What is God in Character, Sovereignty, and Rule?

What is God in Character,

Sovereignty and Rule?

by R.E. Slater

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

What is Divine Sovereignty?

Here are several definitions of God's sovereignty. As a process theologian I work within a panentheistic framework and not a theistic nor pantheistic framework. Most of the definitions given below are from a theistic framework although I like how John Paul II expresses sovereignty as a dual relationship between God and creation.

In the kind of Process theology I have been forming (and yes, there are many kinds of process thought, not only Christian but Islamic, Jewish, Asian, etc) has come up from the Reformed side of my Baptist faith. I began with Arminianism and uplifted it into Open and Relational Theology then completed it as an Open and Relational PROCESS theology.

I have written past articles on sovereignty but as the years past my processual understanding grows with the subject. For today's purpose I have provided a simple definition and then have given my reasons for this definition. See what you think.

- R.E. Slater

Commonly - The sovereignty of God is the fact that he is the Lord over creation; as sovereign, he exercises his rule. This rule is exercised through God's authority as king, his control over all things, and his presence with his covenantal people and throughout his creation.

Lutheranism - The major components of the biblical concept of divine sovereignty or lordship are God's control, authority, and presence (see John Frame, The Doctrine of God, 21–115). His control means that everything happens according to his plan and intention. Authority means that all his commands ought to be obeyed.

Calvinism - The sovereignty of God is the same as the lordship of God, for God is the sovereign over all of creation. The major components of God’s lordship are his control, authority, and covenantal presence.

Arminianism - To Arminians, then, the decision to believe and repent is a decision which a sovereign God granted to humanity. Thus, free will is granted and limited by God's sovereignty, but God's sovereignty allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist.

Catholicism - The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) express the concept of God's sovereignty as his rule over his creation, allowing human libertarian free will and co-operation with him: "God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures' co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God's greatness and goodness. God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, [...]".

- John Paul II 1993, Section II, Ch. 1, Article 1, §4 Providence and secondary causes, item 306.

Eastern Orthodoxy - In general, Eastern Theology places much more emphasis on human freedom and less on God's sovereignty than do the Augustinian and Reformed strands of Western theology. Orthodox view of human free will is close to the Wesleyan-Arminian view. - Fairbairn, Donald (2002). Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes. London: Westminster John Knox Press.

Process Theology - In Christian freedom, God is sovereign, but it is a sovereignty of love, not a sovereignty of control.

God's Sovereignty is One of Love - 

Not Power. Not Control. Love

by R.E. Slater

The Christian message I grew up with was one that I consider a terrible teaching to children and teens. I don't think it has changed much today. My faith now has no hell, hades, or purgatory in it... if these eternal states are real they must exist during our earthly lives such as seen with the poor innocents of Gaza, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Central America, and within America.

For God to be a God of love people say he must be just and avenge sin and evil. The Bible shares these thoughts of God's character in its passages time-and-again... that the God of the bible is a God of violence, ruin, and destruction. In fact, the bible ends on this "high note" of ruination and damnation in the last book of the bible, Revelation, completing its journey started at Adam and Eve's exile from the Garden of Eden.

Meaning, God's love is not unlike our own human emotions projecting our forms of justice upon the world so that we feel safe, secure, and free to live in peace and serenity within our communities.

This is how American evangelicalism projects itself. Full of guns, retribution, and revenge. It is little different from Islam's violent Jihadism.

And then Jesus comes along and says to the keepers of Torah - the priests, scribes, and later, rabbi's, of the first century - that their stories of Divine Imprecation and  Judgment speaks to their version of God and not to Jesus' version of God.

Said Jesus, "God's sovereignty doesn't rest on Might and Power but upon the weakness of Love" in so many words. That is, Jesus rejects the Temple's kind of Judaism and shows how God serves, sacrifices, shares, listens, heals, renews, and redeems. Not unlike Judaism's Old Testament (OT) God on his best days - but quite unlike their Warrior God which they have cultivated into their theology and deeply care about... needing it to be true as they live under the unwanted, secular reign of a foreign power known as Rome.

