As I have tried to sort out how GodBlogCon came to be weighted so far to the American, conservative Calvinist Christian evangelical viewpoint, I’ve decided that there were some immediate challenges that can be addressed for the future and some problematic purpose-driven issues that won’t be as easy to resolve. Some have questioned why it makes any difference as to the balance of Calvinists and Arminians. My own view, right or wrong, is that many Calvinists place more emphasis on God’s judgment over God’s grace. Calvinists seem much less likely to support government programs such as affirmative action, many forms of which I am for. In my view, many Calvinist bloggers, more than their Arminian counterparts, ascribe to almost a “civil religion” form of Christianity. (As I’ve stated elsewhere, I don’t think national flags belong in the sanctuary.)
First obstacle, Hugh Hewitt. To his credit he is very talented, committed time and energy and helped directly or indirectly with finances. He was a big draw for many conservative evangelicals and I’m glad for his involvement. By all means he should have been there. However, Hewitt is so firmly identified with conservative Republican politics and harshly critical of Democrats (as in his book, “If It Isn’t Close, They [Democrats] Can’t Cheat), that without a liberal evangelical counterpart to Hewitt, the convention inevitably became identified with the U.S. Republican party.
However, I’ve concluded that there is a broader issue that will have to be resolved if more Christians who are also liberals or Democrats or from other countries are to be involved. That issue is the purpose of the convention. The stated purpose included learning the basics or enhancing the art of blogging at various levels. The convention was to be a place to exchange ideas. All of that has happened, and for the good.
However, from talking to many individual bloggers and listening to several of the speakers, it is clear that many consider the purpose of the convention to be organizing the blogosphere to be more effective in transforming culture. There are many things I don’t like about modern culture. I think folks are too materialistic. I think too many people are paid unjust wages that aren’t living wages. The problem is that the great majority of the bloggers in attendance have greatly different priorities than I do as to how culture should be transformed. I don’t see homosexuality as a big issue and indeed think society would be better off to encourage monogamous committed gay relationships for those who make that choice according to their orientation. I think the U.S. and some of its allies rushed off into a foolish war in Iraq.
So, if the emphasis of GodBlogCon05 and any future conventions is to learn how to blog effectively, how to attract a readership, along with the promotion of dialogue among Christian bloggers from various backgrounds — Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, etc., conservative or liberal, political or apolitical, then I think GodBlogCon has the greatest opportunity to grow.
However, if the main purpose is to organize bloggers to transform culture, the convention will remain overwhelmingly as it is in makeup. A few liberals, such as myself will continue to show up and be welcomed. And if greater efforts are made to explain that the convention isn’t tied to any one political ideology, then a few more liberals or those from other countries will probably attend. But once the greater purpose is to “organize” bloggers as a power for change as opposed to gathering for dialogue and learning, then greater diversity won’t be achieved. Because such power will often require political action to accomplish goals I sometimes disagree with (not always; I’m opposed to abortion, for instance), such as who sits on the Supreme Court, what the schools teach about evolution, banning of gay marriage and often civil unions as well, labor, health care, etc. then GodBlogCon will never well serve the needs of many of us more liberal evangelical bloggers.
Doesn’t Christ call us to that very transformation? Yes, indeed, but as long as there is such disagreement on how to achieve personal and social holiness, or even what that would look like, it might be better to have the main emphasis on the how-to’s of blogging, perhaps with no more than 10-20% of the time set aside for bloggers to attend separate “organizing’” workshops that would be in line with the goals they would want to see. In that way, those of us Christian bloggers who support government efforts to raise minimum wage or to hold down health care costs might caucus together, while bloggers who want limited government, even to the point of libertarianism, could caucus together.
And again, I’d like to thank Matt Anderson for going out of his way to make sure bloggers could get around, know what is going on, feel welcome, etc. Thanks also to all the Biola students whose names I can’t remember who have also done so much work. I’ve had a lot of fun and learned much.
Published 3 years ago
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Joel,
I didn’t know you were liberal. I thought you were, like allthings2all, an enlightened conservative, who had more clarity, being at a distance.
