Best of Cerulean Sanctum

“Unshackling the American Church” Series Announcement

Standard

Rarely do I read a book that leaves me saying “Amen” after every sentence. More amazing is the fact that this book, while it does deal with Christian thought and living, resides in the Politics section of your average secular bookstore. So dead-on accurate is the content, though, that I’m considering starting a new category of Essential Reading in my sidebar just to house it.

Long-time readers know that I take great care to avoid bringing politics into this blog. But this book is not so much a tome on politics as it is on living a sacramental lifestyle that goes beyond the glitz and gloss of modern-day Evangelicalism in America to a new vision of life that is truly ancient.Rod Dreher's Crunchy Cons

The book? Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher.

Dreher’s released one for the ages. In fact, this book is so good that I’m hacked off at him for writing it because what he’s penned is the next book I had planned to write (although mine was aimed more squarely at the Church).

The gist of this book explores a little-known tribe living in the United States: Political conservatives, usually Evangelical Christians, who are dropping out of the rat race by going back to traditional ways of life that existed in pre-Industrial-Revolution America. Anyone who’s caught my epic The Christian & the Business World series is well-acquainted with my views on the dire need for Christians to rise up and question our lifestyles, the non-stop, community-destroying, materialistic live-for-today zeitgeist we’ve adopted indiscriminantly.

As the subtitle proclaims, the book gathers under its wings the disenfranchised out there who firmly believe that conserving the family unit, better stewarding creation, restoring genuine community, and overseeing local market economies by restoring America’s agrarian heritage, will recapture the essence of what it means to live a full life that honors God, family, neighbor, and country.

Weeping is not my normal reaction to reading anything, but this book has so far uncorked a torrent in me. And while too many Christians in America brush all this off as utopian nonsense—even as they adjust the volume on their latest in a string of iPods and munch on genetically-modified tasteless veggies—I’m imploring readers of this book to check it out, if only for the first few chapters.

Despite the finale of the subtitle, I’m personally not interested in saving the Republican Party, but I am for saving conservative values—even if truly conservative values look more like some of the elements of the Left than the Right. The kind of conservativism championed by Edmund Burke in no way bears any resemblance to the “free-markets-at-any-cost” stupidity we see enshrined by today’s GOP, but that’s okay. If enough of us drop out of the prevailing societal madness, someone will notice and want to court our vote.

Though Dreher’s beaten me to the punch, I know that you know I’ve been talking these points for a while, so in concert with my reading of Crunchy Cons, I’ll be starting a series called “Unshackling the American Church” that will further examine many of the issues I’ve touched on at Cerulean Sanctum, ideas that dovetail with Dreher’s book.

Stay tuned. I promise a mind—and possibly soul—altering ride.

***

Other posts in the “Unshackling the American Church” series:

Monergism, Total Depravity, Creativity, and the Imago Dei

Standard

'The Scream' by Edvard MunchIf you’ve got grass to mow, I’ve got more—about nine acres.

Our house sits on 13.2 acres of rolling Ohio farmland. I suspect about four acres of that is wooded, but the rest is grass. Our orchard dots some of that grassland, but I still have to mow around the trees, so it counts. I’ll drop about one and a half acres of grass once we put in our vineyard. (We live in the Ohio Valley Viticultural Area, the largest wine-grape-growing region in the United States. You can put a lot of Napas in here.)

I’ve got a 35hp full-size Kubota tractor that pulls an 8′ finish mower deck. The whole grass-cutting process takes about 5 hours.

That gives me a lot of time to think. The great thing about having land is there’s nothing fast about it. Whatever you do to it takes time. Doesn’t take a lot of brainpower while you’re doing whatever it is you’re doing to it, so the mind can concentrate on other things.

Today, a question trickled through my thoughts and I had some trouble reconciling it logically. That’s why I’m opening up responses. If you’ve got some insights, please comment.

Disclaimer: What follows is NOT a teaching. It’s a question I’m posing for my own benefit so I can better understand the issue. It should in no way construe any indication of questioning orthodox Christian belief.

Now for my tractor meditations…

I was thinking about the Imago Dei, the idea that Man is made in God’s image. Not that our physical appearance is like God’s, but that our spiritual state is. We reason, create, and appreciate beauty because God has those traits in Himself and has imbued us with them.