And thus, over the centuries since Jesus' coming, the better, humbler elements of the church seeks to be, and enact, love... but under Catholicism, Reformation Protestantism, and Orthodoxy we see the Wrathful-God-version of the OT overtake the Loving-God-version of the New Testament (NT) as read in the texts of Paul, Peter, John, and so on.

So what version of God is God?

Is God a God of damnation and hell? Or a version of Jesus's Loving Redeemer?

I, for one, might answer this query in a number of ways but the one answer I like most is the one stating that the narratives in the bible speak to the religious mindset of humanity at the time... which also includes the church ages after the NT in its own interpretations of the bible... including our own religious mindsets today.

And if I extend God's Spirit of inspiration from the Bible till now as an everyday common occurrence between men of any faith and God, then I have the foundations to question why our stories favor a Powerful God over a Loving God?

When looking around at the films, movies, and TV stories out on cable; or the best sellers and popular classics on the bookshelves and libraries; or the sports and SciFi genres of digital games; nothing seems to have changed in human cultures. We seem to be a violent species which find it difficult not to be us. And we have made of God a violent Power as an idol to ourselves.

As with Jesus - when teaching the OT - I find a deeper, more fulfilling inspiration of the Spirit in retelling the narratives of the bible using God's Love as the seed, theme, and outcome-objective of the story even as Jesus, Paul, and the apostles sometimes did. Otherwise, the spirit of this world will act according to itself and the outcomes in Revelation will be as real now as they been many times over in history.

Somehow, in our storytelling and worship, we must fill God's majestic holy Sovereignty with Almighty Love and not vengeful justice... which is unloving and unGodlike. For instance, I can teach "the Day of the Lord" all day long but ultimately it means God cleans house first with his people before judging the wicked and unjust.

The prophets warned of lusting for a God of justice over a God of love. Why? Because what we teach others is how we will learn to act. If we teach a violent God, then violence will be part of our life-character. And if teaching a loving God, then lovingkindness will become a part of our demeanors and relationships with others.

It seems to be a choice God has given us when sending Jesus and asking whether we will humble ourselves and repent and follow him - or stiffen our resolve to become our own God and see all of life as a tit-for-tat, eye-for-eye, struggle for supremacy over another. Which, in stark proverbial undertones, smacks of foolishness and unwise behavior.

This does not mean worshipping a loving God dispenses with justice... but  it does mean that we dispense a "measured form of justice" that is restorative and renewing amid the many sordid evils abounding around us.

If we follow a God of love and not a God of wrath and judgment it means that a civil society might have a better chance of acting civilly with one another. And in doing so this will greatly help a civil society - such as America's Constitutional democratic society - to lean into its idealism of designs and purposes when worshipping a God of love rather than a God of wrath and judgment.

R.E. Slater

February 22, 2024

Additional Reading Material - 

A Relational View of God’s Sovereignty, Roger E. Olson

My office phone rang and I answered it. A stern voice said “Is this Roger Olson?” who which I confessed. The man introduced himself as pastor of Baptist church in the state, implying that he was a constituent of the seminary where I teach. Anyway, I got the message. “I hear you don’t believe in God’s sovereignty,” he declared. I responded “Oh, really? What do you mean by ‘God’s sovereignty’?” He said “You, know. God is in control of everything.” I decided to play with him a little. “Oh, so you believe God caused the holocaust and every other evil event in human history? That God is the author of sin and evil?” There was a long pause. Then he said “Well, no.” “Then do you believe in God’s sovereignty?” I asked. He mumbled something about just wanting to “make sure” and hung up.

* * * * * * *

A Short by Rance

"God loves you so much that he sent his Son to earth to die for you so you can go to heaven where there are streets of gold and you get to worship him and throw crowns at his feet forever....

"But, if you don’t accept him and believe in him, Jesus will throw your ass (actually your whole body) into a lake of fire (or a fiery oven, or outer darkness, take your pick depending on which passage you read) where you will weep, wail, and gnash your teeth as you are actively tortured day and night for the next trillion trillion trillion years (and you’re just getting started at that point!)."

Says I, "What a bunch of crock! And it’s not actually what the Gospel is!"

"And if that message really was in the Bible, and if it was the [actual] Christian gospel - which it isn’t; just more bad superficial interpretation - I, for one, would never believe it.

