The third most important book you will ever read!
This post is in honor of what I consider to be the most influential (and prophetic) book of the 20th century, so I thought I would write this homage to my old friend George. I reread this book on a fairly regular basis because its warnings serve as dire messages for our culture; especially to the politically correct, fundamentalist culture of the church that seems to be so prevalent.
The book of course is 1984; George Orwell’s seminal work outlining a dystopian future. Whenever a writer’s ideas generate new words into the English language, it serves to pay attention to those ideas. The ideas of 1984 continue to have resonance in our age. A review of the concepts of the book provides ample evidence that our current condition, both in the church and in para-church institutions, is often akin to the world of 1984.
1.) INGSOC – In 1984, the term INGSOC serves multiple functions. INGSOC is shorthand for English Socialism. INGSOC is an example of newspeak (which will be discussed shortly.) This means that its meaning is self referential in many ways. It should be understood not as simple English Socialism but an entirely new perversion of that system. Orwell was a socialist, but he is critiquing what he sees in fellow “socialists” who have lost their way. (There is a great irony here that Orwell, an English socialist, saw a glaring error in his fellow travelers that they were blinded to; may the careful reader discern.) Because INGSOC has so changed its meaning, it must be defined in opposition to what it once was. English Socialism as an ideology saw itself as a means whose end was the liberation of classes and the establishment of equality. INGSOC, however, is an ends not a means to one. The idea was so vaulted, so sacred and noble, because of its supposed outcome that the outcome eventually fades and the means itself is all that remains. English Socialism was only as valuable as it was functional; but INGSOC is inherently valuable.
2.) Newspeak –Newspeak (which is given an entire appendix in 1984) is the ability to control thought and ideas by the changing of words or the forcing of certain terminology on people as a way of controlling how they are allowed to think. Winston, the main character, works for the ministry of truth where he spends all day taking in media from the past, and making official alterations to it so that it reflects the principles of INGSOC. In fact, the very term INGSOC from above is an example of newspeak; it is a term whose meaning has been so altered that it bears no resemblance to the original. Orwell points out, and rightly so, that by doing this you also alter the past perception of a term or concept. We do this all the time in our society. In the 1960’s homosexuality was viewed in a very negative light. The term “gay” was appropriated by the movement and the rainbow flag was adopted. Both the word and the flag were very positive symbols. By altering the meaning of the rainbow flag, for instance, the homosexual movement attached a positive symbol to themselves instead of a negative stereotype. This is newspeak. Another example might be facial hair. What sort of mustache do men wear? They can wear goatees, beards, pencil mustaches and a whole range of facial hair styles. They cannot, however, wear a Charlie Chaplin mustache. Hitler’s use of facial hair has made this style of mustache taboo. Again, the reason is newspeak. Before Hitler it was common to have a short mustache; but after Hitler it became associated with such evil that no one would wear it; and to this day no one does. Newspeak is then an alteration of meaning and by extension an alteration of how we think. When this newspeak occurs purposefully; it is a powerful tool to control people.
3.) Double Think – Doublethink can be defined as holding two contradictory notions in your mind at the same time and just accepting that both must be correct. An example of doublethink that happens in our society might be seen in the issue of abortion. After Roe v. Wade women were able to terminate pregnancies legally. With time there has come a substantial social acceptance of this practice as well. The legal consensus in society (despite furious debate on the issue) is that a fetus in the womb is not considered to be life and a mother may terminate the fetus. Strangely enough, however, this is not the case for drunk drivers. Suppose tonight that you have a few gin and tonics, get behind the wheel of your car, and at some point drift into another lane and strike a car with a pregnant woman. She survives but the baby she was carrying dies. You are guilty of vehicular homicide or possibly 2nd degree murder. This is doublethink. Our society asks us to hold both of these contradictory ideas in unison. It is permissible to sanction a women’s right to end her pregnancy and to incarcerate drunk drivers as murders for ending another’s pregnancy.
