The Slippery Slope

I would like to talk about a rhetorical device called "the slippery slope." The Wikipeda has an interesting article about this device here. The argument goes like this:

If A occurs then the chances increase that B will occur. (quoted from the article mentioned above)

This movement toward B is usually assumed to be a negative one, thus the analogy of sliding down a slope. The problem is that even if A often leads to B, this does not mean that B is inevitable. When confronted with a slippery slope argument we should question the connections that are implied. Does A really lead to B? A good sign that a slippery slope argument is fallacious is when the invoker is actually saying something like this:

If A occurs then the chances increase that A1 will occur and if A1 occurs then the chances increase that A2 will occur and if A2 occurs then the chances increase that A3 will occur and if A3 occurs then the chances increase that B will occur.

In other words, the connection between A and B is not actually that close. It is only through a long series of circumstances that A might cause B.

I should point out that slippery slope rhetoric is not always fallacious. It can actually be a valid point that A increases the chances of B. What I don't appreciate is when the slippery slope mentality is used as a scare tactic. One of the books that I really resonated with early on in my move away from fundamentalism is The Post-Evangelical by Dave Tomlinson. One of the things he talks about is the way some people try to frighten others by suggesting that they are becoming "liberal."

"If you carry on talking like that," one well-known speaker was chided by a leading evangelical, "people are going to think you've gone liberal, and before long, you'll find that you won't be seen as fully evangelical, and then doors are going to close, and then..." (p.61)

Tomlinson compares this kind of argument to parents telling their children that the "bogey-man" will get them if they don't do such and such. This kind of argumentation frustrates me because if something is true, then it's true. If I believe A to be true, I can't change my mind just because it might lead me to believe B.

Let me end with two important caveats:

1. I'm not saying one should not consider the consequences of what one believes.
2. I'm not saying we should assume those who invoke the slippery slope are purposely using it as a scare tactic.

Comments

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Good thoughts!

[ken]

I agree and will add that it is a case of the easy answer. If I do A it is easier to assume that B is inevitable and therefore I shouldn't do A (no matter how intangible the link between A and B). If I do A then I have to think about all of those possibilities that might lead to B and avoid the ones that seem to go towards B while continuing to believe A, which might, in fact actually combine with C and lead eventually to D. (are you still with me? lol) It is just too much work to have to consider all of these possiblilities so they'll just ignore/condemn A to make their lives less complicated.

Many Christians take the easy answer/response rather than have to spend time at it. Sometimes we are offered easy, incorrect solutions as a test to see if we are paying attention and listening to God. This ties back to the 'slippery slope' theory (in a round about way).

This is also a form of weakness. They don't trust in God to guide them and protect them from B, so they just hide in their current position. Everything is wrapped up in a neat little package. There's a pat answer for everything. Unfortunately, they loose that sense of dangerous wonder that God has built into us.

[ken]

...and don't even think about E,F, or G. That's just too much work. ;-)

"That's the work of the Devil."
-Kathy Bates in The Waterboy

[Lauraconk]

As someone who has made a past career of gently warning young people about the dangers and consequences of their actions NOT as scare tactic but as simple truth that cannot be ignored....this concept you're discussing is hard to grasp.

Heeding wisdom is always wise...discerning truth is a capability Spirit-filled Christians should have. When a warning by a trusted friend is given, I should give it sincere and strong consideration rather than just blow it off as fear. Proverbs gives warnings not to venture certain places, for example. Should I just say, "Bah! God will protect me if I decide to ignore that warning!"? Not necessarily. He may allow the chips to fall as they may. I was the dope for ignoring wise counsel and the consequences should be expected.

As a friend once said in response to a similar statement about scare tactics...
"It might be scare tactics if I warn you that driving 60 mph into that brick wall could kill you... it still remains true." Now maybe I won't die, but rather just end up with a raging traumatic brain injury and wish I had died... either way, it ain't pretty!

[deborah]

Laura, I agree with you that we need to heed the possible consequences of our actions, but I don't think that is what the slippery slope refers to. Telling me that driving 60 miles an hour into a wall may kill me is telling me what most likely will happen, so your warning would be valid and informative.