Total Depravity is the condition of Man after the Fall, unable to connect to God because of sin and spiritual death. (See 1 Corinthians 2:14; Genesis 6:5; Romans 3:10-11)

It should follow that as a result of the Fall, Total Depravity dealt a crushing blow to Imago Dei.

The problem begins when we ask how severe that blow was.

Since Total Depravity is truly total, one would think that the Imago Dei would not so much be damaged as utterly annihilated. If it is the spiritual state of Man that is the Imago Dei, then the spiritual death wrought by the Fall should have destroyed the Imago Dei altogether. Dead is dead, not semi-alive. If the root of sin is that deep, then Man would have nothing left of the Imago Dei, or at least have nothing of the Imago Dei that could remain to produce anything sin-free.

Even considering that view, four possibilities remain:

  1. Total Depravity is total; the Imago Dei was completely annihilated.
  2. Total Depravity is total; however, some of the Imago Dei remains pure.
  3. Total Depravity is total; however, the Imago Dei remains but is tainted in such a way that nothing pure comes from any of it.
  4. Total Depravity is not total; this explains why the Imago Dei remains.

All of those positions have problems, however.

#1 is problematic because it is clearly false. I still reason. The very act of me typing this post is a sign of reason—and creativity. I linked words together creatively.

#2 is problematic because it would insist that Total Depravity does not extend to all parts of fallen Man’s being. More on this one later.

#3 is problematic because one could argue that there are things that Man creates that are perfect—or at least profoundly good—that would argue against taint. For instance, in what way is Handel’s Messiah “imperfect” as a piece of music? Or Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata? One could say that in order to be perfect, those works would have to appeal to all men at all times in all places. But is that the true test of perfection? Yes, the instruments used to play those works may not be in perfect tune, but the idea of those works as they existed in the minds of those composers would mitigate that issue.

The other problem about #3 is asking the other side of the perfection issue: In what way are those works tainted by sin? Yes, their creators are tainted by sin. There’s no reason to believe that Beethoven was ever a born-again Christian, so this muddies the water further, since the Moonlight Sonata is sublimely beautiful. There is evidence that Beethoven wrote that piece in mourning for an unrequited love affair with a married woman, so his motives for writing it are questionable. But the greater question of the purity of the work as a work unto itself remains.

Lastly on #3, one must ask if a pre-Fall Adam could have composed a piece of music more perfect than the works mentioned.

#4 is problematic because it denies Total Depravity altogether.

The title of this post brings up monergism, that Man has no ability within himself to reach out to God in order to receive forgiveness and salvation. God’s grace through the Holy Spirit is irresistible and God’s use of it alone accounts for conversion. The counterpart to monergism is synergism: Man has within him the active ability to reach out to God and effect—with the grace afforded him by God reaching down to him—conversion.

Considering #2, one could argue that if parts of the Imago Dei remain pure, then those pure parts are the source from which Man can effect synergistic salvation. Obviously, monergists would reject that idea outright.

That #3 is a struggle, though, for other reasons. If the Imago Dei is a spiritual condition and Man is totally spiritually dead to the point that monergism is the only possible outcome, how then can any of the Imago Dei remain? This takes us back to point #1, which is clearly false. Nor does it answer the question about the possible perfection of things that Man creates.

If one argues that the spiritual state of man is dual in nature (that the soul exists apart from the spirit and that this allows the spirit of the unconverted to be dead while the soul—the part that manifests the Imago Dei—is still alive), then you’re arguing for a tripartite nature of Man (body, soul, and spirit), a position that most monergists don’t support.

A person arguing that common grace explains how fallen Men who do not know Christ can still create objects of beauty confuses terms. The Imago Dei is by nature; it is innate because it reflects God’s own nature in some form in Man permanently. Common grace is not innate in that none of it ever issues from Man, only from God. If the Imago Dei persists after the Fall, then its source is of innate nature and not common grace.

Others would argue for the neutrality of created things, whether they be created by God or Man. A cliff created by God may be a neutral moral agent, but if it falls on you, you’re still dead. Music or other arts also have no innate moral agency if you follow the line of thinking that many use, but this says nothing about their beauty and whether that beauty is perfect or not, or whether there are levels of perfection that might distinguish God’s work from Man’s.