4.) War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength – The zenith of doublethink and newspeak is found in the triumvirate above. By convincing people that these principles were true; INGSOC (and more specifically the ministry of truth) is able to control the masses. IF people believe that war is establishing peace; then people will permit wars and not rise up against those who are orchestrating them. If people believe that freedom is slavery, they will labor for a system that oppresses them believing that the system itself is freedom. If they believe that to be ignorant is to be strong; then they won’t question the power structures that define their life.
Now, apply the principles of 1984 to the modern Christian context. In my context of being a student these principles could not be clearer; I see them in action almost daily. Think of how the far right of our Christian spectrum interacts with their congregations. In the fundamentalist world we have our own versions of doublethink and newspeak. We have special language that one is expected to use and other terms one must avoid. Think first of words like “propitiation, conservative, grace alone, reformed, orthodox, etc…” Compare these words to others like; “Barthian, missional, liberal, post modern, etc…” I think much could be done in showing how Christians from the far right engage in newspeak.
When new information might revise the confession to make it more accurately reflect the scriptures the backlash is instant and usually vicious.
The demand on Christians within fundamentalist denominations is also filled with examples of doublethink. The person is required to suspend ambiguity or lack of knowledge to affirm with great certainty various denominational principles. Rarely is a position reasoned, but rather enforced and those who would deny it are seen as suspect. Thinking critically and deeply about faith and scripture can become the enemies of theological systems; and as such the system must take precedence. So to remain within the church of choice a person simply has to swallow the incongruence he or she sees; because it is a thought crime to raise them.
I’ll leave the final chapter open to the comment section (all 9 of you) – What would the equivalent of the slogan “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength” be?
Nick Altman
Do you think the contemporary Christian (esp. ‘conservative’ or ‘evangelical’) use of these principles is patterned after their use in broader Western culture?
Surely present Western evangelicals drink deeply of the socio-political mindset(s) of the day (soft fascistic-socialism?/PoMo?), even as they attempt to deride these currents as mere trend, etc. What are your thoughts?
Ham said this on October 7, 2008 at 9:37 pm |
Ham
Well, there seems to me to be a few things here. Im not a sociologist, so take this with a lot of salt…
There are, of course, socialogical pressures (often unconcious) that affect contemporary Christians. The difference, often times, is that these groups define themselves in opposition to the cultural trends. Because of this tendancy to define oneself in opposition to ones culture an environment is fostered that forms sharp lines of inclusion and exclusion. This means that the conservative/evangelical (and sometimes as well the liberal) Christian forms a socially cloistered group.
Within this insular society then, there is discussion about power and control; with the ones who control the sub-cultural community being generally the ones who are best at presenting themselves as guardians of the boundry markers. This leads to what I affectionatly call “The Ingrown Toenail Syndrome.” Where each successive leader comes in because he shows himself to be capable of properly fencing the tables. Think, for instance, of the history of TBN – and who has risen to power within this group.
At some point and time the (perhaps healthy) safeguarding against the secularism of society turns into an unhealthy insulation, an infected toenail. It is at this point that people typically speak against the practices of the boundry, and begin to question the effectiveness and need for some of the boundry markers.
It has been my experience that at this point there are a string of martyrs who are pushed out by the leaders of the community until the vast majority of the members become so jaded that they leave and you are left with a small, ineffective and closed group. At this point the remainder disbands and those who left usually start new groups (which often repeat the pattern).
So yes, I think we are affected by our culture, but generally our sociological world is different than the secular world at large. We then have our own version of political correctness and our own punishments for breaking the rules which is both conciously anti-cultural and at the same time a product of its culture.
Thanks for you comment Ham
Pax Christi…Nick
nick altman said this on October 7, 2008 at 11:24 pm |
Nick, Double-think, if it exists, is present on both sides of the aisle. I don’t actually think you are terribly critical of Enns, Conn. And I know Keller is above criticism in many Presbyterian circles (I don’t know what dog you have in that fight). So I think it’s a canard to throw that one around, about no self-criticism existing among confessionalists.
Plus, if you’re going to label confessionalists fundamentalist, how would feel going by the moniker modernist? Just curious.