"However, if indeed this was the true Christian message (actually read the book of Acts to see that this is not even close to what the message was), I’d immediately start looking for something else to believe because this is just too insane.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is a crock of manure."

Thomas Jay Oord - Process and Wesleyan Theologies

Process and Wesleyan Theologies

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/process_and_wesleyan_theologies

By Thomas Jay Oord

August 15th, 2011

Process theology is a way of thinking about God and the world that continues to attract Christians. Those who appreciate John Wesley’s theology are often especially attracted to process thinking.

Of course, no theology is perfect. Every theology – including Process theology – has flaws. We all see through a glass darkly. But contemporary Wesleyan theologians are attracted to Process theology for good reasons:

1. God is Relational

Process theology offers language and ideas to support the idea that God is essentially relational. Rather than being distant, aloof, and unaffected, Process theology affirms that God is present to each of us and all creation. God suffers with us all. Process theology supports the Apostle Paul’s words: “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation, consoles us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to console those who are in any affliction with the consolation with which we ourselves are consoled by God” (2 Cor. 1:3-4, NRSV). The idea that God is relational helps portray the covenantal and incarnational God the Bible describes. Although distinct from the world, God is in the world as one “in whom we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).

2. Prayer Changes Things

Process theology argues that prayer makes a difference both to us and to God. Our prayers affect the way God chooses to act. Many biblical stories tell of how God acted differently because people prayed. Process theology supports these stories, because God as described by Process theology sometimes acts differently because of what creatures do. For instance, the Lord told Isaiah to inform Hezekiah that he would die. But Hezekiah prayed that God would spare him, and God changed his mind, adding fifteen years to Hezekiah’s life (Isaiah 38:4, 5). Other theologies cannot account for a God who changes plans because we petition. They teach that God has the past, present, and future already decided and settled. Petitionary prayer makes no difference to the God who rigidly pre-determines all things. Process theology fits with the biblical revelation of a God who is influenced by our prayer.

3. God Made Us Free

Process theology emphasizes that we are free — at least to some degree. Our freedom is not unlimited, of course. Creaturely freedom is an important category for Wesleyans. It plays a crucial role in rejecting predestination and in placing blame for sin on creatures. Joshua understood the importance of free responses to God when he told the people, “choose this day whom you shall serve… but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15). John Wesley called this “free grace”—God’s free gift and our free response. He even sounds like a Process theologian when he says, “Were human liberty taken away, men would be as incapable of virtue as stones. Therefore (with reverence be it spoken) the Almighty himself cannot do this thing. He cannot thus contradict himself or undo what he has done.” Overall, I know of no better conceptual scheme for affirming the Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace – with its view that God acts first and provides freedom to creatures for response – than the Process tradition.

4. God is not Responsible for Evil

The significance of creaturely freedom, as Process theology understands it, solves the problem that atheists claim remains the primary reason they cannot believe in God: the problem of evil. Process theology blames free creatures and the agency of creation for genuine evil. According to Process theology, God lovingly gives freedom and therefore neither causes nor allows evil. It affirms with James, “God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one,” but that “every good and perfect gift comes from above, coming down from the Father of Lights” (1:13b, 17a). Process theology rejects John Calvin’s idea that God is the source of Adam’s sin. In sum, many believe that that Process theology provides the best solution to the problem of evil.

5. Community and Individual Matter

Perhaps no theological tradition better grounds the Apostle Paul’s view of the Church than how Process theology explains the centrality of relations and community. It takes with utmost seriousness Paul’s words that “we are members one of another” (Rm. 12:5). Process theologians lead the way in criticizing modern individualism, without rejecting the dignity and responsibility of persons in community. Process theology’s proposal regarding interconnections and interrelatedness is important for considering what it means to be the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-14). I know of no conceptual scheme that better describes how Christians are both persons and a relational community.

6. Contemporary Issues must be Engaged

Process theology engages the issues that characterize our postmodern world better than other theologies. This is especially true of contemporary science. It also deeply engages and effectively addresses environmental and ecological concerns. Process thought actively tackles the ideas of contemporary culture. Wesleyan theologians think engaging contemporary issues is crucial if Christians are to be salt and light in these wonderful and woeful days. Wesleyans and Process theologians want to “always be ready to make a defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you” (1 Pt. 3:15).