Tough questions. If we divorce the Imago Dei from the question, then everything is easily answerable. But factor it in and the logic becomes more difficult to untangle.

Which of those four possibilities above do you most believe and why?

Who Watches the Watchers?

Standard

Watching the Heretic HuntersCerulean Sanctum lost a few links from the sidebar Kingdom Links. Some blogs went comatose, their bloggers on extended sabbatical or having said “Adios!” to blogging altogether. WordPress will render “invisible” those links you wish to keep but not display. Rather than hit the delete key, I did a Claude Rains with Mysterium Tremendum, Shizuka Blog, John Wesley’s Journal, and The Gad(d)about with the expectation that they might some day return.

But a couple live blogs I deleted outright. The common factor in those links and blogs that I will no longer read is that they were mostly heretic-hunting blogs.

Old timers here know that I’ve discussed the Godblogosphere’s explosion of heretic hunters and taken a middle-of-the-road approach: We need to root out heresy, but we also need to do it soberly and with care.

But I’ve seen enough. The following are the reasons why I will no longer support those sites:

1. They’re not confronting soberly and with care.
2. They’re using dubious logic and questionable facts to assail their targets.
3. They disingenuously look the other way when their favorite sources violate their standards.
4. They often ignore the whole counsel of Scripture.
5. They operate in the same manner as the targets they criticize.
6. They overlook their own issues.
7. They utterly refuse correction when they’re clearly wrong.

I was originally going to name names, but that flies in the face of how I typically address issues at Cerulean Sanctum. I’m sure every Godblogger has been irresponsible in a couple of those above points before (including here), but not on the consistent level of the heretic hunters. Many of you will already know the sites I’m hinting at. If you’ve read them, you know those sites refuse correction anyway, so naming them will not make a difference in how they promulgate their particular brand of “righteous” ire.

I’m also stemming the criticism sure to come my way that by posting this, I’m just as guilty as the heretic hunters are. Honestly, that may be true. The difference, I hope, is that I’m willing to admit it upfront and to say that I may be wrong. I also hope this post is written without a trace of snarkiness or pleasure in the writing. It’s sad to me that this post even has to exist.

Nonetheless…

Here’s a breakdown of how these sites fail in the seven points listed above:
Not confronting soberly and with care —

Over time, the tone on some of these blogs and sites has turned particularly gleeful in routing perceived enemies. But just as God takes no delight in the downfall of the wicked, rather hoping that they would repent, no Christian blogger should do a “Ha! Ha!” a la The Simpsons‘ Nelson Muntz when they see a perceived enemy stumble. Nor should we joke about error or make fun of our enemies. And while it is fine for the Apostle Paul to “wish they’d go emasculate themselves,” none of us is Paul, or even a pale copy of him.

The other problem here is the absolute unwillingness to personally contact supposed heretics to doublecheck facts or to get a clearer understanding. The Lord doesn’t want His Church whispering in alleys about this fallen brother or that. The Church is not bettered by innuendo—and much of what passes for “truth” on some of these heretic hunting sites borders on innuendo. Or at least questionable facts. Just once I’d love to see something along the lines of “I spoke with Richard Foster about this perceived problem and we came to an understanding.” But sadly, holding my breath to see that sort of responsible confrontation will surely lead to little more than a change in my overall skin color and an eventual fall from my office chair.

I’ve attempted to confront some of the writers of the heretic hunting sites on numerous occasions, but they’re almost impossible to locate. No e-mail addresses, no comments allowed on their blogs or sites, no way of getting through to them (more about that further down.) In those cases where the bloggers are available, confrontation is stemmed by having comments deleted or being disallowed from a site. I firmly acknowledge a blogger’s right to manage his or her own site, but still. An unwillingness to connect directly speaks volumes about the folks behind the blogs—and none of it in keeping with true Christlikeness. None of us should be afraid to reason together with fellow believers.

Using dubious logic and questionable facts to assail their targets —

Rampant, rampant, rampant. As much as many of these sites claim to be intellectual or to uphold wisdom, their command of logic and reality is often lacking.