I also wish you’d provide examples of where the insights of ANE or I&I, for example, create a need for confessional revision. I’ve asked several times at Art’s blog and at Conn-versation and the response has been “well, they just do.”
D G Hart said this on October 12, 2008 at 7:04 pm |
Darryl,
I agree, that it can happen on both sides of the aisel; I think however it predominates with a conservative audience and for good reason. Conservatives, by definition, seek to conserve the past and therefore are more prone to guard the fences that they construct about the past.
If I were conserving the tradition of Conn or Enns I would probably fit quite easily in this mold; but there hasnt really been enough time to lay down tradition. Therefore, I am not conserving them, rather I’m moving fowards from their ideas into new areas.
Also, in that forward movement; I do want to respond and critique and develop the ideas of Enns (who I know a bit more about) but I don’t want to just critique him because he is not Machen reincarnate. It seems some people can only critique him for what he is not, not what he is.
More importantly, and understand this is the meat of my post above, I do not test people I associate with to see if they are sufficently Ennsian or Connish enough; nor would I seek to kick them out if they were not; nor do I want that to ever happen. God Forbid!
So, You want to critique Enns, fine! Begin with my Hosea example on the other blog; in other words critique him on the subject matter, not on the tradition. Critique him for what he is, NOT what he is not!
Again, You want to critique Enns, fine! Just do so without using political maneuvers to “win.” Don’t kick me out of Westminster, dont threaten people or go after them personally by putting phonecalls into their bosses. Just have a reasoned discussion with them. This is my main problem; I dont care if you are festidiously conservative, KJVonly, confession hugging, psalm singing super-presbyterian. You are free in Christ to be as such. Just dont try to destroy your critics (me). Thats all I am advocating. Convince me, dont push me into a corner with nasty and sinful tactics of intimidation and aggression. I won’t respond well to that.
Also, not all confessionalists are fundamentalists; but almost all fundamentalists are confessionalists.
FInally, as for ANE insight; tell me what you think Hosea is doing, and we can talk about how a more rounded definition of ANE insights can help to understand what Matthew does with Hosea. Specifically Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15. Enn’s addresses this, Gaffin addresses it; and I would like to engage it with you.
Pax Christi…Nick
nick altman said this on October 12, 2008 at 8:42 pm |
Nick: first, you are way off on fundamentalism and confessionalism. I admit that I am not up to speed on Hosea, and won’t get around to re-reading Gaffin or Enns on this for a while. But please do not tell me about American Protestantism. I concede that a lot of definitions circulate, even from WTS professors who say WTS is an evangelical institution, that Enns is an evangelical, but that Enns may not teach at WTS, an evangelical institution. Huh? Obviously, terms need to be defined. But fundamentalists from William Jennings Bryan to Jerry Falwell have never been defenders of confessions.
Your view about criticism seems to be that everyone is welcome to the conversation. Funny how that sounds like modernist Presbyterians who wrote the Auburn Affirmation, who also worried that the “fundamentalists would win.” It is certainly possible to conceive, after some awareness of church history in the world and the U.S., and especially given WTS’ posture, that criticizing erroneous views is the normal state of affairs. It is also plausible to argue that discipline involves rejecting someone and their membership in the communion or organization. You would appear to reject usch rejection and discipline as unChistian or unloving. Now, I also suspect that such rejection would be fine for someone who broke a moral law. You just don’t think this pertains to ideas.
So the issue is still whether Enns went outside the Reformed confessional boundaries with I&I. Since you’ve admitted that you are not entirely familiar with the tradition, and since you admit that such lines should not be drawn (even though the Reformed tradition would not exist without lines), I wonder why you think I should count your vote. No offense, but your allegiance to the Reformed tradition seems to be thin. (And it does seem odd that most of Enns’ supporters fall in this thin category.)
D G Hart said this on October 13, 2008 at 12:37 pm |
Nick: first, you are way off on fundamentalism and confessionalism.
Maybe, but I don’t think so
I admit that I am not up to speed on Hosea, and won’t get around to re-reading Gaffin or Enns on this for a while.