I am a conservative, who grew up in the Mennonite church, and believes in social justice. I have been influenced by Calvinists. I honestly don’t know who’s right, between the Calvinists and Arminians. Both/neither. I find Godbloggers seem more preoccupied with being right than doing right.
*******
I lean toward pacifism, but am not always totally sure I’m right in that. (The case of Hitler always comes up.) When I read a post like Pyromaniac’s recent diatribe on pacificism, calling it immoral and unethical, I am not inclined to identify myself as a Godblogger. (Previously, he tore apart Ron Sider’s latest book.)
I think I would like Phil in person. However, he entered the blogosphere, was given a Warnie award within a week or two, got blogrolled en masse, and linked ad infinitum. He sees things in black and white, is open to dialogue, but only so he can verbally hit his opponents over the head.
Unfortunately, watching this scenario unfold (I only began blogging in May ‘05) gave me the feeling that the dominant Christian blogosphere (male, Republican, Calvinist, American) probably does not respect the intellectual validity of my beliefs.
I have no complaints about the Godbloggers. I just think I would not fit at their conference.
I am sorry you are not an enlightened conservative.
THere is still time.
**************
My latest post is about being nonplussed when a Hindu hair stylist told me my son had Down syndrome because of our sins in a past life. I was fearful of even posting this, for fear a Godblogger would condemn me for not having a glib answer for this woman.
Eventually, I processed the issue. The reality is, many parents of children with special needs have to work through guilt feelings early on. Did we do something to cause our child’s disability? THis is not uncommon. Eventually, I realized this is why she left me speechless. She was plumbing into those old questions. It was not about Christianity vs. Hinduism.
***********
My commenters are always extremely kind. I have a deep appreciation for them. But maybe the Godbloggers should be aware about the tone they set for smaller bloggers. Don’t set our views up as straw men in your blogs.
Joel,
Sorry if my comment sounds a little discombobulated. I guess my point is, if Godbloggers want to pull a wider range of Christian views into their conversation, they have to create an atmosphere of respect for differing opinions.
When I sing “Faith of Our Fathers,” I (partly) think of Anabaptists being martyred (by Calvinists) for their faith. (See Martyrs’ Mirror)Which included adult baptism, serving the poor, nonresistance, Arminianism, etc.
Whether I agree with their doctine totally or not, they are to be respected.
I am not sure who the Calvinists are that you refer to, but he genuine Calvinist places emphasis on scripture as the literal inerrable revelation of God’s word. It is the bible that tells us of the true nature of God’s grace as well as the inescabable reality of his judgement.
Hi Joel,
I’d like to thank you for your thoughts. The first step of getting are more diverse crowd is folks like you who are willing to come and challenge the overall makeup of the current crowd. (You are helping us achieve a broader audience simply by being here- thank you!)
There was an attempt to reach out to more politically liberal bloggers- there was a big effort to get Arrianna Huffington to come to the convention- and hopefuly such an attempt is still there. We welcome your thoughts and opinions, even if they challenge us.
Thank you for your thoughts,
Curtis
Hello Joel,
I can certainly appreciate all that you have shared here in your blog post. There are political and religious issues and differences that Christians have to face on almost a daily basis. You mentioned that you believe some are more pressing and important than others (e.g. homosexual issues less important than the war in Iraq) and maybe you are correct to a certain degree. However, when a small group of elitist politicians (the CA legislature) set a goal to change the definition of marriage over the objection of the majority who VOTED against ‘gay’ marriage (as in CA’s Prop. 22 passed by 62% of voters in 2000), it is THEN that I think that the checks and balances of our democratic republic become most needed and meaningful. Gov. Arnold did the right thing. It is evident that he decided this issue based on political rather than moral reasons. He was correct to allow the voted in proposition to stand vs. caving in to the liberal democratic majority of legislators that would have usurped the voters wishes on this issue.
I have the kind of blog where some liberals occasionally post and we often get into some heated discussions. But I try to keep it civil. Sometimes I fail (as we all do), but the beauty of the blogosphere is that this is how we learn. No one will ever be the “perfect blogger”. But I do think that the give and take can be very helpful in developing a dialogue between those whose views happen to be polar opposites. As posters get to gradually know each other through conversation, we develop a kind of community between each other. As an example, even if we are polar opposites in worldviews, if one of my visitors is sick or disappears from blogging for a while we all worry about him or her! John Mark Reynolds mentioned something similar last night during the panel discussion.