On the other hand, telling me that if I get my driver's license, then I will want to drive, and once I drive then I will want to drive at the speed limit, and once I drive at the speed limit then I will want to go faster and drive 60 miles an hour, then I will want to drive 60 miles an hour on a 45 mile speed limit road, then I might lose control and hit a brick wall where I will most likely die, so I shouldn't even think about getting my driver's license because I might die, that is not only using the slippery slope threat, but it is really just silly.

[Lauraconk]

Deb... thanks for speaking in a language I can understand :)

Yet... when we look at even that example, we see a point where the risks increase. It was not problematic at obtaining a license or wanting to drive... it got more problematic when I broke a law (one that was established because of known or foreseen dangers) and even further complicated when I broke a law AND ignored the ages-old wisdom of not driving too fast in the rain! I had probably heard of hydro-planing before and maybe even knew people who had accidents that way. Do you know what I mean? I think usually when people are being warned of slippery slopes, they are already at a place somewhere mid-slope.

In Proverbs... the young man is told to "keep a path" far from the adulteress, not to go near the door of her house lest he lose, well, everything. Sounds like a crazy, paranoid warning...later we read about a specific incident that was observed when another guy did venture near her home and the fate he met there. Solomon has seen dangers and is keenly aware of the pitfalls. He loves the son, therefore he warns. He is not trying to use scare tactics or be controlling... he wants the best for the ones he cares for.

The bottom line for me...
I don't know too much about the EC, I don't feel personally interested in it...but I am interested in my friends and care about them deeply. When warnings given out of concern are issued, my radar goes up a bit.... when the response is, "those are just scare tactics".....I can't accurately explain how that just sits oddly with me.
Please note: This is not about me trying to protect some evangelical club. I am not saying everyone needs to be a fundamentalist or evangelical. It's just a thought process that I see unfolding that does appear to be leading to places where others have stumbled more away from Christ. I think it's wise to consider those warnings as you search and not just write them off as impossibilities. (I hope this is read with the love that it was written with.)

[Bill]

Laura,

Thanks for your concern and Christ-like attitude. I want to say a couple of things in response:

1. If you were ever to click on Ken Silva's link, you might see a little more about what concerns him. I have found that the website he runs is done in a spirit of mockery, misrepresentation, and fundamentalism (too pick a few adjectives that come to mind). I have tried to politely defend what I hold to be true at his blog recently, but I have now been banned from commenting there. That might help to explain why I warned him about using "fear tactics."

2. As I said in the post above, the slippery slope argument is not automatically fallacious. My problem is when people are trying to create a false cause and effect. There's nothing wrong with warning someone about a danger. It's when people exaggerate the connection between two things that I have a problem. This might not be a great example, but here's one I thought of:

If you attend a secular college you are on a slippery slope toward atheism.

This is not a good argument against going to a secular college. Do some kids, attending a secular college, face pressures and ideas that they've never really had to deal with on their own? Yes. Do some of them become atheists. Sure. But do you see how the above would be a fallacious argument against going to a secular college? There would be nothing wrong with warning a young, college-bound Christian about the pressures they might face. You might suggest that they not go, if for some reason you don't think they should. But it would be wrong to try to scare them away from going by saying that they will be on the slippery slope toward atheism.

Rhetoric is defined as the "art or study of using language effectively and persuasively. There's nothing wrong with rhetoric by itself, but I think we need to respond to those who use rhetoric in a fallacious or even malicious way. I don't think Ken Silva was consciously using fallacious rhetoric against me. It's probably just a phrase he's used to using. I do, however, feel the need to point out the danger in that way of thinking, particularly when the person in question is approaching my blog and my brothers and sisters in Christ in an adversarial way.

[Tom]

Well Bill, with an attitude like that I can see why you were banned! ;-) (kidding!)

When I see someone in "attack" mode over some question of, or disagreement with, their beliefs it makes me think they are insecure. If you don't validate what they think or say it becomes a personal thing, rather than an exchange of ideas or rational debate. Since I don't have the stomach to deal with that nonsense, I give you a lot of credit for trying to remain civil.

[deborah]

Laura, I hear what you are saying, and agree. I've been looking into the ec not to completely move over into that camp but because evangelicalism needs revision. I can think of just as many problems with the ec as I can with the evangelical camp.