Ok, but a minute ago you were complaining that even though you have asked repeatedly no one ever tells you how ANE sources can help us exegete. If you want to discuss this I am game; but if not why bring it up?
But please do not tell me about American Protestantism. I concede that a lot of definitions circulate, even from WTS professors who say WTS is an evangelical institution, that Enns is an evangelical, but that Enns may not teach at WTS, an evangelical institution. Huh? Obviously, terms need to be defined. But fundamentalists from William Jennings Bryan to Jerry Falwell have never been defenders of confessions.
One need not defend a written and standardized creed to be confessional, in my opinion. If this is semantics please excuse me; but most big evangelical (and fundamentalist) churches have webpage articles of their beliefs, which are a confession. They may not defend a central or denominational confession, but they are defending a confession of faith non-the-less. This unwritten confession is surprisingly uniform as well. If each fundamentalist had radically different confessions you would have a point; but they don’t. All of these confessions begin with trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, and move to inerrancy, women in ministry, 6 day creationism, free will, and others. You may find minor differences; for instance most will allow tongues, but some see it as central and others as peripheral, but hardly any fundamentalist/evangelical churches will reject it.
Since you kind of insinuated that I was ignorant of this issue and ought not speak about it to you because you have studied the issue in depth. Might I suggest a similar ethos assassination towards you. The difference between you and me is that you study them from the window of an OPC world. I lived the dream for 10 years. After I was saved I first attended a Christian and Missionary Alliance church and have been everything from Southern Baptist to Lutheran (LCMS) to various Charismatic churches and points in between. You are right my knowledge of this subject was not gleaned from reading Marsden, but it does come with a lot of ethos experience as an insider; for whatever that is worth.
Your view about criticism seems to be that everyone is welcome to the conversation.
Not exactly; my view is simply “don’t try to destroy a fellow “Christian’s” life.” Boy people are going to be ashamed if Enns makes it to heaven after all. What will you say to someone in heaven who on earth you supported his firing and suspension? That’s is going to be un-com-fort-able!!! My point is really simple Darryl. It is ungodly to act in such a manner towards a believer in Christ; don’t call down political power and render God’s charity to Caesar’s scepter. My view is that especially a student (I mean a professor is one thing) should not be intimidated because they disagree academically; rather they should be engaged intellectually. Sounds simple enough to me I wonder why everyone else thinks it is so radical?
Funny how that sounds like modernist Presbyterians who wrote the Auburn Affirmation, who also worried that the “fundamentalists would win.”
Really Darryl; guilt by association? I guess that’s ok to do sometimes; the HTFC certainly did it with Enn’s and Barth. I have pondered it myself; how alike the general TR is in comparison to Eck and the Magisterium which went after Luther. I guess we can all be guilty of such bad arguments.
It is certainly possible to conceive, after some awareness of church history in the world and the U.S., and especially given WTS’ posture, that criticizing erroneous views is the normal state of affairs.
So far as I can tell it is the only “ministry” some people have. Again, though I don’t mind the criticism (I wish it were more to the point, like critiquing Enns on his terms, but whatever). I do however mind the political machinery that is invoked in the name of defending the gospel. What bothers me Darryl is that people really think it is Godly to destroy others. Of course I am a liberal; I advocated debating heretics, not torching them.
It is also plausible to argue that discipline involves rejecting someone and their membership in the communion or organization. You would appear to reject usch rejection and discipline as unChistian or unloving. Now, I also suspect that such rejection would be fine for someone who broke a moral law. You just don’t think this pertains to ideas.
Not precisely. I think you can reject ideas even excommunicate people for holding those heretical ideals. I hold to the theology of the keys; it is a biblical response to dangerous heresy. Of course I don’t think anyone thought Enns was in dangerous heresy; or if they did they certainly were lying when the seminary stated that they thought he was a heretic from the reformed faith, but an evangelical Christian none the less. Secondly, if you are going to excommunicate a person you better be damn sure that you are acting in love and charity by the act of rejecting that person. In other words you don’t reject people for your own good or the good of the church (Jesus not you safeguards his church). You reject people for their own good.