I’ve read some of the books the hunters claim are from the devil’s own hand and I swear I read a different book than they did. I’m well-acquainted with Richard Foster’s Celebration of Discipline and questioned some of the practices in the Meditation section long before the heretic hunters made Foster a whipping boy. But when an all-out assault on spiritual disciplines occurred earlier this year on some of the heretic-hunting sites, I had to question if the hunters had even bothered to read any of Foster beyond the few quotes they all seemed to be shunting around from one of their sites to another.

So out-of-context were some of those statements that it was clear that the hunter never bothered to read the entire book, or read it in such a way that the chip never left the shoulder and the “Ah hah! There’s more heresy!” was never far from the lips. But that kind of apporach does severe injustice to genuine Christian scholarship and knowledge. In truth, it’s little more than presupposition and eisegesis. Nor does it call for real discernment. Blanket condemnation based on presuppositions is not godly grappling with truths and lies.

One of the most egregious examples of the kind of nonsensical logic and reasoning employed by some of the hunters came when a Christian drumming conference that advertised “drumming in the Spirit” was equated with African shamanism for no other reason than that drums were used. The heretic hunter in this case used twisted logic to say that because A uses B for dark purposes, any use of B is therefore dark. Now, I’m not Joe Carter of The Evangelical Outpost , so I lack the facility with fallacies that Joe possesses, but I’m smart enough to know one when I see one. If the argument used by the heretic hunter is valid, then almost every practice that takes place in our Sunday services is out because some other non-Christian religion uses a similar practice. Goodbye to communion, prayer, the laying on of hands, worship, and nearly everything else.

That sort of guilt by association is the primary means by which many of these sites denigrate individuals, too. Christian A endorsed the book by Speaker B who on a single occasion spoke at a church lead by Pastor C who knew Worship Leader D who once led worship in the church of Reverend E who in passing said something nice about supposed Heretic F. Therefore, Christian A is a false prophet and teacher because the chain leads to Heretic F. And how do we know Heretic F is a heretic? Well, in the heretic hunter’s blog posts from last week, he/she used that same six degrees of separation method with a different set of conspirators to prove that case.

And on it goes, a sort of Last Man Standing game of theological musical chairs. Sadly, the favored sources for proving this person or that is heretical can have the same sort of tactic applied to them. Everyone is tied to the tainted. This is a no-win effort that only makes the entire Church look bad. Just as bad, it gets perilously close to fearmongering and conspiracy theories. From the content I’ve seen on some of these blogs, The Da Vinci Code hasn’t cornered the market on either of those two.

Disingenuously looking the other way when their favorite sources violate their standards —

Oh my, is this one huge. Even bigger than Joel Osteen’s church. I’m talkin’ ginormous huge.

I start with one of my favorite sources, A.W. Tozer. Tozer is the patron saint of many heretic-hunting sites. They quote him religiously and use his writings to slay every manner of dragon. Good for them! Tozer, who also happens to be the patron saint of Cerulean Sanctum, had a prophetic voice unlike any to come out of modern Evangelicalism in the last sixty years. The heretic-hunting sites call on Tozer’s keen understanding of the perilous decline of Evangelicalism to prove their points whenever a modern Evangelical heretic needs a solid keister kicking.

But let’s go back to look at some of the issues many of the heretic hunters are confronting: the surge in Christian mysticism, a reliance on feelings and ecstatic union with God in worship, getting back to what the desert fathers and monastics had to say about the Faith, recovering ancient church practices, and more. All barrels are blazing, firing volley after volley into the backsides of any Christian leader who happens to support those ideas and practices. And what is the weapon used to devastate these new apostates? The writings of Tozer.

The bitter truth here is that Tozer was an apologist for many of those supposed heresies, but the heretic hunters selectively quote his writings in such a way as to twist Tozer against the very things he stood for! In my opinion, that’s downright deceptive on the part of those sites that are doing this.

One of the books widely quoted is a series of sermons Tozer delivered that have been printed up as Whatever Happened to Worship? A Call to True Worship. As a huge fan of Tozer, it’s one of the few collections of his I had not read.

But after reading this book this last week, the one thing apparent to me is that the heretic sites are completely misrepresenting the book in an effort to have Tozer say many things in support of their position that he’s simply not saying. We should all have a problem with that kind of disingenuous use of the words of notable Christians.