I believe that the enthusiasium the emergants have, some of their ideas, ways of worship and their holistic view of faith can all be great assets in the future of the church. Unfortunately, there are people in both camps who not only dismiss those in the other, but actually say that they are on the road to hell. And again, that is just silly.

Warnings can be good, but there is a fine line between a good-faith warning and being alarmist.

At the same time, there are some warnings that the ec group should look at and figure out why people are concerned. Often we open ourselves us to certain critisms and we should always examine to see if there is a basis for the concern.

[Lauraconk]

Bill,
No I don't even know who Ken Silva is or that he has a website. I'm sorry you've been banned! You did help me to better understand your response, however. And I agree with Tom, in consideration of that fact you responded with great tact.
It sounds like he cares about you, and regardless of that...
I care deeply about you guys and want to see you experience Christ in a way that is fulfilling to you and pleasing to Him! That's all :)

[george]

Going back to your very first post on this subject... Let me ask.

If you've "turned from" or "left" "fundamentalism" doesn't that mean you have "gone" or are "going liberal"?

Maybe that oversimplifies it but it seems to me that EC embraces an enormous amount of liberal theology but for some reason are afraid or unwilling to call themselves liberal. If you're liberal be honest about it and proud of where you are, if liberalism is a bad thing then don't embrace it. It seems like even liberal theologians talk in code. They will speak of Jesus but when you force them to define their terms they are not speaking of Jesus in the way we "narrow minded fundamentalists" speak of Him... as LORD and saviour. They don't believe for example that Jesus death on the cross is necessary as payment for our sins but you would be hard pressed to get them to come right out and say that.

I may be a bit off-topic here but that's really your concern about the slippery slope isn't it, that if you abandon one part of "orthodox" Christianity you'll be accused of going down the slippery slope to liberalism?

I love you with all my heart regardless of your theology but I would guess from what you've written in some places here on your blog that you have more in common theologically with Bishop Spong right now than you know. That concerns me.

I think the EC puts more emphasis on feelings than facts. They seem to be more interested in making everyone "like them" than in preaching the word in season and out of season.

Will that be a slippery slope away from the "true faith" or will that bring you closer to the Lord, I can't say but from my experience, I've never seen anyone embrace liberalism and end up in a good place with God. Hopefully in your case you are experiencing God in a new and closer way and learning to serve Him and love Him more.

[Bill]

George,

Thanks for your concern and the spirit in which your comments were written. Here's my best attempt to clarify where I see the EC coming from:

A lot of the thinking in the EC is based on a postmodern critique of both the conservative AND liberal ways of approaching theology. Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism, by Nancey Murphy, talks about how this works. I had her as a professor at Fuller and I will readily admit that it was not easy to follow everything we talked about! Nonetheless, I think I understand some of the basic principles.

Liberal theology, for example, looks to experience as a foundation for knowledge while conservative theology looks to scripture as a foundation. Postmodern philosophy, however, has levelled serious criticisms at this modern concept of foundations (called "foundationalism"). The outcome is non-foundationalism, which says that you don't "need" a foundation. Therefore, both perspectives are wrong.

I don't know that I've explained that well, but we can talk about itmore if you want. Also, if you click on my Philosophy category, you can read some posts that I've written on this subject.

You wrote: "...it seems to me that EC embraces an enormous amount of liberal theology..."

Maybe you could give me an example or two and we could take it from there.

[Bill]

Deb

You're either in or you're out...either for us or against us.

See how I can change the rules depending on who I'm talking to, George?

(just joking everybody)

[Lauraconk]

I would think being foundationless would be a liberal embrace in and of itself. Every building needs some kind of foundation... whether it's poured, brick built, or on stilts... how do you build anything strong on ... nothing?? That's hard to figure. Jesus is foundation...it's all about Him. Scripture, as well as experiences, are my building and they firm my love and relationship with Him.
There's virtually no point in my reading Ms. Murphey's work if you took a class with her and still didn't completely follow her :)) So, you'll have to try to explain this concept better yourself since you brought it up ;) (even though you weren't talking to me)

[deborah]

So, does that mean I can't post here, are you going to ban me?

