Your post here reminded me of a thought process I went through at the time of my conversion. I was a homeless, itinerant hippie and came into the Church from the outside in 1975. My salvation experience was spectacular enough to get me thinking I should go to Bible college and become…something. I was given advice from various directions, suggesting I pursue a trade instead. This I did, enjoying a career in the construction trades as a plumber. I also heard from God that when I was done with my career, He would have something else for me to do, which I am now in the middle of. I would not change anything. It has been quite a ride.
I'm also involved in F3 and appreciate hearing about your successes with the group.
Regarding theology, I tend to agree with your way of thinking here. On the one hand, as someone not raised in the Reformed tradition and initially highly resistant to its soteriology, I eventually had to concede that I can't find any other way to make sense of the text, that none of the alternatives are satisfactory. It's difficult for me to see how its opponents can be anything but wrong.
But I can absolutely see that not everyone is going to subscribe to the Reformed view. That it's a stumbling block for some that are otherwise on fire for Jesus. And, within certain parameters, I think that's probably OK. I think, all things considered, the diversity of Christian forms in the US is more good than bad.
Like you, I also approach infant baptism pragmatically. I've studied the arguments, but I'm not convinced that there's a definitive Biblical answer here. And when I researched the history, it seems that universal infant baptism is something that arose after 200 AD (per Tertullian). The earliest knowledge we have is that there was already a lot of diversity of opinion on the matter.
I was baptized by full immersion in late childhood, and I remember it fondly. In a society already lacking in rites of passage, I think it's a shame for a man to not remember his own baptism, and to perhaps be able to draw strength from it. A full immersion is also a much more powerful aesthetic, in my mind, than sprinkling an infant. It evokes a direct link to Jesus and his followers. But unlike how I think about soteriology, I consider all of this purely a matter of parental judgment.
Sounds like a lot of agreement! Yes, I think one of the important things is what I was explaining to a friend over dinner recently. He described gradually shifting theological convictions to end up at the "right" denomination (a small and relatively narrow one). I happen to like all those denominational distinctives, but I resisted calling it "right." Frankly, I don't want to condemn 99.9% of Christians who won't ever be in the type of church I'll be in. I think I church that ticks all those boxes is doing great things and ministers to me, but narrow, highly intellectual churches just won't be for everyone. Many, like those just trying not to fall back into an addiction, need a church with a simpler focus and broader appeal, like many other American evangelical churches.
This requires me to hold theological distinctives more lightly and see the place of the rest of the body of Christ, including even megachurches, seeker-sensitivity, and all the stuff I "left behind" in moving towards Reformed churches.
When speaking on F3, you say “While I hope and pray that these men will believe in Christ, it is more important, to begin with, that they begin to live Christian lives.”
I’m just confused by the sentence. I don’t assume that you consider it more important to live like a Christian than be saved by faith in Christ - but that seems to be what you’re saying here(?).
Good question - I’m saying that, while traditional evangelism would urge these guys to become professing Christians before moving on to anything else, F3 uniquely introduces the demands of discipleship first. (Check out the QSource, the F3 guide to being a leader.) I’ve seen this develop in people an openness to religious topics that is significant, not to mention friendships with Christians. It’s actual lifestyle-evangelism. (At least one guy saved so far. ;) )
More generally, I think we need to resist thinking that getting saved is possible apart from the living of a whole Christian life. In the Reformed tradition, Turretin called good works the way and means - though not the ground - of salvation. I’m suggesting that that insight should restructure our evangelistic efforts!
There’s certainly a difference in how believers (new hearts w/ the Spirit) and unbelievers (hearts of stone) will approach the matters of ‘discipleship’ - but I do love the aim of welcoming non-Christians to taste as much of God’s kingdom/lifestyle as possible. What better thing could they spend their time immersing themselves in!! (So long as they don’t think ‘by doing this I AM a Christian and am already saved’ I suppose.)
I read a great book a decade or so ago called The Cruelty of Heresy. One of the things I appreciated about it is that it talked about how Christianity may have been a very different religion if, say, Arianism had won out. Many of these distinctions don't seem to have practical applications in the immediate term, but I think they can have a profound effect on what the church ultimately becomes.
Were the founders of F3 actually Christian? The guy who runs it today is a Mormon.
The founder, David "Dredd" Redding, is an evangelical Protestant! "Dark Helmet" is a Mormon, and your interview with him was how I heard about F3.
That's a great point from "The Cruelty of Heresy." But I think with some of these smaller offshoots, it's less plausible that their theological distinctives are of such importance. Especially with doctrines that are have been more or less set in stone for a millennia and a half. I'm persuaded that Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons, or Christian Scientists, for example, who first come to know Christ through their church may be forgiven for inheriting the flawed doctrines with which their churches package the gospel.
With Mormons, it is more plausible that a kind of legalism is their greatest fault, something on which they don't have a monopoly. Plenty more orthodox Christian churches make the same error. You also argued once that the Mormons might have a better model of leadership, with which I am inclined to agree!