I can certainly understand your feeling “outnumbered” by the conservative bloggers who showed up at the conference. I had a similar feeling when I joined a breakout group that appeared to be filling up with only male bloggers! As one of only two females in the room, I wondered if my questions and comments would be considered valid and/or welcomed by the majority. I quickly realized that my fears were totally unwarranted because I was not made to feel inferior in any way.
The panel last night was really good and very informative. The few people who were chosen out of the audience to speak and ask questions were good and added a lot to the panel conversation.
But I could not help feeling that something was missing.
I would have liked to have also heard questions/comments from some of the ordinary Christian ‘lay’ people bloggers who attended the conference. I could be wrong about this, but it appeared that many attendees were hailing from the more “professional” realm of bloggers and not from a group that might be considered just a beginner in the blog world and ordinary homemaker like myself.
One question that I would have liked to have had the opportunity to ask the panel was, “If you had to choose just two Bible verses to describe the purpose of your blog and/or motivation behind your blog, which verses would you choose and why?”
Mine would be:
2 Timothy 2:15 NKJV - Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
and
Colossians 2:8 NIV - See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
I’m curious. Which verses might you select for your choices? I wonder which verses other Godblog attendees might have chosen?
As Christian Godbloggers, I think that we could all agree that the person of Jesus Christ and God’s Word should be our ultimate purpose and motivation within our blogging efforts, even if we have disagreements politically and/or denominationally (e.g. Calvinism vs. Armenian). Amen?
In Christ’s service,
Christine
What good is it calling yourselves “Christians” if you are gun-carryiers/owners, executioners of prisoners, if you let 25% of your own “Homeland” go without health care, if you support a puppet called Dubya who robs two elections, illegally invades a soveriegn country claiming, first WMD threats then “regime change” leading to 100,000 plus dead Irakis and VERY nearly 2,000 dead poor Americans (taken from among that 25% of poor people of course), if you support a tax system which has seen billions given back to billionaires and billions taken away from the rest, whilst squandering ( deleted: BD……..)a huge budget surplus, turning it into a record deficit etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. (deleted: BD)
Paul: I deleted some of your post. Caps are yelling, the site policy in on the side. Play nice.
I was puzzled by your comment that Calvinists emphasize God’s judgement over his grace, but the Calvinists that I know, in the tradition of Reformed Theological Seminary, Westminster, and Covenant, emphasize God’s grace. It is by God’s Sovereign grace that anyone is saved, our works add nothing, and even our faith is a gift.
Also, most of us believe that the Church is a seperate kingdom, and the American flag has no place as well in the church. Maybe your definition of Calvinists (authors, please) would be helpful. Would that include John Murray, John Calvin,John Frame? Help me understand.
Hey Joel,
I’m sorry I didn’t get the opportunity to say a proper hello. I was looking for you this morning for breakfast (Hugh was wanting to meet you) but didn’t see you again until you were going into Josh’s session (at which time I had to do a phone interview).
Glad you were able to make it. Hopefully, you’ll be able to meet again at the next one in August.
Joe,
Unfortunately I have narcolepsy and that somewhat limits how many hours I can stay awake even with a double dose of Provigil. I was sorry to miss breakfast, and in fact missed part of the first breakout session but was thankfully able to attend all of Josh Claybourn’s session, which was excellent in both its points and organization. Also, because of the death of a much beloved nephew in a tragic auto accident last month, I am still not in the best of spirits, so my attempts to interact with people were less than they might have been otherwise.
Maybe I’ll see you next year. There’s a good chance I would attend again.
Brother Joel,
Sitting in a college cafeteria with you discussing these things reminded me of sitting with fellow students at Pacific Lutheran (too) many years ago, talking about the religion or sociology course we were sleeping/arguing/sweating our way through.
