Villagersonline : blogs : rodhugen : on dogma

From: rodhugen
Date: Fri Jul  9 00:23:55 MST 2004
Subject: on dogma

Responses
GaryG: Yep. (7/11/04)

rodhugen: No Subject (7/12/04)

GaryG: Right you are sir (7/12/04)

rodhugen: Curmudgeon? (7/12/04)

derek: My Postmodern Dogma (7/13/04)

rodhugen: Son (7/13/04)

stevek: armenian (7/13/04)

GaryG: Funny... (7/13/04)

eric: Tension (7/14/04)

derek: No Subject (7/14/04)

eric: Lunch (7/14/04)
benjipark: Huh? (7/14/04)

benjipark: Huh? (7/14/04)

GaryG: Wow (7/14/04)

rodhugen: A bunch of dogmatics (7/14/04)

Boojeee: village (7/14/04)

GaryG: Next... (7/14/04)

Karen: TULIP score inflated? (7/15/04)

GaryG: Whoa.. (7/15/04)

rodhugen: Inflation? (7/16/04)

Boojeee: TURNIBT (7/16/04)
Karen: Duck, duck... (goose) (7/16/04)

Karen: Duck, duck... (goose) (7/16/04)

keibru: dogmata errata (7/18/04)

Patricia: Keith - (7/19/04)
russ: Amen! (7/19/04)
GaryG: Keith rules (7/19/04)

Responses (sorted by date)
GaryG: Keith rules (7/19/04)
russ: Amen! (7/19/04)
Patricia: Keith - (7/19/04)
keibru: dogmata errata (7/18/04)
Karen: Duck, duck... (goose) (7/16/04)
Karen: Duck, duck... (goose) (7/16/04)
Boojeee: TURNIBT (7/16/04)
rodhugen: Inflation? (7/16/04)
GaryG: Whoa.. (7/15/04)
Karen: TULIP score inflated? (7/15/04)
GaryG: Next... (7/14/04)
Boojeee: village (7/14/04)
rodhugen: A bunch of dogmatics (7/14/04)
GaryG: Wow (7/14/04)
benjipark: Huh? (7/14/04)
benjipark: Huh? (7/14/04)
eric: Lunch (7/14/04)
derek: No Subject (7/14/04)
eric: Tension (7/14/04)
GaryG: Funny... (7/13/04)
stevek: armenian (7/13/04)
rodhugen: Son (7/13/04)
derek: My Postmodern Dogma (7/13/04)
rodhugen: Curmudgeon? (7/12/04)
GaryG: Right you are sir (7/12/04)
rodhugen: No Subject (7/12/04)
GaryG: Yep. (7/11/04)

Been thinking a lot about dogma lately. I even watched the movie again recently. Mostly though it is because Eric has been asking me questions and forcing me into contemplative mode. Besides, we are writing a book together and so I have to think about what I believe about certain things. I realize that much of what I know is simply the dogma that I grew up with. Dogma, in my case, meaning the ‘proper' interpretation of key verses done for you by someone else. I realize how little I have personally wrestled with Scripture and how easily I have taken someone else's wrestling and made it my own. The curse of being a reader, I suppose. I have firmly held beliefs that I have never struggled with and never had to fight for and now wonder if they are beliefs at all.
Before Kathy and I got married we debated ‘infant baptism' to death. We went to war over it. She was a good Baptist girl and when you have something in your denominational name it is a pretty good indication that it is going to be important to you. Kathy knew about ‘believer's baptism'. She had experienced coming to Christ at age five and was baptized in response to what she had come to know. I grew up in the Christian Reformed world where we took covenantal theology pretty seriously. I believed that babies should be baptized and it made sense to me because of the sway of those who taught me catechism. Until Kathy challenged me to look at it more deeply, I was unaware of why I believed what I believed. In the end we agreed to disagree and as a gift to me she allowed our sons to be baptized. To her, I am sure that it was a simple, meaningful dedication, but to me it was sacramental and a beautiful symbol of God placing His hand on our kids.
Over the years I have debated infant baptism with many people including Eric. One day in the parking lot of UMC, Eric and I were discussing (okay, arguing) about baptism. Suddenly tears welled up in me and I realized the pain of being told that something I held dear was indefensible from Scripture. As I spoke of my hurt and how I felt about the discounting of something so precious to me, infant baptism slipped from being dogma into being a deeply held belief. In that moment I realized the joy of the day my parents had stood before God, and the church, and offered a brand new baby named Rod to God. The day God symbolically and literally placed His mark on me. Made me His. It was in that parking lot with Eric that baptism became no longer intellectual exercise and became instead a matter of conscience. Irrespective of the slant that I read Scripture with, in the end, I must always sort between dogma and belief. I must always go to war. Sometimes unsure of what ‘side' I'm on. Eric, being the Christ-like man he is, backed away. Said he was sorry. Vowed to not talk of it again. But we have and we will. Because sometimes even deeply held beliefs are dislodged.
Rod

Edit this blog
Write a response Email the author

From: GaryG
Date: Sun Jul 11 16:10:41 MST 2004
Subject: Yep.

