The Three Circles

A friend asked me to clarify the difference between essentials, convictions, and preferences, which I will attempt to do here. First, a picture to cover my first thousand words of explanation:
These circles represent three different categories of personal opinion. Since I have previously defined convictions as requiring grace from us, I should probably clarify how I decide what those things are.

1. If the issue is necessary for salvation, it's essential. The question I would ask is, "Can someone not believe this and still go to heaven?" If not, it's essential.


2. If the issue is related to doctrine, it's a conviction. The question I would ask is, "Can I legitimately say I don't care, and still base my beliefs on the Bible?" If not, it's a conviction.


3. Other opinions are preferences by default.

An example of an essential would be the divinity of Jesus. An example of a conviction would be the role of women in the church. An example of a preference would be styles of music to use in worship. Even though most believers would, I think, agree with the examples I have just given, there will certainly be differences of opinion on which issues fall into which circles, especially when dividing between convictions and preferences.
Differences between believers can be sustained, however, if we hold an attitude of grace towards one another. I am bold enough to believe that I am correct in my beliefs, but not so arrogant as to believe that I can't be wrong. Recognizing this fact, I depend on the grace of God to cover my human limitations. If I am unwilling to show the same grace to others, I find myself a wicked servant; and that is one prospect that terrifies me.

When does grace become stupidity?

I just made it back from my trip, and right away my friend E asked me one of those hard questions for which this blog was born. He expressed to me quite elegantly the need for strong doctrinal statements on a number of topics -- that certain beliefs were what we might call "essential" to the Christian faith. I on the other hand, considered these same topics to be "conviction" areas -- that is, issues that it is important for us to believe, but on which Christian believers might legitimately disagree while still considering one another to be "saved."

This distinction is important because essentials are things we don't back down on, whereas we need to have grace towards one another on conviction issues. I am big on grace; I consider it to be absolutely vital to my Christian walk. Since I teach teens in our church, however, it is particularly relevant that E has challenged me with this question, which I paraphrase below:

When does grace become stupidity?

The intent of this question is to divine where I draw the line on doctrinal issues; am I willing to let someone believe something I feel to be wrong, simply because I don't think it's essential to salvation? To be honest, my answer surprised me: grace became stupidity when God decided to save me.

I am old enough, and have seen enough of my own sin, that I have no comprehension why a holy God would want anything to do with me. In human terms, then, saving grace is "stupidity" -- it makes no sense. This sounds insulting to God, though, so perhaps I should call it "outrageous." Let me proclaim, therefore, that all grace is outrageous. If there is even one good reason why God would be good to me, I would deserve it, and it wouldn't be grace. That doesn't mean I'm not saved by grace, it simply makes my salvation outrageous.

If you have ever been wounded in the church (or even without) by rejection from other people, I strongly recommend Philip Yancy's book What's so Amazing about Grace? If we're honest with ourselves, I think we'll find that salvation makes no rational sense, nor do any of the small mercies we receive in our lives. That is grace. And I am persuaded that Christian believers can do more to spread the gospel by demonstrating that grace towards others than we ever could do through preaching and teaching alone.

Perhaps there are others whose callings in Christ require them to challenge mature believers to deeper faith. Perhaps we need people like E to force us to think hard about everything we believe, and not just a few essentials. Even so, I am still so overwhelmed by the grace of God that I can not imagine a need to preach anything more than Christ crucified and risen again (for me? For me!!).

Standards of Evidence

It looks like I have a few minutes before I run out to Supercomputing 2008, so I guess I'll raise one of the "big problems" for which I first started this blog: the need for faith.

Depending on whether you're primarily Reformed or Methodist in your soteriology, we may disagree to the extent to which free will plays a role in our decision to follow Christ, but I think it is generally agreed that at some point it is just that: a decision. The problem I have is not with the decision, which I think is correct, but the quantity of evidence we find necessary to make that decision.

In business, I teach Six Sigma, and generally expect my students to demand a 95% confidence in the evidence used to back up any improvement efforts they make. This level of confidence is certainly not a universal requirement; in Physics, I understand that 99%+ confidence levels are typically required.

My "beef", however, is that confidence levels like that aren't generally available to me in real life. Whether we're talking about the origins of man, the reality of miracles, or some other question of faith, we find that the evidence is is never sufficient to give me that elegant 95% confidence level.

Saying this is probably going to irritate some of my fellow believers. I hear from people all the time about a sequence of events that persuades the speaker beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they say is true. Generally, I will often agree. Despite this, however, I find an annoying lack of hard proof; if someone really doesn't want to believe, they aren't forced to do so.