George, I know that you are addressing Bill but I'm going to stick my 2 cents in anyway. From what I understand, and Bill-correct me as needed, the ec started as a bridge between denominations and isn't supposed to be about doctrine. The conversation is supposed to be between people who believe different (non-salvational) things, about reaching more people for Christ and living a more holistic and missional life. The result would be people who don't just do church on Sunday, but are the church everyday.

Now as soon as group forms that says they don't want to get into the details of doctrine, certain other groups of people start jumping up and down and yelling ecumenicalism and liberalism I know because I have been in church meetings where this literally happened, it is kind of fun, like a backwards pentecostal celebration. I think that the charge against ec'ers about being too liberal is because (most) people in it don't actually talk about what they personally believe (IMHO). Therefore, they are seen as believing nothing. Now this is where the discussion under this post crosses with the one on EC Weaknesses.

In their zeal to cross doctrinal beliefs as a reaction against statements of faith that were/are becoming more and more detailed, they seem to have thrown out acceptance of any statements at all (the baby out with the bathwater).

Now, please don't misunderstand me, I think that there are vocal people in the ec who believe stuff I disagree with, who believe things that are wrong. I also think they are often deliberately evasive to spur conversation, and should take a stand on some points of doctrine. But I also don't believe that the ec is inherently left or that the people in it or conversing with it are automatically liberal, becasue I'm not.

Sorry to take up so much space here Bill!

[Bill]

Laura,

Believing in foundational truth isn't a conservative or a liberal thing. It's a Modern thing. Here are links to the series I wrote about knowledge/truth from a non-foundational point of view:

A Web of Beliefs
Which Web?
Lakatos on Theology
Which Tradition?

Sorry to just redirect you like that, but it's a lot easier than trying to re-explain in this small space. If you just want to read the first post (A Web of Beliefs) that would probably give you the gist.

[ken]

I would just like to add that I tend to shy away from using labels like 'liberal' to describe my position because there are a lot of assumptions that go with that label. Labelling one's beliefs inherently lumps you in with, and commits you to concepts and ideas you may not necessarily agree with. I usually find myself somewhere in the middle. I find things in both camps that I like...and dislike.

There have been numerous times when one or another EC speaker has been used as an example of why EC is wrong. I would just like to remind those reading this that the same can be done for fundamentalists. Does Pat Robertson represent you? Should fundamentalism be condemned based on the actions and opinions of that man? I would say no, but it is easy to do. Some might call it a 'slippery slope'. ;-)

I don't know that anyone on this blog (and correct me if I'm wrong Bill) is truely EC so much as seeking a balance of good ideas from both camps. Again, it is easy to label Bill (and others here) as 'liberal' or EC. But they are labels that don't necessarily apply.

[Bill]

Deborah,

As you know, the problem with saying what the emerging church is about is that there are so many different strands of the EC out there. I think your basic assessment is pretty good, with maybe two points of disagreement:

1. Doctrine is discussed, it's just that there are no doctrinal boundaries set on the "conversation."
2. These include issues pertaining to salvation.

I would also add that what I'll call "the postmodern critique" is a big part of it. I put it that way because I think you can learn from postmodern thought without becoming an extreme Postmodern.

I love this phrase, by the way: "like a backwards pentecostal celebration."

[Bill]

Ken,

You make some good points about labels. I know I have resisted labelling myself as part of the EC, but it's difficult to explain why. I would prefer to call myself just a Christian, or post-evangelical, or post-conservative. I would rather deal with issues one at a time rather than get lumped into a category.

At the same time, I would say that I AM truly EC. But that's basd on MY definition of what it is! ;-)

[Tom]

I agree with Ken; I don't consider myself liberal in a theological sense at all. However, I am liberal in my desire to learn how people experience and worship God.

The amusing thing to me is how the EC movement seems to be like any other Christian "group" ( fundamental, evangelical, etc) in that within the EC there are different factions which disagree with each other. The amusing part is that the "mainstream fundamentalists" can band together very effectively to criticise EC, but I wonder how chummy they would be if discussing their OWN doctrinal beliefs. ( How do YOU define gifts of the Spirit? Sprinkle or full immersion baptism? Speaking in tongues? Women as pastors?)

God knows what's in a persons' heart and I trust Him completely to sort the wheat from the chaff.