Rod, I know all to well what you mean, and I think we've had several good discussions about this sort of thing. I embraced Reformed Theology/Calvinism wholeheartedly not too long before coming to Tucson, and I know now that part of that was in defiance/rebellion to things I had previously been taught. I still believe in many elements of Reformed teaching, but I don't consider myself a "Calvinist" anymore per se, I think the TULIP is too full of absolutes and formulas, and I've grown to disdain absolutes and formulas when it comes to religion. Whatever the question is, Christ is the answer, and it's only through God's grace that I've come to know Him, not because of some "decision" or "comittment" I've made, or anything to do with my own merit or worthiness. Simply by His grace, and that's all...

Edit this response
Write a response

From: rodhugen
Date: Sun Jul 11 23:08:27 MST 2004
Subject:

Good grief, Gary, you ARE Reformed! The great Solas of the Reformation include my personal favorite - Sola Gratia. Grace alone. Isn't it interesting how we can even turn grace into dogma. :-)
The mystery of grace received and the art of living out of it consumes much of life. Would we live differently if we truly understood the magnitude of the gift we've been given? And the second we start living differently (better?), how quickly we become graceless, judgmental, and dogmatic. I've lost 53 pounds on this diet and now it is easy for me to look at people who are overweight and think that they should be able to do what I have done. As if proving someone wrong is the way to lure them to life. Or as if having blinders on to all my other sin patterns allows me some room to pretend that I've found "the answer" and now I've arrived. It is amazingly hard to offer grace even after having been the recipient of it. Or am I the only one who messes that up?
Rod

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: GaryG
Date: Mon Jul 12 10:11:08 MST 2004
Subject: Right you are sir

Hey, welcome to the Rod-n-Gary blog, feel free to jump in at any time...anyone.
Reformed or deformed? You tell me..heh heh.
Yes, grace is one thing I refuse to let go of, whether or not I allow a label of "Reformed" or anything else to be stuck on me. I guess I'm just feeling a strong aversion to categories, names, labels, systems, formulas, etc that get in the way of my relationship with Christ...thinking that I "have to" believe this or that so I stay in line with my Theological camp. I had enough of that in my prior religous experience, thank you very much, and I have realized that it had crept in there again in a different form (as a "Calvinist", I must believe this, etc). So out it must go-it's just another burden I have neither the energy nor time to bear. I tend to be a little "elastic" in my thinking (some would say "wishy-washy") and if my beliefs shift back and forth between "camps"; well, that's my right dammit! OOhhh, touchy touchy...the religous scars are surfacing in the form of hostility, hmm? Well that's my right too, as long as I'm Theologically Correct! OUCH! Will he never learn? Doubt it...being a curmedgeon is too much fun heh heh.

Edit this response
Write a response

From: rodhugen
Date: Mon Jul 12 16:43:14 MST 2004
Subject: Curmudgeon?

Gee, Gary, you have become a curmudgeon at such an early age. It took me lots more time to become surly. :-)
I appreciate your rant against labels. I've been the victim of labels and an administrator of labels and an expert in labelling. The problem with labels is that people won't stay in the little boxes I put them in. And I keep crawling out of the ones you stick me in, also. That is why I like the fact that Karen is a 2.85 or 3.03 point Calvinist depending on the day and whether she has just had a front row seat on depravity or seen a perserverer stumble. I like that you are evolving. That life is about change. That living is about learning, relearning, constructing, and deconstructing, and sometimes just plain blowing up. The gathered pieces of my theology look very little like the monolith that I started out scaling. In those days things were more sharply defined and the lies I believed were bolder. Now the pieces of what I believe are often internally inconsistent and the dogma I hang on to becomes more hinderance than help. Do you, like me, ever long for the days when things were sensible? Or do you much prefer the sola gratia way of life? I like grace, but it freaks me out sometimes.
Rod

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: derek
Date: Tue Jul 13 10:11:15 MST 2004
Subject: My Postmodern Dogma

