from being around others who BELIEVE the same as you do and see the world in similar terms. Same as us Christians. You all share a common core BELIEF system, that there is no God or that he is, at best, a disinterested being. You may feel like these folks are diverse (and they may be) but when you boil it down you’re all there for the same reason, your similar BELIEFS. Same as us Christians. Birds of a feather n’ all. As such you are just as suceptable to Group Think (bubbles) as any other group. Same as us Christians.
Ted,
You are so right! Thanks for sharing that ridiculous Mark Driscoll video. You’ve probably seen this one which is just as silly. Who does Driscoll think he is anyway?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE3FHMTAWHY&feature=related
The reformed interest in theology is because they have a simplistic theology that solves all of their problems and ignores what we do not and cannot know about God, assuming that one characteristic of God dominates all else — his sovereignty. Everyone else knows that that makes God into a monster, so the rest of us agree that we cannot know enough about God to make the kind of tight limiting statements Calvinsts make about the nature of God.
Whether what they teach is Truth or Assumption is an interesting question that they cannot assert to have the answer for until eternity. But some of us know a different God, whose dominant characteristic is love.
Theology is not the study of God, but the study of human thinking about God, as recorded in writings by humans.
Jerry,
While there are strong atheists, from what I have seen they are a minority. As an atheist, I am not claiming that God doesn’t exist, and I would never try to prove such a thing because it is as impossible to do as is proving that he does exist.
So if I am not trying to make a case against the existence of God, then what? Good question, glad you asked 🙂 I simply feel that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief in the supernatural. Especially when you consider the implications of that belief.
Some things require little or no evidence, usually because those things have little or no impact on my life, or they are reasonable propositions. So if you tell me that you graduated from college with a 3.8 GPA, I’ll probably believe you without any further proof…it’s just not that important to me and it is certainly within the realm of reasonable possibilities. If you claim to have a french poodle at home as a pet…no evidence required…oh, what’s that you say, it has wings and can fly…for this I require evidence, it is simply not reasonable based on what humans know about the animal family and how evolution works…burden of proof is on you.
When you tell me that you know and have a relationship with a being, supernatural, with a personal agenda for my life who requires of me things which will ultimately change my life, my morals, my worldview..then yes, I’m sorry but I’m not going to take your word for it…I will ask for some pretty rigorous objective evidence…and I find that such “evidence” is entirely lacking, and what people say passes for “evidence” is, far more likely to be a product of natural events or is entirely subjective.
Might you be right…absolutely, might the person who believes in UFO’s and alien abductions be right…yup, it’s possible, and the conspiracy theorists who abound, yup…could be. Are any of them reasonable assumptions with sufficient objective evidence to not only support them but which tip the scales away from other more plausible explanations…nope….therefore I judge them unworthy of my time or belief.
I spend time writing on this blog because I spent 25 years as a born-again Christian and I enjoy the dialog. Am I trying to convert anyone, not really…do I hope that maybe one day some of my arguments might be persuasive enough to reach someone and cause them to re-examine why and what they believe…yes.
Jerry,
P.S. I am a Riesling fan, dry, not too sweet!
Ah! Karlton my friend! In the old days when I did tip them back, Remy-Martin (cognac) was the way to go! Smooth as a Czech crystal snifter!
Mine was Black Jack on the rocks, and at home, keep the bottle in the frig, and hold the rocks.
I gave all of that up 33 years ago. Since then I have had a few margaritas, limited to one per wedding reception where they were served, drank most of the beer I drank at a single restaurant in Dallas, while living in San Antonio (really spicy seafood took 2 beers each meal, 1x per trip, 5-6 times a year in Dallas overnight. Now I have a small glass of red wine at home, in the late evening, as advised by the doctor. My favorite is a Merlot/Cabernet sauvignon blend from S America.
Muff
Someday we must have a TWW get together. All of you so intriguing ie, smooth as a Czech crystal snifter? I visited Prague as a teen and marveled at the history, although many buildings had been destroyed by the wars. They didn’t let any of us teens get close to any sort of crystal snifter!
Arce
Red wine is very good for the heart. It is too bad that some people are bent on proving that Jesus never had a sip of alcohol. Paul was far ahead of his time when he said that a little wine is good for the stomach.