The Word says Jesus was “full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14,17) If we’re going to reflect Christ in the blogosphere, we should be full of both grace and truth too. If we fail this part of Christ’s character individually, perhaps we represent it collectively.
WRT transforming culture, Jesus transformed individually (the woman at the well, the old theologian Nicodemus), and he taught corporately from the mountaintop and as he hung on the tree. His social justice transformed the blind and lame and diseased by restoring them to health, but also called men and women to go and sin no more. If Christ is the head of this Body we call the Church, you’re right in saying that we all have a role to play. No single facet of Christendom, Armenian, Calvinist or other, can capture Christ completely any more than one Gospel writer could.
At the risk of sounding simplistic, GBC should be at the business of learning to use blogs to love God with our hearts, souls, minds, and collective strength, and loving our neighbors as ourselves.
Hope you’ll keep in touch.
Grace and peace,
db
I am sorry about the death of your nephew.
Joel,
I enjoyed meeting you (and I will likely enjoy reading you in the future). However, the liberal/conservative theme may have been influenced by your choice of breakout sessions. 2 of my 3 sessions (theology and philosophy) didn’t really touch on those issues at all. In some of the full group/plenary session, the assumption of uniformity of position is probably due more to due to how much the liberals and conservatives mix and discuss their differences so infrequently. Which is why it was so good that you came. Both sides tend to demonize their opponent, which is not useful for anyone.
I have to say, while I’m conservative, I’d agree there is too much emphasis on homosexuality on both sides. Actually I think that there is too much emphasis on sex, which I think is the crux of the matter.
Joel,
I was wondering if you attended Dr. Muehlhoff’s breakout session which focused on how to respond when non-Christians read your blog.
It was unfortunate that we lost a lot of time because it got moved to an office location.
Were you the guy seated at the end of the black leather sofa? I was at the other end of the sofa and I brought up the blog posting/comment conflict that turned ugly between some members of the gay community (one stated she is Christian and lesbian) and the leader (and several supporters) of an ex-gay ministry.
If you would be open to it, I would like to ask you a question. It is a question that so far, hasn’t been answered satisfactorily by any Christian who believes (as I presume you do) that a person can be gay and Christian.
Thanks,
Christine
Christine,
Yes, I was the one sitting on the sofa. And I’m quite serious with my claim that my gay sibling may very well be in a closer walk with Christ than mnay other Christians. But that isn’t really for me to say. Or you, or Bene, for that matter. We can decide what is and isn’t sin, but we cannot know that someone who claims to be a Christian isn’t, in my opinion.
I don’t think any answer I gave would be acceptable to your beliefs and I just have to accept that. However, for you to get some idea of the kind of approach I take, I would refer you to United Methodist pastor and professor Walter Wink, whose article on the Bible and homosexuality can be found at http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm. (Bene has links disabled because of spam, so you’ll have to paste the link.) I have no illusion that the article would persuade you of anything, but Wink puts things better than I could.
Let’s suppose that I considered homosexuality a sin. By your reasoning, I would also have to say that every person who fought on the side of the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War and didn’t repent for doing so wasn’t a Christian, either. Some people consider any use of alcohol to be a sin. Would we say that an unrepentant beer drinker couldn’t be a Christian? Or that all the people who professed to be Christians but supported segregation weren’t really Christians? (Even Billy Graham originally accepted racial segregation for his revivals before seeing the light. If he had died before then, would Graham not have been a Christian?)
If repentance must be perfect in order to be saved, then no one will be saved. All of us will be mistaken in believing that something we did was acceptable to God when it actually wasn’t. If we aren’t a Christian on that basis, then we are all doomed, I would guess.
Thanks for the question!
But I haven’t asked you the question yet!
Sorry, Christine, I read your comment a little too speedily. Ask away!
I went to the website you recommended and read the Campolo post. I have heard of him before and some of what I have read has labeled him a heretic guilty of blasphemy and apostasy. We won’t go into all of that here. But I do want to address the one sentence in Campolo’s post that I think relates to my question.
Campolo:
“We have not reached a consensus about who is right on the issue of homosexuality.”
How one reaches the answer to “who is right” requires proper Bible exegesis. Man can take any Bible verse and turn it into “what is right in his own eyes.”