So the issue is still whether Enns went outside the Reformed confessional boundaries with I&I.
Lol…it is? I am more concerned with asking “Is Enn’s position the most biblically accurate?” or “does it comport with the evidence of scripture?” but ok, let’s ask if it is the most Bavinckian accurate instead.
Since you’ve admitted that you are not entirely familiar with the tradition,
Well, not compared to a lifer such as yourself; no.
and since you admit that such lines should not be drawn (even though the Reformed tradition would not exist without lines), I wonder why you think I should count your vote.
I never for an instant thought you would my dear Darryl I am still surprised that you interact with riff raft such as myself.
No offense, but your allegiance to the Reformed tradition seems to be thin. (And it does seem odd that most of Enns’ supporters fall in this thin category.)
You are right, I don’t pledge allegiance to the reformed tradition; I take WCF 1:4 and 31:4 seriously on this one Darryl.
Pax Christi…Nick
nick altman said this on October 13, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
My dear, my very dear Nick:
I’d recommend my own writing but I fear you believe I cannot read or write, so on confessionalism you may want to check out Mark Noll’s chapter in Dayton, Donald W., and Robert K. Johnson, eds. The Variety of American Evangelicalism. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991.
Believe it or not, no one excommunicated Pete or destroyed him personally. Yes, he was relieved of his duties at WTS and I still regret any financial or psychological hardship this has caused him or his family. But teaching at WTS is not a guarantee of getting into heaven. The God of Calvinism is a lot more merciful than that.
Why is it guilt by association to call you a modernist but a fresh breeze for you to call folks like me a fundamentalist? I know, it could be that you don’t seem to be able to make distinctions say between fundamentalism and confessionalism, or between teaching at WTS and going to heaven, or between going to WTS and attending Temple University.
One last thought dearest Nick, it is unbecoming of you to quote the WCF. I thought you were against fundamentalism.
Darryl Hart said this on October 13, 2008 at 7:44 pm |
You Said –
I’d recommend my own writing but I fear you believe I cannot read or write,
You misunderstand, Im not questioning your scholarship, Im questioning your fishbowl. I also question your motives online sometimes, but thats not something I can know.
I find it that I have yet to see you post in agreement of or in dialogue with anyone online (even at green baggins). All your posts seem to be in opposition to whatever stated positions or points the other person raises. I do question the health of that sort of interaction.
Believe it or not, no one excommunicated Pete or destroyed him personally.
We just disagree on this; functionally the man was torn from friends, colleges, job and society which he had known for 14 years as a professional and 4 years as a student. I think thats pretty devestating. I have described the attitude of the BT department at WTS as a perpetual euology and I think thats accurate.
But teaching at WTS is not a guarantee of getting into heaven.
You have missed the point. I never said it was. SInce I have already said this one I’ll just repeat what I already said; I hope that you understand it this time. I said… “What bothers me Darryl is that people really think it is Godly to destroy others.” I again argue that ripping a person from friends family and society for the what are at best petty issues is unGodly.
Why is it guilt by association to call you a modernist but a fresh breeze for you to call folks like me a fundamentalist?
The guilt by association was the Auburn Avenue reference. It is kind of like inserting Barthian language into someones book. I am neither “new perspective” nor ” federal vision” as I am basically a lutheran soteriologically. That said I find neither of these positions to be dangerous or weird. I also am probably more post modern than modernist; but what do I know…
One last thought dearest Nick, it is unbecoming of you to quote the WCF. I thought you were against fundamentalism.
Quoting it is not fundamentalism; placing it above scripture is.
By the way, you can have your goat back whenever you want it..
Pax Christi…Nick
nick altman said this on October 13, 2008 at 11:16 pm |
Nick, I’m still trying to figure out the meaning of blogging. I thought the point was like a bull session, where people throw out ideas and then receive all sorts of reactions telling them what’s wrong with putting it that way. It is a helpful way to sharpen one’s ideas. You seem to think that blogging is therapeutic — you go there to be comforted that you are right and that you have a host of fellow right thinkers. I have suggested to Art that if you want blogging to function that way, you could turn you pages private and require folks to log in or you could vet all comments.
