Something I have noticed is that being able to discuss material issues relative to Calvinism, Arminianism, Wrightianism, Barthianism, Torranceanism, etc. etc. is really an exercise in political and rhetorical maneuvering more than it is material conceptual maneuvering; in other words, actually engaging material things like: doctrine of God, informing metaphysical schemas, informing exegetical concerns, informing hermeneutical commitments, informing socio-cultural situations—none of these things really seem to be at the bottom of most discussions in this arena. For example, everyone knows me as someone who is predisposed to the teachings of Thomas Forsyth Torrance (and some of Barth), and also of John Calvin (as my header image currently hints at); and so anyone who has only heard funny things about these teachers, or are followers of other teachers who are at odds with the teachers I like, well, then, I cannot really get a good hearing (nor can others, potentially, get a good hearing from me) precisely because of the politics and connotations that have built up around such teachers and their followers over the years.

But, is what I am getting at, is this the Christian and ethical approach to engaging others? I know that there are all kinds of issues driving this kind of political posturing when we engage others within the fold of Christianity (theologically and biblically exegetically, that is). We are busy, we are doing real life, real ministry; and thinking deeply enough about real life exegetical and theological issues requires more time than we have to give to something. So instead of carefully considering other positions, we categorize (caricature) positions (and teachers associated with those); we often times give a yes (from the Lord), or no (demonize) to the category or caricature; and then we use this as a hedge to protect ourselves from actually having to engage other positions, with the posture that we already have, since we can throw out labels and names as if we have actually engaged said position. It is true, no one has the time to sit around all day everyday (unless you’re a PhD student 😉 ), and contemplate every theological position under the sun (with depth); but at the same time, it is never good to simply tar and feather teachers and positions without at least giving something a real hearing (i.e. going beyond the lazy man’s caricature approach).

Just reflecting. And by the way, I write this mostly to me; I am very guilty of doing just what I am writing of at various points. I know some could say that I have done this with my obsessive critiquing of classic Calvinism. Indeed, I will admit, at points, I have been guilty of caricaturing the classic Calvinist, etc. My intention is to give that position, and others, a fair hearing, and avoid caricature. I think all of this just boils down to a posture of humility; that we need to approach positions with this attitude. That is not to say that we cannot strongly disagree or speak against various positions and teachers within the church; but it is to say that we ought to consider what these teachers teach (and even preach) before we offer any kind of critique (or we shouldn’t create straw people).