A good example of this is a website called “The Skeptics Annotated Bible”. I used to post at their message board but found it fruitless, to say the least. However, there is another website that completely refutes every point made by the Skeptics Annotated Bible people!
Why did I bring this up? Because we could post opposing theologians views and opinions about how to deal with “homosexuality and Christianity” all day and never come to a consensus. So what is left? We MUST rely on God’s Word and the original meaning at the time the Scriptures were written.
Applying “modern” science (which is often skewed to present the pro-homosexual side of the issue) and/or opinions could be very appealing to your side of the argument, however, it does more to damage the original exegesis of Scripture than it does to accurately portray it. In fact, you could go to a secular site called NARTH and find many point by point refutations of Campolo’s opinions through the scientific studies done by that organization.
Before I present the question, I want to clarify my position for you.
We can’t pick and choose which sins we need to repent of and which sins we don’t need to repent of. I can back up these statements with Bible verses for more clarity. Just let me know if that’s desirable or necessary for you.
In the Christian faith, “just praying for God to love you” is a great prayer, but it is insufficient. I say this, again, in accordance to what Jesus said in the Bible. He told us the need to repent of our sins. Repentance means confessing and turning away from our sins. In his many encounters with individuals caught in sin (e.g. the adulterous woman), he did not accuse her (as the many men who wanted to stone her attempted to do). He did use this incident as an object lesson to show the need for ALL of us to repent of sin (he who is without sin may cast the first stone). Each person was forced to drop the stone they held in their hand and leave because they were convicted of their own sin by Jesus’ words. Jesus then turned to the woman and asked her, “Where are your accusers?” She said there were none. Then Jesus said, “Then neither will I accuse you. Go and leave your life of sin.”
He didn’t condemn her because condemnation was not his purpose at this time. However, he didn’t condone her sin either. He SPECIFICALLY SAID, “GO AND LEAVE YOUR LIFE OF SIN.”
She left the scene a changed woman.
You see, this is different from what you claim. Yes. Christians do occasionally fall back into sin because we still have to deal with fleshly desires here on earth, however, the attitude is one of genuine desire to stay away from those sins. Why? Because we know that Christ died for them! They do not claim that they can still lead a life of sin in an unrepentant manner and/or even celebrate a specific sin. Only repentant sinners will inherit the kingdom of heaven, not those who engage in it willfully, which is an act of defiance against the grace God gave through Jesus Christ. This is where we get the saying, ‘God forbid’ from. It was written by Paul on the very subject of willful sinning in the light of grace, mercy and forgiveness through the cross of Christ.
In another incident in Scripture, there was a woman who had a continual physical problem with her menstrual cycle. She had such faith that Jesus was the Messiah prophecied in the Scriptures, that she believed (noticed, she believe FIRST and then was healed) that if she could just touch his robe that she could be healed. The encounter as recorded in the Bible tells us that Jesus felt energy leave him (shows he was both God and man) and asked who touched him. This wasn’t because he didn’t know. It was in order for people to see this miracle of healing.
There are thousands of ex-gays who have experienced a similar kind of miracle of healing through Jesus Christ. Non-Christians and gay-theology Christians might not want to recognize this fact, but it is undeniable.
Back to the woman.
Later in Scripture we find her annointing the feet of Jesus with a very expensive perfume and wiping it off with her hair. Why did she do this? In those days, it was a great gesture of respect and reverence. It also showed her greatfulness for his mercy towards her. She knew who Jesus was and believed in him even before her physical healing and before Christ’s death and resurrection even happened! She received that physical healing immediately, but, more importantly she also received spiritual healing from the Savior.
I know that it is not considered politically correct today to tell people that they are under condemnation if they do not repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of their lives. Each of us have the choice to accept or reject the Gospel, but there is no “inbetween” state or gray area within this choice.
Unfortunately, there is a “seeker sensitive” Christian movement out there that promotes such an idea (e.g. like Bill O’Reilly’s comment to “let the Deity sort it all out.”) The trouble is, God has ALREADY sorted it out! And he has told us through the Person of Jesus Christ and His Word, the Bible. We are told who will inherit the kingdom of heaven and who won’t.