A few months ago Benji and I had a conversation at Dunkin Donuts at two a.m. over this very topic. He presented the challenge that perhaps I was just hiding behind the sureties of the dogma of the Christian Reformed demonination where I had been raised. I laughed, and I sipped my coffee. I think I've hit every extreme on the spectrum, from believing fully in something I had never truly explored, up to fully rejecting the same dogmatics for no real reason. Some kids get tattoos, I disolve within my mind the ties to the dogmatic systems of my youth. Rebellion is rebellion. Right now, I put myself under the system of theology of the Christian Reformed Church.
Why, you ask? Because, why not? It has been in place for a while now, and it has served my ancestors well. I have a few things I may not agree with sometimes, but I'm not going to let those take me out of hundreds of years of history and wise Christian men and women who have believed and lived out this theology. So I submit "just because." Probably not the most intellegent argument for theology, but it's awefully hard to counter as Benji could attest to. :)
Besides, I just like the theology. I like the view of grace and depravity. I like the surety of faith. God just seems big. It is a beautiful, intricate theology, and even if I don't agree with all of it, or all the time, it is a good basis to walk from. Of course, Benji disagrees, but he bought me a cup of coffee, so it all works out in the end.
Alright, so in summation. . . I'm listening to an old jazz cd right now. Not just any jazz cd though, but jazz remix. I really enjoy hearing those great experimental jazz songs of the 40's and 50's blending with the possibly great experimental techno of today. It has all of the beauty and strength of history backing it, but it keeps furthering it and making it better. Of course, who knows what I'll be listening to tonight. Probably Indie or Blues. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't enjoy this cd, does it? How is that for a postmodern dogma? Now for Benji's response. . .

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: rodhugen
Date: Tue Jul 13 11:38:49 MST 2004
Subject: Son

Soooo....
Is it dogma or is it Memorex?

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: stevek
Date: Tue Jul 13 14:09:58 MST 2004
Subject: armenian

I, too find labels confining and far too often poor descriptors of who and where we truely are as individuals/in issues of spirituality, politics, or whatever. With respect to the 'calvanist/reformed' label that's being tossed around in these blogs, at the risk of committing village heresy, and also of violating my own opening sentence, I tend more towards the Armenian (I know, it's a label - but be patient) camp. For me that simply means that my 'coming to Christ' did in fact require a decision on my part to make a comittment. I am not, nor was I ever God's marionette. He gave me both the right and the attendant responsibility to respond to the offer of Grace that we find in Jesus. That's liberty, and I find that all over Scripture. I act/God responds according to His promises. The implications for ultra-Calvinism paint for me a very ugly picture of our Creator. But, I suppose the implications for ultra-Armenianism paint a pretty egocentric picture as well. So the truth we will probably find out one day is in that middle range that Rod ascribed to Karen. But, regardless of how many of the Calvanist 'points' which we confess, I think I'm at least sensing some agreement in this dialogue on Luther's thesis - sola gratia. We can argue whether or not my making a decision is consistent with that, or not, but in the end, it's by the Lord's grace that any of our discussion is possible at all.

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: GaryG
Date: Tue Jul 13 14:58:21 MST 2004
Subject: Funny...

Funny, Steve-you don't look Slavic (Armenian) heh heh. Hey, I made the same mistake once when I emailed Eric, describing my old church as "Armenian"...in my vain attempt to impress him with my Theological credentials, I instead had my old church's theology based on geography...I know, I know, you meant "Arminian" :-)
I think we can look at Scripture through whatever eyes we choose, based on our background, knowledge, personal experience, etc. You say the idea of "free will" is all over Scripture, and you choose to look at it that way. But the idea of God's sovereign choice in election is all over Scripture too, if you choose to look at it that way. You say you made a decision based on your free will, I say I made a decision because God quickened me with His Spirit and gave me the ability to choose Him...call it what you will, but the good thing is the end result-we have both chosen Christ. It is our nature to pick apart and analyze how that came about, but the end result is what is crucial...let us not lose sight of that, regardless of what camp we decide to fall into.
For the sake of rebuttal, however, I feel I do have to say something about the typical Arminian picture of the Calvinist idea of God. I think the typical Arminian pictures the Calvinist God standing at the gates of heaven with His arms crossed, picking out His chosen few while the multitudes of "unchosen" beg for entrance to no avail. What I think the typical Calvinist (and even though I do not refer to myself as a "Calvinist" I agree with this picture) pictures is all of humanity running with breakneck speed towards the gates of hell, and God in His mercy snatches some by the collar and saves them. I do not feel the "marionette" analogy is a fair one, I believe belief and faith are the response of one who has been regenerated by the Spirit. Some say this would make our love for Him unsatisfying, that He could only be pleased with our love for Him if it came from our own free will and accord, to me this portrays God as needy and human-minded. He knows what the spiritually dead man needs-regeneration from the Spirit-only then can man believe in and love God. I know this all sounds like rank-and-file Calvinist thinking, but I still reject the TULIP merely as a matter of principle-too full of absolutes and formula, and I'm moving away from that way of thinking even though I've mined some nuggets along the way :-)
Again, let us rejoice in the fact that we have chosen Christ, regardless of how that came about.