Here are a few samples from Whatever Happened to Worship?:

Tozer on the Christian way to confront liberals and others who oppose orthodox Christianity—

We who are the fundamentalists and the “orthodox” Christians have gained the reputation of being “tigers”—great fighters for the truth. Our hands are heavy with callouses from the brass knuckles we have worn as we beat on the liberals. Because of the meaning of our Christian faith for a lost world, we are obligated to stand up for the truth and to contend for the faith when necessary.

But there is a better way, even in our dealing with those who are liberals in faith and theology. We can do a whole lot more for them by being Christlike than we can by figuratively beating them over the head with our knuckles

The liberals tell us they cannot believe the Bible. They tell us they cannot believe that Jesus Christ was the unique Son of God. At least most of them are honest about it. Moreover, I am certain we are not going to make them bow the knee by cursing them. If we are led by the Spirit of God and if we show forth the love of God this world needs, we become the “winsome saints.”

The strange and wonderful thing about it is that truly winsome and loving saints do not even know about their attractiveness. The great saints of past eras did not know they were great saints. If someone had told them, they would not have believed it, but those around them knew that Jesus was living His life in them.

The definition of winsome: “Charming, often in a childlike or naive way.”

All I ask is this: Are these heretic hunters winsome by any stretch of the word?

Tozer on feelings and mystery being a part of true worship of God—

We find much of spiritual astonishment and wonder in the book of Acts. You will always find these elements present when the Holy Spirit directs believing men and women.

On the other hand, you will not find astonished wonder among men and women when the Holy Spirit is not present. Engineers can do many great things in their fields, but no mere human force or direction can work the mysteries of God among men. If there is no wonder, no experience of mystery, our efforts to worship will be futile. There will be no worship without the Spirit.

If God can be understood and comprehended by any of our human means, then I cannot worship Him. One thing is sure. I will never bend my knees and say “Holy, holy, holy” to that which I have been able to decipher and figure out in my own mind! That which I can explain will never bring me to the place of awe. It can never fill me with astonishment or wonder or admiration.

The philosophers called the ancient mystery of the personhood of God the “mysterium conundrum.” We who are God’s children by faith call Him “our Father which art in heaven.” In sections of the church where there is life and blessing and wonder in worship, there is also the sense of divine mystery.

And…

I don’t know, my friend, how that makes you feel—but I feel that I must give God the full response of my heart. I am happy to be counted as a worshiper.

Well, that word “feel” has crept in here and I know that you may have an instant reaction against it. In fact, I have had people tell me very dogmatically that they will never allow “feeling” to have any part in their spiritual life and experience. I reply, “Too bad for you!” I say that because I have voiced a very real definition of what I believe true worship to be: worship is to feel in the heart!

In the Christian faith, we should be able to use the word “feel” boldly and without apology. What worse thing could be said of us as the Christian church if it could be said that we are a feelingless people?

And yet so many of the sites that quote Tozer liberally will deny that feelings and mystery play any part in the Faith.

Tozer on the value of Christian mystics—

I hope you have read some of the devotionals left us by that dear old English saint, Lady Julian, who lived more than 600 years ago. She wrote that one day she had been thinking about how high and lofty Jesus was, and yet how He Himself meets the humblest part of our human desire. She received such blessing within her being that she could not control herself. She let go with a shout and praised God out loud in Latin. Translated into English, it would have come out “Well, glory to God!”

Now, if that bothers you, friend, it may be because you do not know the kind of spiritual blessings and delight the Holy Spirit is waiting to provide among God’s worshiping saints.

Friends of Tozer repeatedly joked about his “girlfriend.” That would be the “Lady Julian” he mentions above—Julian of Norwich, a Catholic mystic.

And there’s more…

I mean no ill toward other Calvinists when I point out that all of the heretic hunters I’ve run across on the Web are strict disciples of John Calvin, some even going so far as to say that if you’re not a five-pointer, you’re not a Christian. It’s a shame there aren’t more good Arminian blogs and bloggers out there, but if they were to degenerate into that same rhetoric, perhaps it’s a good thing they stay off the Web.