I am very grieved about the deception that I see people falling for in this world; specifically because they don’t know Jesus Christ or His Word, the Bible. I realize who is really responsible for these deceptions, but many people don’t believe that God’s adversary even exists. Therefore, many do not see the deception that he spiritually tempts and involves them in. Jesus addressed satan as a real being in Scripture. There are those who consider all of this a myth. It is one of the adversary’s greatest tools of deception.
Satan is a spiritual being who is “out to get all of us” and he DOES often use people who don’t know Christ for his evil purposes! It is wise to know the Scriptures, what Christ has said and done for us and God’s purpose as revealed in the Bible, in order to be able to discern truth from error in the people we meet who claim to be Christian.
When people are coming from the opposite sides of the religious, political, ideological, and moral spectrum, it is difficult to do anything more than to “agree to disagree” because, logically, both cannot possibly be correct. Relativism flourishes today because it allows for religious pluralism which allows for people to choose “what is right in their own eyes” rather than what God’s Word would have us do.
So, the questions still remain. Is there such a thing as moral absolutes? Is there such a thing as absolute truth? If so, then how do we determine this? What criteria must we use?
These are deep philosophical, moral and spiritual questions. How one answers them determines what one believes and ultimately, in Whom one believes. Our eternal destiny depends on how one answers such questions.
I see the liberal left churches falling into the trap of ‘gay theology’ deception. I know that you will vehemently disagree with what I just wrote. But that leads us to the question I have for you.
“I truly wonder how such a bitter conflict between the liberal church ideologies and the bible-based born-again evangelical church views can ever be solved?”
Christine,
The articles(s) I pointed you to are all written by Walter Wink, not Tony Campolo. The only involvement of Campolo is that Wink points out that Tony Campolo comes out on the side that homosexuality is a sin and his wife is on the side that it is not a sin and yet they remain in love with each other and married to one another. They are not the writers of the article, though –Wink is.
Your question is too “loaded” for me to answer. It amounts to what lawyers joke is the leading question on the witness stand, “when did you stop beating your wife?”
Your question assumes, by my account, that you believe in the Bible and I don’t, that you are born again and I am not, that you are evangelical and I am not. When it starts out that way, I’d agree that I’d prefer to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Reconciliation? That comes from the power of the Holy Spirit even more than of human endeavor. Thankfully, my relationship and walk with Christ is not dependent on your assessment of my spiritual state.
Blessings to you.
Curtis, Chuck, Mark and Don,
Thanks so much for your comments. I enjoyed my interactions with all of you that I met at GodBlogCon. I wish I had more time for interaction, but now I am behind on church work and must fulfill those obligations first.
It is good to have all the great comments and questions and I am very grateful that you stopped by to read. I’m very honored by that.
Hi Joel,
I apologize for the mistake I made regarding the author of the article.
On the contrary, I wasn’t accusing you of being a person who doesn’t believe in the Bible. I have no way of knowing whether or not you have been born again. I wouldn’t know if you consider yourself evangelical. I wasn’t questioning your personal state of reconciliation with God or where you stand as far as salvation is concerned.
The question I posed was more general than that. Think of it this way. How do we reconcile the differences between these two camps of thought? Both cannot be correct. How do we find out which one is right and which one is wrong? Where do we go for such information? How do we interpret it?
I can understand your ambivalence about not answering the question. So far, I haven’t found anyone willing to do so. It always seems to end the same way. Agree to disagree. So be it.
Take care,
Christine
Although I believe in absolute truth to the extent that God reveals same, I also believe that we “see through a glass darkly” and will not know fully until we see face to face. That is why faith is necessary now but won’t be needed in heaven.
Until then, all we can do is be in prayer, read and study the Bible, worship, and be in dialogue with each other.
Again, there are some things that only God can reconcile.
Thanks for your kind words of condolence regarding the death of my nephew. That means a lot.
I do appreciate your taking time to comment. I should also note that I don’t fit in a “box” as I don’t fully align with liberal positions and often support positions considered conservative. I tend to accept the label “liberal” because that is how I will be described whether I want to be or not.