[deborah]

Bill, sorry, when I wrote the ec "isn't" supposed to be about doctrine, it should have been "wasn't". As far as I know, the ec originally wasn't supposed to engage salvational theology as much as determine how to be missional. But there are groups that do discuss salvational theology within the ec.

[deborah]

I tried doing a trackback, and failed. So FYI: I fleshed the my thoughts that I had summarized in my earlier comments in a post here: http://smallcorner.typepad.com/d/2006/08/where_the_emerg.html#comments

[Bill]

You may be right in what you're saying about being "missional." As you know, it's a difficult subject because there are diverse opinions about what it means to be EC!

I don't know if this fits into what you're saying, but it has always bothered me when people assume the EC is about reaching out to postmodern people. I've never looked at it that way. I've thought it as, first and foremost, a way to better understand the gospel from a postmodern perspective. In other words, I don't want to reduce it to the latest way to do evangelism. Does that make any sense?

Finally, I think people may have tiptoed around salvational issues in the past, but I'm forecasting that you will be seeing more and more talk about it. A couple books come to mind: Brian McLaren's "The Last Word..." and Spencer Burke's new book "A Heretic's Guide to Eternity."

[Bill]

Thanks for the link (you shameless promoter of your own blog). ;-)

[deborah]

I agree Bill, the longer the ec is around, the more likely they will be to produce statements of faith.

[Bill]

I think that people treat the EC as if it were a new denomination. My thought is that it should be viewed as a cross-denominational conversation or movement. Therefore, neither the EC or Emergent will have a specific statement of faith per se.

I think the closest they come is to say, "We affirm the creeds."

[deborah]

I would agree with you Bill, even if I didn't word it as clearly as you.

[Bill]

George (and others),

You might want to check out my new post about a book called How (Not) to Speak of God. There is another thought about how the EC strives to be neither conservative nor liberal.

[george]

Here is a quote from Bishop Spong. Please tell me in your opinion would the EC agree or disagree...

speaking of the story of Jesus birth Spong says

"It is the beast of literalism that must be purged so that the depth of truth contained in these narratives can be rescued and heard in our generation." (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism pg 215)

I feel based on things I've read here on your blog that either the EC, Fuller, or you would basically agree with his statement and see "literalism" as the greater danger.

[deborah]

George, you seem to have the continuing misunderstanding that the ec is a denomination and therefore has a statement of faith, rather than a cross-denominational movement of individuals of differenting beliefs who are discussing their differences, and working together despite them to accomplish the work of Christ.

[ken]

You also seem to think that just because one person from the ec circle believes one way that we all agree.

I ask you, do you stand behind and agree with everything that Pat Robertson says and does?

[Bill]

From what little I know about Spong (including your brief quote of him), I think people in the EC would tend to disagree with him. From what little I know, Spong seems to be a thoroughly Modern liberal theologian who desires to demythologize the Bible. He probably approaches the Bible from a thoroughly naturalistic point of view, which is not what I or others in the EC desire to do.

Is literalism a danger? Yes, I think so. Literalism causes people to come up with all kinds of wacky interpretations of the Bible (imo). We have to be careful to take a lot of things into account when interpreting scripture (i.e. context, intent of the author, genre, and other variables).

[deborah]

And for the record, I would disagree with Spong as well.

[Tom]

SO you're saying this debate isn't Spong-worthy?

:-O I crack myself up!!

[Tom]

Does typepad really think a robot would post the nonsense I write? What a pain.

[Bill]

You mean you're not a robot, Tom? Oh, that explains a lot.

[Lauraconk]

I think my brain cannot conceptualize people of vastly differing belief systems TRULY working together without having to give up or compromising their beliefs. It's like the yoke deal... if you're straddled next to a person and supposed to be missional together, but the two of you don't actually hold the same beliefs... well, while you could meet people's physical needs and maybe some other needs.... what does reaching them spiritually look like? You referred earlier in a comment to Deb that those differences could also be regarding issues of salvation... how does a conversation that contains multiple and varying views actually make any amount of sense to an "outsider"? What is it exactly that they could grab hold of and believe in and be transformed by? I'm really not understanding what this looks like.

[Lauraconk]

Wouldn't a robot smart enough to write a comment be able to read 6 letters as well???

[deborah]

Laura, it was actually Bill that ec'ers are willing to discuss matters that are salvational.