Your post here reminded me of a thought process I went through at the time of my conversion. I was a homeless, itinerant hippie and came into the Church from the outside in 1975. My salvation experience was spectacular enough to get me thinking I should go to Bible college and become…something. I was given advice from various directions, suggesting I pursue a trade instead. This I did, enjoying a career in the construction trades as a plumber. I also heard from God that when I was done with my career, He would have something else for me to do, which I am now in the middle of. I would not change anything. It has been quite a ride.
I'm also involved in F3 and appreciate hearing about your successes with the group.
Regarding theology, I tend to agree with your way of thinking here. On the one hand, as someone not raised in the Reformed tradition and initially highly resistant to its soteriology, I eventually had to concede that I can't find any other way to make sense of the text, that none of the alternatives are satisfactory. It's difficult for me to see how its opponents can be anything but wrong.
But I can absolutely see that not everyone is going to subscribe to the Reformed view. That it's a stumbling block for some that are otherwise on fire for Jesus. And, within certain parameters, I think that's probably OK. I think, all things considered, the diversity of Christian forms in the US is more good than bad.
Like you, I also approach infant baptism pragmatically. I've studied the arguments, but I'm not convinced that there's a definitive Biblical answer here. And when I researched the history, it seems that universal infant baptism is something that arose after 200 AD (per Tertullian). The earliest knowledge we have is that there was already a lot of diversity of opinion on the matter.
I was baptized by full immersion in late childhood, and I remember it fondly. In a society already lacking in rites of passage, I think it's a shame for a man to not remember his own baptism, and to perhaps be able to draw strength from it. A full immersion is also a much more powerful aesthetic, in my mind, than sprinkling an infant. It evokes a direct link to Jesus and his followers. But unlike how I think about soteriology, I consider all of this purely a matter of parental judgment.
Sounds like a lot of agreement! Yes, I think one of the important things is what I was explaining to a friend over dinner recently. He described gradually shifting theological convictions to end up at the "right" denomination (a small and relatively narrow one). I happen to like all those denominational distinctives, but I resisted calling it "right." Frankly, I don't want to condemn 99.9% of Christians who won't ever be in the type of church I'll be in. I think I church that ticks all those boxes is doing great things and ministers to me, but narrow, highly intellectual churches just won't be for everyone. Many, like those just trying not to fall back into an addiction, need a church with a simpler focus and broader appeal, like many other American evangelical churches.
This requires me to hold theological distinctives more lightly and see the place of the rest of the body of Christ, including even megachurches, seeker-sensitivity, and all the stuff I "left behind" in moving towards Reformed churches.
When speaking on F3, you say “While I hope and pray that these men will believe in Christ, it is more important, to begin with, that they begin to live Christian lives.”
I’m just confused by the sentence. I don’t assume that you consider it more important to live like a Christian than be saved by faith in Christ - but that seems to be what you’re saying here(?).
Just seeking clarity here!
Jed,
Good question - I’m saying that, while traditional evangelism would urge these guys to become professing Christians before moving on to anything else, F3 uniquely introduces the demands of discipleship first. (Check out the QSource, the F3 guide to being a leader.) I’ve seen this develop in people an openness to religious topics that is significant, not to mention friendships with Christians. It’s actual lifestyle-evangelism. (At least one guy saved so far. ;) )
More generally, I think we need to resist thinking that getting saved is possible apart from the living of a whole Christian life. In the Reformed tradition, Turretin called good works the way and means - though not the ground - of salvation. I’m suggesting that that insight should restructure our evangelistic efforts!
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarity :)
There’s certainly a difference in how believers (new hearts w/ the Spirit) and unbelievers (hearts of stone) will approach the matters of ‘discipleship’ - but I do love the aim of welcoming non-Christians to taste as much of God’s kingdom/lifestyle as possible. What better thing could they spend their time immersing themselves in!! (So long as they don’t think ‘by doing this I AM a Christian and am already saved’ I suppose.)
I read a great book a decade or so ago called The Cruelty of Heresy. One of the things I appreciated about it is that it talked about how Christianity may have been a very different religion if, say, Arianism had won out. Many of these distinctions don't seem to have practical applications in the immediate term, but I think they can have a profound effect on what the church ultimately becomes.
Were the founders of F3 actually Christian? The guy who runs it today is a Mormon.
The founder, David "Dredd" Redding, is an evangelical Protestant! "Dark Helmet" is a Mormon, and your interview with him was how I heard about F3.
That's a great point from "The Cruelty of Heresy." But I think with some of these smaller offshoots, it's less plausible that their theological distinctives are of such importance. Especially with doctrines that are have been more or less set in stone for a millennia and a half. I'm persuaded that Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons, or Christian Scientists, for example, who first come to know Christ through their church may be forgiven for inheriting the flawed doctrines with which their churches package the gospel.
With Mormons, it is more plausible that a kind of legalism is their greatest fault, something on which they don't have a monopoly. Plenty more orthodox Christian churches make the same error. You also argued once that the Mormons might have a better model of leadership, with which I am inclined to agree!