7. Love Reigns Supreme

The previous statements represent significant reasons many in the Wesleyan tradition are attracted to Process theology. However, I personally find Process theology most helpful as a resource for understanding Christian love. No other theology better describes God’s love as both creative and responsive. No other theology better makes sense of what Jesus called the first and second commandments (found in Matthew 22:37-40 and other gospels). No other theology better grounds Christian agape. Process theology is a first-rate theology of love, and it is little wonder Mildred Bang Wynkoop found it so helpful. If “above all,” Christians should “clothe themselves with love” because it “binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Col. 3:14), Christians should explore the fruits of Process theology.

Conclusion

Process theology also has weaknesses. As I said at the outset, no theology is perfect. And there are certainly differences between what some Wesleyans believe and what some Process theologians believe. We should not ignore them.

But Process theology’s central claims about God’s love, prevenient grace, creaturely freedom and responsibility, the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Church, etc., fit under the Wesleyan theological umbrella. There are good reasons many Wesleyans find at least some aspects of Process theology attractive.

* * * * * * * * *

Amazon Link

How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative Hardcover

by Roger E. Olson, February 19, 2008

Many people equate evangelical Christianity with conservatism in religion, politics, theology and social attitudes. Some are scandalized by any separation between them. As one evangelical pastor's wife declared to a church group 'We are a conservative people!' In fact, however, evangelicals have not always been conservative; radical stances on doctrines, worship, social norms, politics and church leadership have often marked evangelicalism in the past. The 2007 movie Amazing Grace about William Wilberforce's protracted battle against the slave trade featured a small group of British evangelicals committed to abolition. The same radicalism characterized much of American evangelicalism in the years before the Civil War. In recent years the American media have portrayed the evangelical movement as a conservative force in society sometimes equating it with fundamentalism and puritanism. The missing piece of the story is, however, that both fundamentalism and puritanism contained radical elements that opposed the status quo. This book sets forth evidence that the link between evangelicalism and conservatism has not always been as strong as it is today in the popular mind and it will provide suggestions for contemporary evangelicals who want to remain evangelical (and not become 'post-evangelical') without identifying with conservatism in every way.

Authorial Works by Roger E. Olson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_E._Olson

• Olson, Roger E. (1984). Trinity and eschatology : the historical being of God in the theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg (Ph. D). Houston, TX: Rice University.
• Grenz, Stanley J.; Olson, Roger E. (1992). 20th-Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
• Grenz, Stanley J.; Olson, Roger E. (1996). Who Needs Theology?: An Invitation to the Study of God's Word. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
• Olson, Roger E. (1999). The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
• Olson, Roger E. (2002). The Mosaic of Christian Beliefs: Twenty Centuries of Unity & Diversity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
• Olson, Roger E.; Hall, Christopher A. (2002). The Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Olson, Roger E. (2004). The Westminster handbook to evangelical theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
• Olson, Roger E.; English, Adam C. (2005). Pocket History of Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
• Olson, Roger E. (2005). The SCM Press A-Z of evangelical theology. London: SCM.
• Olson, Roger E. (2006). Arminian Theology: Myths And Realities. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
• Olson, Roger E. (2007). Pocket history of evangelical theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
• Olson, Roger E. (2007). Reformed and always reforming : the postconservative approach to evangelical theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
• Olson, Roger E. (2007). Questions to all your answers : a journey from folk religion to examined faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
• Olson, Roger E. (2008). How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
• Olson, Roger E. (2009). Finding God in The shack : seeking truth in a story of evil and redemption. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.
• Olson, Roger E. (2009). God in Dispute: "Conversations" among Great Christian Thinkers. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
• Olson, Roger E. (2011a). Against Calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
• Olson, Roger E. (2013). The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
• Olson, Roger E. (2014a). Arminianism FAQ: Everything You Always Wanted to Know. [Franklin, TE]: Seedbed Publishing.
• Olson, Roger E.; Collins Winn, Christian T. (2015). Reclaiming pietism : retrieving an evangelical tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Olson, Roger E. (2015). Counterfeit Christianity : the persistence of errors in the church. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
• Olson, Roger E. (2017). The Essence of Christian Thought : Seeing Reality Through the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
• Olson, Roger E.; Mead, Franck S. (2018b). Handbook of denominations in the United States (14th ed.). Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Amazon Link

 

Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today

by John Cobb, May 1, 1995

A distinguished thinker ponders the meaning of Wesley's theology.