Edit this response
Write a response

From: eric
Date: Tue Jul 13 17:26:30 MST 2004
Subject: Tension

Oh, this is so much fun. All this dogma . . . O.K., so what is dogma? What does the word mean?
Well, according to dictionary.com it means: n. pl. dog•mas or dog•ma•ta (-m-t)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).
So dogmas are ideas and statements about faith and God and such that we believe to be true.
I'm not a Calvinist(I think Calvin is the only Calvinist). I'm also not an Arminian, but only because I choose not to be.
My Dogma is pretty simple: I believe in tension. I believe that all things stand in tension and that in the tension we find God. For example, I believe that Jesus was fully human and fully God. I believe that there is nothing I can do to earn God's Grace, and I believe that I must work hard to earn it. I believe God chose me to be his son, and I chose to be God's child. I believe that God knows all things and is surprised by humans and their actions and behaviors. I believe that God is all powerful and can do anything He wants to do. I also believed his power is limited in our space time continuum. I believe that those who reject Jesus will be in hell. I also believe all will be saved. I believe that infant baptism is valid and well founded practice. I also believe it is bad theology. I believe that scripture is the inspired authoritative word of God. I also believe it has errors.
I believe there is no way to loose your salvation. I also believe it was never yours to have in the first place.
I could go on but you get my point. My tar and feathering will take place as scheduled :)

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: derek
Date: Tue Jul 13 19:52:23 MST 2004
Subject:

LOL :)
Eric, I think you beat me out for the most postmodern dogma. Congrats.

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

	From: eric Date: Tue Jul 13 23:27:18 MST 2004 Subject: Lunch Hey Derek, I owe you a lunch. Email me some good meeting times for you. eric Edit this response Write a response Email the author
	From: benjipark Date: Tue Jul 13 23:30:42 MST 2004 Subject: Huh? Hah!!! I delete this blog with smite and malice. Edit this response Write a response Email the author

From: benjipark
Date: Tue Jul 13 23:28:38 MST 2004
Subject: Huh?

Well Eric took part of what I was going to say. What the heck is dogma? I am so against titles that I really have no idea what most of them mean anyway. I remember the conversation and Duncan Doughnuts with Derek and the only point I really remember is that Derek din't know all the points of his core beliefs. It was rather like the Spanish inquisition, "My three beliefs, no, my four beliefs contain such diverse elements as... Let me start again. Amongst my chief beliefs are such... no wait... there's a fifth." Anyway my point is that Derek doesn't really belive what he belives.
I keep trying to remember what the titles mean but it never seems to sink in. I still can't tell you what post-modern is but aparently I'm a halfway decent one. Make of that what you will. I'd like for someone to tell me if I have any dogma but I wouldn't bother telling me if I was someone else because I probably won't remember all them fancy titles you tell me, or is it that I tell me?
And now with disdainful exasperation, "You and your logic!"

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: GaryG
Date: Wed Jul 14 09:09:35 MST 2004
Subject: Wow

Yes Eric, this is great! A blog with 13 responses...wait, 14! :-)

Edit this response
Write a response

From: rodhugen
Date: Wed Jul 14 10:32:55 MST 2004
Subject: A bunch of dogmatics

Let's see:
Gary is dogmatic about grace. Eric is dogmatic that everything is believable. Derek is dogmatic about CRC heritage. Rod is dogmatic about babies being baptized. Benji is dogmatic about not being labelled. Steve is dogmatic about the guy Calvin would say was anathema. Soooo.... what should we call this denomination?
:-)
Rod

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: Boojeee
Date: Wed Jul 14 10:49:30 MST 2004
Subject: village

It's a beautiful village that ties all this tension together in cords of love. I hope we never all agree about these things this side of heaven.

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: GaryG
Date: Wed Jul 14 12:41:13 MST 2004
Subject: Next...

Allright, now that that's settled, who wants to talk politics? bwaahahaha!!!

Edit this response
Write a response

From: Karen
Date: Wed Jul 14 23:30:19 MST 2004
Subject: TULIP score inflated?

Wo, hold it right there Rod, as far as I know, I'm still at 2.6....2.7 max. All I know is I don't believe that I'm going to hell if I'm killed by a bomb right after I yell some horrible profanity when I see it coming and can't duck fast enough... Hmmm, now there's an image....