Personally, I am enought of a fundamentalist to believe that there are certain things that are salvational. And I agree with you that it is very hard for a saved and unsaved person to work together in witness - I don't think it can happen, and then it becomes a conversation between a saved and unsaved person.

But people who don't believe the same things, even salvation things, can work together and do good things. There is an interfaith food pantry that I'm thinking of as an example.

My point about the beliefs being different but the people working together were non-salvational were more like the Christians who believe that women shouldn't wear pants, or drink or have to pray with their hands in the air, or believe that we should only sing hymns, or women can be pastors or that no one under the age of 12 can enter the sanctuary or that Revelation is literal. The bottom line is that we believe in Jesus and none of our differences result in us going to hell, so why can't we work together to witness, to improve water quality, to drill wells in Africa, etc? What unites us should be stronger than what divides us.

[Mr. Roboto]

Thank you Laura, we rarely get the credit we deserve.

[Bill]

Laura,

You wrote: "...how does a conversation that contains multiple and varying views actually make any amount of sense to an 'outsider'? What is it exactly that they could grab hold of and believe in and be transformed by? I'm really not understanding what this looks like."

My next series (starts here) might help to clarify this. For some of us, the conversation is more about how to believe than what to believe. That doesn't mean it's not important what you believe, however.

[Bill]

Deb,

You wrote: "Personally, I am enought of a fundamentalist to believe that there are certain things that are salvational."

1. When you refer to yourself as a fundamentalist, what do you mean?

2. What do you mean by saying "there are certain things that are salvational?"

[deborah]

By fundamentalist I mean that do believe that there are certain things that you have to believe in order to be considered a Christian in my view. I personally hold to the apostles creed, with the exception of the "decending into hell" line. If you don't believe that Jesus is the son of God, who died and rose again and that we should be followers of him, then I don't think I could consider you a Christian, as Christian is a Christ follower. There are a lot of other doctrines that are not salvational and therefore I wouldn't condemn anyone to hell for what they believe about them.

That Jesus is the son of God, and died and rose again and that we should follow him would be what I would consider salvational.

[deborah]

I would also affirm the Nicene Creed as you do, but I wasn't raised on it so it doesn't come to mind like the Apostles Creed.

[Bill]

I ask because to me, being a fundamentalist means so much more than that. My opinion is that the whole fundamentalist project was and is fatally flawed. I also think that there are too many negative connotations associated with the word in this day and age.

When you say "salvational," I think issues having to do with salvation. That's why I didn't understand what you meant originally. I understand now that you're talking about doctrine someone needs to believe in order to be "saved." What I was originally saying was that issues related to salvation are up for debate in the EC, such as:

1. The nature of hell and heaven.
2. The manner in which individuals come to be "saved."
3. The meaning of being "saved."
4. The place of personal salvation in the "gospel."

And I could probably go on. In my view, we still have so many questions to struggle with (and probably always will).

[r]

I find it very interesting that those isues are a struggle for some.
1. what do you mean "nature of heaven and hell"? There is a heaven a hell and you will go to one or the other depending on #2
2. Individuals either believe Christ died and rose again as thier way into eternaty or not. "I am the way the way and the truth no man comes to the Father except through me".
3. When you understand and except #2 there is no question about #3
4. The gospel is as explained in #3, personal because you believe it is for you and not just a generic "the world" (john 3:16)

[Bill]

r,

Here are some questions I have about each category:

1. Do you think heaven and hell are physical places? What is the Bible actually speaking about when it refers to each of these?
2. What does it mean to believe? Is it simply mental consent? Is salvation simply agreeing to a statement about Jesus?
3. Is salvation just about going to heaven when you die?
4. Is the main thrust of the gospel the salvation of individual souls? Or could it be more about the redemption of the cosmos, as John 3:16 possibly alludes to?

These are some of the questions related to "salvation" that are discussed by people in the EC.