As for the action against Pete, you wrote: “What bothers me Darryl is that people really think it is Godly to destroy others.” That is an unbelievably pejorative construction of a host of people. It assumes Pete has been destroyed, which is debatable, that his critics delight in criticizing him, and that criticism is destruction. And you think I’m negative? Get a goat.
D G Hart said this on October 19, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
One further thought, after all that has been written about I&I by a host of people, inside and outside WTS, you come to the conclusion that people think it is godly to destroy Enns? That’s conspiratorial, and fitting a fundamentalist world view. But it hardly fitting the Enns party which was supposed to be the smart party.
D G Hart said this on October 19, 2008 at 1:56 pm |
D.G. Hart,
You Said –
“Nick, I’m still trying to figure out the meaning of blogging. I thought the point was like a bull session, where people throw out ideas and then receive all sorts of reactions telling them what’s wrong with putting it that way. It is a helpful way to sharpen one’s ideas. You seem to think that blogging is therapeutic — you go there to be comforted that you are right and that you have a host of fellow right thinkers.”
Having a debate and disagreeing does not necessitate being childish or mean spirited. I object to the latter, not the former. Debate, disagree strongly, raise salient points (but stop the sophistry and petty attacks) and we will get along just fine.
You Said –
As for the action against Pete, you wrote: “What bothers me Darryl is that people really think it is Godly to destroy others.” That is an unbelievably pejorative construction of a host of people.
A host of people; unlikely. A select minority who are the tail wagging the dog; definately.
It assumes Pete has been destroyed, which is debatable,
Debate away, it is semantics at this point. I consider the removal of a person from his job and from relationships he has held for 14 years to be something not to be done lightly. If the only criticism of Enns is “didn’t site warfield enough” I think it was a sinful action.
that his critics delight in criticizing him,
I believe some of them do; although certainly not all. There are people with actual objections but oddly enough the most vocal of his critics seem to read him in a very uncharitable light.
…and that criticism is destruction.
Again, you misreprsent what I say. Why do you do that? Is what I said that criticism=destruction? See darryl, here is what I meant above. You talk about blogging being a forum and then you so radically misrepresent what I say. I said that FIRING a person and cutting him off from his COMMUNITY is a destructive action; not that simply criticizing a book he wrote is. Why then did you misrepresent me? Did you misread (see thats charitable)?
after all that has been written about I&I by a host of people, inside and outside WTS, you come to the conclusion that people think it is godly to destroy Enns? That’s conspiratorial, and fitting a fundamentalist world view. But it hardly fitting the Enns party which was supposed to be the smart party.
I have yet to find a single text which substantally deals with Enn’s points. All they say is “quote warfield more” or “this isn’t confessional enough.” I give Dr. Gaffin some credit for addressing the issue with Hosea,but I think his answer leaves much to be desired.
As to your point about a conspiracy theory. Is it a conspiracy theory? No way! Is it a group of people who seem intimidated by the questions Enn’s raises…absolutely.
By the way I would include you in that group Darryl; do you want to talk about Hosea (or another text) now? You seem to habitually avoid this discussion.
Pax Christi…Nick
nick altman said this on October 21, 2008 at 2:23 am |
Nick: if I misrepresent you it is because you are so misrepresentable. You have no way of allowing for discussion except if it results in an outcome you approve, or in humor you can get. To disagree with you is to destroy, to enjoy it, and to be mean. You do a very good representation of fundamentalism, Nick, peace of Christ or no. If you really think I need to think about how I come across, have you ever looked in the mirror or does it always reflect openness, light, and truth? Can you tell me where I can find that hardware?
And I’ll be glad to talk about Hosea when you begin to take instruction on confessionalism. Really, Nick. You need to get out more.
Darryl Hart said this on October 22, 2008 at 11:05 pm |
Darryl,
You Said –
Nick: if I misrepresent you it is because you are so misrepresentable.