BTW, thank you for your thoughts on divorce. I hope you understand that my purpose was not to heap condemnation on those who have been through horrible relationships but to point out that the church, which consistently condemns to outside world, should be focusing far more on the sins within the church.
I think one of the the greatest gifts that we can offer the world is an understanding of the grace of Jesus in our lives. Far to many groups use the Cross as a battering ram to address our sinful state. Yes, we are sinners. But the Cross is a symbol of the love of God for His people who couldn’t do it on their own. The question is ” How well do we communicate the love of Christ, along with own inability to do it on our own?”
Dee,
As I have often said, my spouse is evidence of the grace and forgiveness of God in my life. Though I never told her until after we were married, on the day she joined the church where I was a member, I was in the choir, singing the invitation, eyes closed, praying as was my practice, when a word came to me “open your eyes and see your future”, she was shaking the pastor’s hand. I had met her two weeks before. The next evening, at a singles pot luck at the pastor’s house, I managed to leave when she left and asked her out for a Halloween party on Saturday. That was our first date, and, as I have already told you, she proposed the next Friday evening.
She is God’s gift of grace, and I am blessed. At times I can hardly talk when I think of how wonderful it is.
Arce
And from what I have been privileged to witness, she is an incredible woman!
Dee, I too have observed many of the things that you have noted.
But one thing that I don’t think has been mentioned is that many of these “Calvinistas” regard their narrow theological positions as definitive statements of non-negotiable Biblical truth. So anything else is simply not orthodox in their view. I personally regard this as theological arrogance, but it is their approach.
An necessary implication of this is the belief that exposing people to alternative perspectives would damage their spiritual health. For them, these alternatives are actually false teachings or even heresies that they see it as their duty to “protect” people from.
It’s hard to say exactly why they take this approach – I suspect it’s a mixture of sincerely-held views, self-delusion, a desire to stifle dissent, and a protectionist approach to debatable subjects. The last thing a preacher will want to do is admit that what they passionnately expound as the “truth” is actually nothing more than one of many possible viewpoints.
Having said all that, you may not be aware that TGC is deliberately vague on baptism so it can appeal to both baptists and presbyterians. That’s a marked contrast to their absolute rejection of women in leadership roles.
[Isn’t it interesting that an old-boys network chooses a theology that preserves their all-male membership?!]
I’ve recently been very blessed by the work of Roger Olson (check out his blog). His writings are a breath of fresh air. One of the things he discusses is they way evangelicalism is divided into what he calls neo-fundamentalist and post-conservative camps. I’d say most, if not all, of the Calvinistas are sadly in the neo-fundamentalist category.
Peter
Thank you for your awesome comment. I visit Olson’s blog regularly. It seems to be a place that those with concerns such as mine can gather! Did you see this quote at the top of my post on Calvinists, Calvinistas and Me? I think this sums up the absolute arrogance hubris of this movement.
“Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view but elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers should be expected to hold the more fully biblical view of grace. ” John Piper
Can you imagine even bringing up a world like excommunication? Piper, for all of his smarts, made a serious boo boo with this statement. He has exposed the underbelly of the Calvinistas.
I love the term neo-fundamental. I have made the observation that the Calvinistas are no different from the IFB or “conservative resurgence” SBC. They all hang out at the water cooler of secondary issues and sound alike. Funny, the would destroy one another in debate yet they all end up at the same place.
You said “Isn’t it interesting that an old-boys network chooses a theology that preserves their all-male membership?!]” It is so true. I find it interesting that the SBC booted a church that had a woman as pastor yet have no problem tolerating churches who protect pedophiles in leadership. See the story on Warren Baptist Church. I guess women are a lot more dangerous.
Stay tuned for today’s post. Trendy Calvinista, CJ Mahaney is apparently is some trouble. I am breaking into my series on church history for this interesting development.
Dee,
I like to break that term as neo (no) fun da MENTAL, with an emphasis on the MENTAL part. May explain some of their behavior.
It is a weird form of theology and ecclesiology, and a bunch of them, Piper included, are competing to be the first Fundie Pope