[r]

Yes they are physical places, just look at all the referances in scripture that describe each place, to me believing and faith are very alike, faith is believing without seeing (which saved and unsaved exercize everyday)
When you are saved its a conscience decision to recognize your a sinner and that you need a savior, so its more then just excepting Christ and who he was and is but a personal application of that.
To begin with salvation is about not going to hell, thats just the beggining when you are filled with the Holy Spirit at the time of salvation He reveals to you the intimate relationship we have with God, but its our responsibility to cutivate that relationship, He is always there, we need to be availible and open to hearing Him.
In my opinion and interpetation, we were lost due to sin, Christ made a way for us to be with the Creator, He redeeemed us, so inafect its both individual and cosmos but cosmos comes later when Christ returns and establishes the new earth and new heaven. This may raise some questions but does it matter to me, no, because I have faith that the Almighty is in control and my responsiblilty was/is to except His free gift of eternal life or not.

[A]

I will begin by admitting that I have no idea what BJ is talking about half the time. I love to study philosophy of religion in general, but have never had the chance to really study Christian philosophies in depth. I will say, however, having taken many religion classes, that it is precisely those kinds of questions (asked above in Bill's last post) that one needs to be seeking answers to if the rest of the world is to be saved (or maybe "reached" is a better word). I know from experience that many people are turned away from Christianity because of Christians' tendency to disregard or brush off such crucial questions and instead keep reiterating the same basic (albeit fundamental) doctrinal beliefs like a broken record. The rest of the world knows "John 3:16" by now, but they need to know that Christians don't just stand around saying it back and forth to eachother.

[A]

Our "responsibility" is far greater than just making a choice. We have to be able to share that choice in an informed and logical way.

[r]

there is a differance between knowing John 3:16 and believing it and making it personal. A, your are correct in saying our responsibily is greater then just making a choice, that is just the beginning. Perhaps I am naive when it comes to this but the gospel is not supposed to be "logical" (thats where the greeks got it wrong) it is simple and all about faith. When you say informed please tell me what you are looking for?

[Bill]

r,

At first I was going to respond to what you're saying point by point. I'm afraid this will turn into a debate that misses the original point I was trying to make, though. I don't think we know all there is to know about these things and I believe it makes sense, therefore, to discuss them. As a matter of fact, I think some of our views about salvation have been negatively affected by various cultural and philosophical factors.

As A has pointed out above, these are serious matters to people. Unfortunately, our answers are all too often oversimplified or just plain wrong.

[Bill]

A,

Thanks for your insights.

[d]

I wanted to see if you could clarify something you said earlier: "What I was originally saying was that issues related to salvation are up for debate in the EC".

These are issues that are up for debate, but not everyone in the ec is debating them, would that be correct?

[d]

I wanted to see if you could clarify something you said earlier: "What I was originally saying was that issues related to salvation are up for debate in the EC".

These are issues that are up for debate, but not everyone in the ec is debating them, would that be correct?

[d]

AAARRRGGGGG!!!!!! The word verification thingie keeps getting hung up and then I hit post again then I end up with my comment printing 2 times!

Bill, you know you can turn of the verification thing right? You have that power.

[r]

Which points are you talking about, the original post or what we are talking about today?

[Bill]

Deb,

It would probably be difficult to make any universal statements about the EC. I have to assume that not everyone in the EC is debating issues pertaining to salvation.

At the same time, doesn't that seem like a pretty central thing to be discussing? I think I would be bothered if some of the questions I mentioned never came up.

P.S. I don't see anywhere where I can turn off verification.

[Bill]

r,

I'm talking about the issues related to salvation that we've been talking about.

[deborah]

Bill, try Weblogs/Configure/Feedback, under Typekey Authentication - select Off. It seems to have worked on mine.

[Bill]

I did that.

[deborah]

Sorry.

[deborah]

I did some further research and you can't turn it off. And how's this for off topic?

[Bill]

I think you're really a robot, sent by anti-EC forces to divert this conversation! ;-)

[deborah]

So what is the meaning of being saved?

[Bill]

"to rescue or deliver from danger or harm"

That may seem like a flippant answer, but that IS the meaning of the word after all. I think we make it too narrow by applying it only to individual peoples' souls being resuced from Hell.

[Tom]

"I think we make it too narrow by applying it only to individual peoples' souls being resuced from Hell."

Bill, do you mean too narrow in a theological sense? I've always believed that it is exactly what is meant when a Christian speaks of being "saved". Do you have a different meaning or interpretation?

[deborah]

So what other danger or harm other than hell is refered to if we are saved?

[deborah]

And am I going to get banned soon?