Oh I see it is my fault you misread me…of course. Im sorry I am so open to your uncharity…I will work on that.
You have no way of allowing for discussion except if it results in an outcome you approve, or in humor you can get.
I saw nothing of humor in you previous posts, if I have missed it by all means tell me the punchline. I love discussion; you have yet to discuss anything. At best you are obscurantist. I clarified that my problem is not with disagreement, but with uncharitable actions.
To disagree with you is to destroy, to enjoy it, and to be mean.
Darryl, I have clarified this now three times….its not the disagreement that is destructive, but the suspension. I disagree with you and you disagree with me, for instance. Thats not destructive at all! (But if I called your boss and had you fired; that would be a different story, wouldn’t it?) I am not sure why you continue to persist in this abject falsehood about my position. My problem is not with the philosophical disagreement with Enns (for the billionth time) but with the suspension and political actions.
You do a very good representation of fundamentalism, Nick, peace of Christ or no.
This is another non sensical red herring. I am willing to have open dialogue and disagreement just dont try to have me kicked out of school or fired from a job. I have not censored your posts, you have a perfect opportunity to discuss these issues, but all you do is attack me as a fundamentalist. Again you totally misrepresent an issue because you either are ignorant or trolling; I havent decided which.
And I’ll be glad to talk about Hosea when you begin to take instruction on confessionalism.
ROFL @ “take instruction.” Who do you think you are, my dad? I dont want to INSTRUCT you about Hosea, nor take INSTRUCTION from you about how great Turretin was/is. I probably wont be inviting Calvin to live in my heart anytime soon no matter how much you instruct me. If you want to have a “discussion” I am willing but thats not what you want is it Darryl?
Oh, P.S…can you please post a link to a thread in which you have discussed the Bible in the last year. Not Turretin, not the Confessions or the sermons of Edwards, but just a discussion about the meaning of a passage. Restore my faltering faith in the OPC Darryl…
Reformed hugs and kisses…Nick…
nick altman said this on October 23, 2008 at 3:02 am |
Nick, if agreeing with you were the terms of employment, then disagreeing with you might bring the penalty of suspension. Funny how that one seems to go right past you.
Again, you don’t need to take any instruction from me. But if you’re going to throw around the words confessional and fundamentalist, you might actually want to look at how the words are used. I know, I know, you’ve got your Bible. That trumps all human wisdom (except ANE lit.).
D G Hart said this on November 2, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
Darryl –
You Said –
“if agreeing with you were the terms of employment, then disagreeing with you might bring the penalty of suspension.
I am not employed by WTS, rather I pay them my money…neither are the other students who have been threatened in various ways for taking a pro-Enns position.
Enn’s employment was not contingent on agreement with the board and the administration of WTS, that would be VERY unreformed to ask a person to do. His employment was dependant on being confessional, which he is…
WCF – XX.2 – “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.”
and
WCF XXXI.4 – “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both”
(I am beginning to suspect that you are so reformed you have become unreformed Darryl, say it isn’t so…)
if you’re going to throw around the words confessional and fundamentalist, you might actually want to look at how the words are used
Perhaps you need to investigate how words are used outside of the fishbowl. For you there may be a world which sees itself as confessional and this as dichotomous to fundamentalism, but I doubt many people make this implicit distinction.
Here is a thought Darryl; when you disagree with how someone uses a word, don’t take a condescending tone and presume to “instruct them” from your gravitas of your kingdom. Rather just state, “I am using this term to mean this; you seem to have a different meaning…and politely explain the difference…” I know that politeness and manners are so kitsch online but I’m a southerner, so go figure.
I know, I know, you’ve got your Bible. That trumps all human wisdom (except ANE lit.).
Yeah, if only I could properly understand my Bible through the guidance of the Watchtower Bible and Confession Society then I would stop making that pesky mistake of reading a text as the author intended, in its contextual world (that is the 6th century BCE author and context, not the 16th century CE authors and contexts…)
Pax Christi…Nick
Nick Altman said this on November 3, 2008 at 4:48 pm |