John B. Cobb, Jr., draws on the historical, critical, and literary work that has characterized Wesley studies in recent years, but moves beyond them to propose one way of reconstructing and reappropriating essential elements of Wesley's thought in service of the church's life and mission.

When It Comes to Racism What Is Our Perception vs. Our Perceiving?

Perception vs. Perceiving

by R.E. Slater

Perception is all we know and it is happening in our consciousness. Perceived is therefore the same as perception for we can never ever be sure about the objective reality of the perceived.... Consciousness that does the perceiving is the only reality that we can ever know or be sure of. - Quora


When we perceive something, we become aware of or notice it. Sometimes we perceive things by using our senses of sight, hearing, and smell. Or we can use our mind to perceive things, which means that we are able to recognize or understand them. - Urban Dictionary

Today's post-truth societies writes its own narratives based upon its own agendas. Jesus said to love one another. If our beliefs are not humane, or humanely enacted, then we are not loving one another.

I've been thinking a lot about things over the years which is also why I've written so much. Except for today. I couldn't focus. The news continues to be exceptionally bad for a nation broken too many times. Without getting into anything, here is something I had worked on back in July of 2017....

"When writing, the best I can do is to expand people's ingrained perceptions knowing that for many, their perception is their reality.

"The term 'interprefacts' may be apt here when claiming perceptual 'truth-claims' as 'fact'. The point is, all claimed 'facts' are someone’s interpretation of reality, including 'belief-claims" in politics, religion, or the bible.

Whether we know it or not, we promote our own narratives at the expense of who we are. As Kurt Vonnegut once said, 'Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be.'

In another sense, 'Our beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals.' I think this is a wise observation. What this means is that outcome matters. What we believe produces good or bad outcomes.

Thus the necessity to examine one's beliefs that they error on the side of humanity. The tools we have at hand are always available - compassion, wellbeing, and care for the other. In Jesus' words, if our outcomes are less than humane than our beliefs must be adjusted 'ere we fall into blinded darkness.

R.E. Slater

May 27, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Clue: front "half" view or distorted
side view looking to the left?

The Power of Perception:

You ARE what others PERCEIVE!

http://minds2xcel.com/knowledge/2016/11/28/the-power-of-perception-you-are-what-you-are-perceive/

by the Knowledge Center

Perception is an amazing thing. A double-edged sword that can help you cut through the maze of social dynamics; or one that can cut you down to size. Forming a perception about someone or something comes naturally to us, and we do it subconsciously, whether you want to or not; or even when you tell yourself it is not the right thing to do. Let’s not deny this instinctive nature of ours, as it does help us make sense of our social environment, and of the person whom we are interacting with.

It takes just a few seconds to create an initial perception of someone. In quick time, this perception will become a “judgement”. Sometimes there are already preconceived perception biases existing even before the events happen. On this, I will share a little more on the research that I am conducting on perception bias.

Whether you are perceived positively or unfavourably, will suggest the level of difficulty for you “the perceived” to validate yourself subsequently. That is, if you are perceived positively in the beginning, it is easier for you to continue to reinforce that preception to create a favourable subsequent judgment.

Basically, how you come across to someone is defined through your ‘Presence’; how you ‘Behave’; and how you ‘Communicate’. I call this the “PBC”. This sums up a “persona” that you want others to see of you. Instead of an elaborate explanation, let me share a story to showcase what I mean:

I was posted to an overseas assignment several years back. During a visit from my family friends and hosting them to a sumptuous dinner and a night out to the city, our guests were immersed in the sights and sounds of the weekend city-life of the place. There were great scenery and beautiful people dressing to the nines for the weekend. In particular, we saw two exceptionally well-dressed ladies in the crowd. As our friends were appreciating and commenting on how good they look (there you are – our perception), we were drawn to witness a commotion between these 2 ladies in no time. They were hurling verbal insults at each other. We were obviously shocked. The way they behaved and communicated did not carry their Presence. All the ‘positives’ we perceived of them earlier on just disappeared. This disconnect in the persons’ “PBC” is obvious!