Tozer again on the reality of what we Christians label ourselves—

We are told that when John Wesley was dying, he tried to sing, but his voice was nearly gone. He was almost ninety. He had traveled hundreds of thousands of miles on horseback, preaching three or four times daily in founding a great church. He was plainly Arminian in his theology, but as his Christian family and friends gathered around his bed, he was trying to sing the words of an old Calvinist hymn:

I will praise my Maker while I’ve breath, And when my soul is lost in death, Praise shall employ my nobler powers.

That is why I cannot get all heated up about contending for one theological side or another on that issue. If Isaac Watts, a Calvinist, could write such praise to God and John Wesley, an Arminian, could sing it with yearning and they both can meet and hug one another in glory, why should I allow anyone to force me to confess, “I don’t know which I am!” Why should anyone bother me with an issue like that?

I was created to worship and praise God. I was redeemed that I should worship Him and enjoy Him forever.

That is the primary issue, my brother or sister. That is why we earnestly invite men and women to become converted, taking Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord.

If the heretic hunters are quoting portions of Tozer that support their ideas, but rejecting just as many that dispute them vehemently (even on the very heretical topics they’re attempting to refute), how can anyone reading them trust them to accurately portray the ideas of any great Christian they quote?

Often ignoring the whole counsel of Scripture —

In the same way that selective quoting of great Christians occurs, so too is the Bible often reduced to the same well-worn passages, while others are ignored altogether if they don’t immediately prove the heretic hunter’s point or make it hard to explain. But as much as many of those sites say it’s wrong for a heretic to base an entire doctrine off a single Scripture (or two), the heretic hunters employ that same tactic. Again, the hunter becomes the hunted if consistency is applied.

Heretics that go back to experience, tradition, and history are soundly booed because they’re looking outside the Scriptures for answers. Yet heretic hunters who denigrate charismatics like to pick a single widely-disputed verse out 1 Corinthians 13 and then call on experience, tradition, and history to supposedly prove that all the charismata have ceased. I’m not trying to pick doctrinal fights here, only to point out their astonishing inconsistency in sticking to their own rules.

I just can’t take people seriously who say that it’s okay for them to play outside “The Rules,” but no one else can. And that leads into the next problem…

Operating in the same manner as the targets they criticize —

I think I’ve made that point clear in the commentary already.

Overlooking their own issues —

Yes, we know from the heretic hunters that Brian McLaren, Rick Warren, Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, Ravi Zacharias, and {fill in the blank with any popular Christian leader} are leading the Church astray. Okay, horse beaten. While I do not have the space to cover all the reasons for their beliefs in those regards, I can at least understand concerns. Every Christian leader needs some correction now and then. Consider the thumping Paul gave Peter for The Rock’s concessions to the Judaizers.

Cerulean Sanctum is a site that aims for Church purity as much as any other out there, so I’m not happy when any Christian, no matter how famous, gets something wrong.

But whatever happened to the idea that we’re sinners saved by grace and see through a glass darkly this side of Eternity?

And is doctrinal impurity in others any more harmful than being personally unloving, prideful, spiteful, and unwilling to be disciplined as needed? Yet so many of the heretic hunters, by the very words they write on their blogs and sites, show an abundance of those unwelcome traits.

Sometimes a speck has to be removed from an eye. But as the Lord commanded, we must remove our own log first.

That brings us to my last comment.

Utterly refusing correction when they’re clearly wrong —

There is no surer sign of spiritual pride than a refusal to be rebuked when rebuke is warranted.

I will say this to start: most of the supposed heretics and heretic hunters out there are better Christians than I am. My own spiritual sloth is ever before me. But one thing I do know, I’m willing to be corrected when I need it. I may argue with someone about that correction, but that point is still taken as it thaws on my leather-like hide and gradually sinks in. I’m certainly not the brute beast I was long ago.

But when I’ve confronted some of the heretic hunters on points of error, I’ve either had my faith questioned, my comments censored, or been given the complete brush-off. I will acknowledge that one site pulled a post after I noted the blogger’s horrendous slam on Third World Christians, but lately my other correcting comments have been deleted. The message sent to me and others like me is clear.

Those are reasons why I can no longer include links to well-known heretic hunting blogs in my sidebar links or read them myself. Yes, they can have good things to say, but there are other sources out there who more perfectly model the way we Christians should deal with the wayward. As Tozer said, we should always let our winsomeness speak for the Lord first .

There’s something to be said for the velvet-wrapped hammer.