More and more I'm finding this to be true: that God goes out of his way to not force us to believe. Think about it: how hard would it be for Him to raise a dead man again like he did for Lazarus? I'm not talking about someone drowning in icy water for a few hours: I mean well and truly dead. He did it in a time when people would be impressed, but not overwhelmed; and today, when real proof would overwhelm skeptics, he doesn't do it.

This is just a brief thought for now, as I have to fly (literally); but as I find more examples of God's frustrating decision not to prove things absolutely, I'll send them your way. Stay tuned.

Christian Nationalism

It's Veteran's Day here in the US, a day to remind ourselves of the price paid by the many members of our armed forces. He's Canadian, and I'm a US citizen, but I think that Illiad said it far better than I could in his cartoon. The next time you're in an airport and happen to see a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine waiting for a flight, I suggest you shake his or her hand and say "Thank You." From what I can tell, it's the least we can do.

Having said that, and recognizing the incredible price that these men and women have been willing to pay for my nation, I must admit that I find the whole concept of Christian nationalism somewhat troubling. I have a lot to say about the baggage we often pile onto the gospel, and by grace I hope to do so. For now, let me just say this: the gospel is not an American construct. The gospel isn't even a Western idea. It's God's idea.

Don't get me wrong, I am grateful to be an American. I also believe that Christians should be committed citizens of whatever nation they live in. I must remind you, however, that in the grand scheme of things, this nation (and indeed the whole earth) will pass away. We hold dual-citizenship with a kingdom that will never fail.

All I really need to know I learned at Fenway Park

For those who don't know me personally, I grew up on the South Shore of Massachusetts (near Plymouth). My family has only been in that area for about 350 years, but it's been long enough that we picked up certain Bostonian characteristics -- like a love of the Red Sox. Since I now live in upstate NY, this runs me into occasional light-hearted conflict with the local Yankees fans. It is regarding one of them (L) that I write today.

Some time ago I received from my sister two tickets to a regular-season game at Fenway Park. For those of you not familiar with what that means, these things are *gold*. Thanks to the scalpers, you just can't buy them without divine intervention (or perhaps a second mortgage on your house). Since L is a good friend of mine, I invited him to join me for the trip.

When we arrived at the family abode, he was greeted by my parents (both Sox fans) and my aunt (a true die-hard, I hope her heart holds out now that Manny is gone). We all had our Sox gear, and L had enough sense to leave his NYY hat at home. L was welcomed in and treated as part of the family.

Our seats were on the 3rd base side, quite a way up, but still, we were IN. It was great. We sat between two guys who discussed fervently whether or not Tek needed a day off, and a woman with whom I attempted to determine who was warming up in the bullpen based on his delivery. Everyone was polite and clearly knowledgeable. And everyone had passion.

When our day was done (the Sox lost), and we began the long drive home, L said something to me that I never thought I'd hear -- that he was thinking of becoming a Sox fan because of our this trip. Certainly the metaphor of Fenway as a temple of baseball is overused, but it got me thinking about this situation as it applies to evangelism.

• Every Sox fan he met was willing to be known as a Sox fan. We love our team.
  
• We fans don't just carry empty passion for the Sox, we know what we love, and why.
  
• Every fan L met was kind towards him -- something he had never experienced in the Bronx.
  

We Evangelical Christians want people to become believers, and study books, tapes, and seminars to try to learn how. Maybe all we need to do is know whom we love, and why, and live in love towards other people. When someone does that to you, it's only natural to say "I want to be like that guy."

On the Nature of Truth

Ah, irony. It would appear that one man's philosophy is another man's spam, as I have somehow been identified as a spam blogger before I even managed to write my first blog entry. How's that for efficiency? In any event, it segues nicely into a discussion of the question raised by Pontius Pilate at Christ's arraignment, namely, "What is Truth?"
( John 18:38 )

As an engineer, I'm expected to deal regularly with scientific truth -- where the question is what can happen. People measure scientific truth by testing it. That is, we test the implications made by a theory, and if we can reproduce the predicted results, we say that the theory holds.

If we assume, however, that all truth is scientific in nature, we miss the point. History, for example, is not reproducible -- instead of being interested in what can happen, it is more interested in what did happen. This difference in orientation is only a problem when we attempt to use the scientific method to prove a historical event.

When I get a few moments, I hope to discuss this difference both as it applies to biblical history and the origins of the universe.