- KC (2016)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Disappearing Difference between Rhetoric and Argument

Patheos Link

by Roger Olson

July 10, 2017

Recently (during and since the 2016 U.S. presidential election) there has been a lot of “chatter” about “facts.” Someone publicly labeled a public truth claim an “alternative fact.” This neologism created a great deal of consternation, controversy, and more than a little tittering.

This event, or series of events, provoked me to think about truth claims, “facts,” and reality. Long before someone uttered the phrase “alternative fact” someone else said that “perception is reality.” I’ve uttered that myself in certain contexts. Some years ago the “sociology of knowledge” became interpreted by many intellectuals and academics as the “social construction of reality.” Others cautioned that the sociology of knowledge should be interpreted only as the “social construal of reality.”

For quite a long time now European and North American intellectuals (and please don’t think you’re not affected by what they think and say, something I’ll explain later here) adopted “anti-realism” or its softer version “critical realism.” The “social construction of reality” expresses anti-realism; the “social construal of reality” expresses critical realism. Both points of view accept the sociology of knowledge but with different degrees.

I long ago gave up any thought that “facts” (truth claims) match reality perfectly—as it actually is. I adopted a critical realism posture toward truth claims. All truth claims construe reality from within some narrative, some story about what is real and important, some perspective on “the world,” some point of view. As some thinker said, there is no view from nowhere.

I worry, however, that many people in the Western world (Europe, North America, places influenced by their intellectual trends) either 1) Don’t know or accept the inescapable social construal of reality or 2) Embrace the anti-realist social construction of reality view.

Some readers may know that much of what I am talking about here comes, at least partially, from American sociologist Peter Berger who died very recently. I was privileged, over the past two-to-three years to call him my friend. He initiated the friendship and I was simply “blown away,” to use an American colloquialism, by that. We met over lunch a few times, corresponded a few times, and he invited me to respond in a public colloquium or symposium to one of his last books. And he suggested to the editor of a volume of essays responding to that book that I write a chapter. By “friend” I don’t mean we were “chums” or “buddies” or anything like that; we knew each other and had some friendly social as well as professional interactions.

Through my friendly acquaintance and interactions with Berger, widely considered one of the “fathers” of the sociology of knowledge, I discovered that he was not, as many have assumed, an anti-realist. He believed, he told me directly, that there are methods of research, in sociology itself, that filter out bias, subjectivity and perspective. This felt a bit inconsistent to me—at least with many people’s interpretation of Berger’s sociology of knowledge epistemology.

It was not Berger, however, from whom I first learned about critical realism and the role that narrative, perspective, and social location play in everyone’s construal of reality. I first learned that, something I already suspected, from…(drumroll)…Wheaton College philosophy professor Arthur Holmes. In some of his writings (e.g., Contours of a Worldview) he used the term “interprefacts” for all truth claims. The point is that all “facts” are someone’s interpretation of reality. Holmes, an evangelical Christian philosopher who influenced two or three generations of Wheaton College students, and through his writings many others, was a critical realist. (I’m not claiming that he was always consistently that; I’m only saying that some of his writings seemed to me to assume that posture toward epistemology.)

Of course, as everyone who has studied these matters knows, a breakthrough classic of critical realism, if not anti-realism, was Thomas Kuhn whose book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) fell like a bombshell on the playground of the philosophers and scientists. Kuhn argued that, even in the “hard sciences,” there is no pure objectivity, no “view from nowhere.” Kuhn used the term “paradigms” for what sociologists of knowledge meant by terms like “perspective” and “social location.” All this is modern intellectual history.

Here’s the point and the “rub.” My own experience and observation of my culture—North American academia—leads me to believe that many people with tremendous influence—even where their names are never heard or known outside of academia—have adopted the belief that because of the sociology of knowledge, critical realism or even anti-realism (belief that “knowledge” never even comes close to matching reality-as-it-is if such even exists), because of the “social construction of reality,” all that’s left to us is rhetoric. The traditional ideas of “facts” and “arguments” are simply “old school thinking.” Since that is the case, many movers and shakers of culture believe, there is really no “line” between argument and rhetoric. All arguments (about what is the case) are actually only rhetoric and therefore….