[Tom]

YOu can't be banned 90% of the posts here are yours.

Unless you're a bot that Bill has deviously devised to create more "conversation" ...

[Bill]

lol...Nobody's getting banned tonight.

I think we are saved from sin, from ourselves, from a life not lived to the full to name the first things that come to mind. We are also saved TO righteousness and good works.

But I think salvation goes beyond the individual level as well. God's plan is to save (redeem) all of creation.

[A]

In response to an earlier post, when I said "informed", I meant "logical", and vice versa. To say that the gospel is not "supposed" to be logical is confusing. I don't know exactly what you mean by that because there is nothing "illogical" about it. But regardless, we are not prevented from discussing it logically, using our GOD-given intellect (as well as our hearts and souls) to discern truth (or at least approximate it).

[deborah]

Bill, I think I mostly agree with you so fa (hows that for vague).

So, what must I do to be saved?

[george]

Bill said "God's plan is to save (redeem) all of creation."
Does that mean everyone goes to Heaven, no matter what they believe?

[Bill]

Deb,

As Jesus said, you should keep all of the commandments. If you've done that, you must then sell everything you own and give the money to the poor...oh, and you should follow Jesus. (see Mark 10:17-22)

[Just Me]

Why are you purposely misunderstanding what was said? Or are you "being funny?" Romans 8:19-21 tells us that all of creation is waiting to be "liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."
(italics added)

[Bill]

George,

No, I don't think so. One can never be too sure what God might do, however.

[deborah]

I don't know Bill, I think that the way you interpreted Mark 10 doesn't fully take into account the context: that we can't keep all of the commandments, and that Jesus had that all-knowing thing going on and knew that the in the man's heart money was more important than Jesus could ever be.

So when Paul is asked the question in Acts 16:30-33, why does he skip the commandments and selling everything?

[Bill]

Maybe the way to salvation changes depending on the audience?

Hopefully you know that I'm playing with you. I think it's funny, however, how quickly we dismiss or explain away the parts of scripture that don't fit neatly into our systematic theologies, isn't it? I'm not saying you're doing that, by the way (but I'm also not saying your not). ;-)

In the passage I mentioned, I think the key is the last part...following Christ. Does that involve confession of sins and forgiveness that only he can give? Yes. Does it involve faith in Jesus as the Messiah? Yes. Does it involve giving up things and acting righteously? Wait a minute. No, that's going too far. It's just about faith. It's not a "works" thing. Right?

[ken]

Ok. It is one thing to draw fire by accident. It is a completely different story when you intentionally try to draw fire. ;-)

[deborah]

Sorry Bill, maybe because it is too early, but I didn't get that you were playing with me. (that is one of the problems with the internet)

I agree that we often dismiss the parts of scripture that don't fit. One of the things I like about the ec is the tie between faith and works. If we have faith then we need to work.

[Bill]

Some of the questions that have been "fired" at me lately cause me to want to respond playfully (a code word for sarcastically). Perhaps I'm beginning to understand why some Emergent leaders are known for "dodging questions."

[deborah]

At the same time, if you had answered my question instead of playing, we could have skipped 8 comments. (and I worked on that sentence for a while to make it sound nicer and failed, I really don't mean it in a nasty way)

But from your perspective, I wasn't the only one asking questions, it might be overwhelming for you.

I'm still going to ask questions when I have them, sorry.

Look at the bright side, this all has to upped your google status!

[Bill]

I welcome questions, I just don't want this to become the Inquisition of Bill Blog!

I don't think those extra comments were necessarily a waste of time. If I seem to resist answering questions with a straightforward answer, it's probably either because I:

a. don't have a straightforward answer
b. don't like the question for some reason
c. am not entirely sure what I believe on the subject

Or, you never know...it could be because:

d. I'm a sarcastic, reactionary, know-it-all.

Although selection "d" is probably true, I hope I don't come across that way too often!

[ken]

Coming to you this fall it's:

"The inquisition of Bill"

"The inquisition... have a snack,
The inquisition... watch Bill crack"

(Lame attempt at a Monty reference and new theme song)

See Bill put on the verbal rack of pain as he's questioned and badgered from all sides until he finally snaps and becomes... a fundamentalist (ooohhhhh). lol.