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: GaryG
Date: Thu Jul 15 09:05:42 MST 2004
Subject: Whoa..

Now hold on there, Karen. Before you so assuredly state your eternal fate, some things to consider:
Did you "count the cost" of ducking vs. non-ducking? After all, maybe it was God's will for you to accept your fate with dignity, and "who resists His will?" (Romans something or other)
Did you duck whole heartedly, or was this some sort of half-assed effort strictly for appearences?
What was this "horrible profanity" you uttered?
hehehe I'm killing myself here...:-)

Edit this response
Write a response

From: rodhugen
Date: Thu Jul 15 19:24:54 MST 2004
Subject: Inflation?

Uhmm... I'm a church planter. We always inflate the numbers.
Gary is right. You weren't supposed to duck. Calvinists never duck. Steve K can duck 'cause he is Arminian and Eric can nod 'cause everything is true for him, but you have to stand there and take your lumps if you are even a 1.00.
I've decided to be a six point TURNIP. Eric can you tell me again what the letters mean in TURNIP?
Rod

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

	From: Boojeee Date: Fri Jul 16 14:23:25 MST 2004 Subject: TURNIBT I don't know what the RN stands for, but I like the idea. Karen, Sue and I decided we could more often stand behind the P [preservation of the saints] if we change it to BT [begrudging trudgery of the saints]. Edit this response Write a response Email the author
	From: Karen Date: Fri Jul 16 16:32:27 MST 2004 Subject: Duck, duck... (goose) But if I were to duck out of some sort of belated reflex, wouldn't that fall under predeterminism? Jeepers, you don't even want to know what I say when I'm ducking miserably. Edit this response Write a response Email the author

From: Karen
Date: Fri Jul 16 16:37:21 MST 2004
Subject: Duck, duck... (goose)

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: keibru
Date: Sun Jul 18 14:18:04 MST 2004
Subject: dogmata errata

I used to detest these conversations - they used to just make me so angry that I'd just walk away in disgust. I have learned to be magnanimous, however, in my old age, and now can forbear you people who think and talk about these unfathomable things...so much so, in fact, that I've even caught myself thinking and talking (in sparse doses, of course) about them myself. Wonders never cease...
The owners of the Seneca House had a discussion of these matters the other night -- I must say it was enjoyable -- and I find from Eric's blogs above that what he and I believe are pretty close...sort of variations of each other (?).
God gave us this Book to guide us; we've used it to build tenets of our various sub-faiths and often these tenets are seemingly mutually exclusive.
I think we've misused it.
I think that anyone who picks any polar petal on the TULIP (or any other theological issue) is ignoring the boundless, infinite, beyond-human-comprehension nature of the Almighty God. No, Eric, I don't think "both" ends of the axis are correct. No, everyone else, I don't think one is right and one is wrong. What I believe is that you as a human are so limited in your mentality and the dimension you live in to ever understand or even imagine what really is "the truth" as God has placed it in our universe. I think we create a fallacious dillema when we contend that it 'has' to be (to use an example) "either" free will "or" predestination.
In God's realm (which equals infinity in every measureable dimension, right?), there is NO INCONGRUITY between these things that we see in our limited eyesight as mutually exclusive. Just because you can't rationalize their co-existence, doesn't mean God can't either. Further, I believe there are many, many more aspects of these issues than we could ever imagine this side of the grave... It's like the real picture requires a special set of glasses that can see the infra-red spectrum -- and they only make those glasses in heaven. Some day you and I are going to be so amazed and blown away by what is the WHOLE TRUTH that we're going to look back at ourselves and just chuckle and say "what asses..." over those things we held on to so tightly and argued about.
Can you dig it?

Edit this response
Write a response

From: Patricia
Date: Mon Jul 19 08:02:17 MST 2004
Subject: Keith -

Thank you.
What a relief!

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: russ
Date: Mon Jul 19 09:46:12 MST 2004
Subject: Amen!

Amen!
One quibble, though: I expect that we won't see the "whole truth" in Heaven. We'll see more, but I suspect that mystery and tension is fundamental to the Human experience of God, on both sides of the grave.

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: GaryG
Date: Mon Jul 19 10:07:21 MST 2004
Subject: Keith rules

I nominate Keith for Theologian of the Week...hour? year? minute? Maybe this is your 15 minutes hehehe.
But, allow me to refute your points one by one, in a list arranged by subcategories owing to theological history and preterist vs premillenial dogma as well as pre-Augustinian thought vs post modernist thought and the antenician rules on assembly vs musical instruments in worship and...oh, sorry.

Edit this response
Write a response

Write a blog