Yes, what follows the “therefore?” Bear with me as I give an example in order to answer that question. A few years ago I met and had lunch with a man who is an executive of a major American “news” corporation that owns numerous “news” outlets spread out all over the United States and even the world. If I mentioned its name every reader would recognize it (or at least one or more of its news outlets—print or broadcast). This executive told me what I already suspected. A high executive of the corporation publicly stated to the people working under him that the purpose of the corporation, other than earning a profit, is to “promote our narrative.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I admire and respect that news organization executive for at least admitting the truth. But this is why I have largely given up reading, listening to, or watching news outlets. Most, if not all, are driven by some “narrative” which means, some perspective on reality that is tied to a particular group’s overall social location and agenda.

Now, some of you, my dear readers, might be thinking, and preparing to say that this has always been the case so why now stop reading, listening to, and watching the news? I believe there was a time in my life—long ago—when at least some journalists actually tried to deliver news objectively—without his/her delivery being driven by a narrative or agenda. Of course, I don’t believe there ever was a time when news was delivered in a purely objective manner such that the words being spoken matched reality perfectly without any distortion and without any perspective playing a role in how it was gathered and stated. But I think there was a time, even during my own lifetime, when most journalists and academics believed the “pursuit of truth” was worthwhile and that there was a real difference between rhetoric and arguments, between information and manipulation. Now, however, it seems to me that all news delivery includes blatant manipulation. If nothing else, the manipulation lies in delivering “news” that people want to hear or read and ignoring “news” that will harm ratings or readership. But I believe I detect also in it a not-very-well-hidden agenda to persuade readers and viewers toward a certain perspective on reality. In other words, much, if not all, “news” is really social engineering. Once your “eyes” are opened to it, you can’t miss it. It’s everywhere. We all know it’s part of contemporary advertising, but many people still dream that somewhere there is a news outlet that is dedicated to facts separated from any narrative.

So, do I blame the journalists? No. In fact, when I do watch television news (which is rare) I actually have feelings of sympathy for the talking heads, most of who probably know that what they are communicating under the guise of “facts” is really part of some nameless, invisible group’s social agenda rooted in a narrative about how reality is or should be.

Oh, I could give hundreds of examples. One very obvious one is how little we read or hear in American news about events taking place in Africa—unless it affects “American interests.” Do you want to know something about Africa? Watch Anthony Bourdain’s CNN series “Places Unknown.” It doesn’t even pretend to be news, but many of his episodes take place in Africa—from Libya to Senegal to Ethiopia to Zaire. From them you will at least realize what earth-shaking things are happening in Africa that you will never read about in or hear about on American news.

So, some of you will want to say “Watch the news on BBC!” and “Read The Economist.” I have; I’ve stopped. In my opinion, both are also driven by narratives and agendas and by people “at the top” who expect them to promote those narratives and agendas.

Some of you, at least, will think I am being “Chicken Little,” but I don’t think so. In fact, I will go further than Chicken Little and say that the sky has fallen already; it’s too late even to hope for a return to real concern with “the facts” separated from someone’s narrative and agenda. In my opinion, relying on memory and on things I have read about him, Walter Cronkite at least cared about the facts, about attempting to tell us Americans about the realities of world events.

Today, as I see it, the lines between argument and rhetoric, fact and persuasion, news and social engineering (and entertainment), have largely been erased both in academia (professional societies are driven by narratives and agendas that determine what is appropriate to think and say and what is inappropriate to think and say) and in journalism. Which means both are dead in any traditional sense.

If you want to watch a fascinating documentary that well illustrates the implicit anti-realism I am talking about, please get your hands on and watch the final episode of the series The Day the Universe Changed: A Personal View by journalist James Burke (1985). It is entitled “Worlds without End: Changing Knowledge, Changing Reality.”

What Evangelicalism Is and What It Isn't and Why It's Meaning is Being Mangled

By way of introduction, if I were asked whether I was "evangelical" or not I would need to consider the social context of the one asking this question. Historically I am, and always have been evangelical. However, with the rise of Trumpian Christianity my distance continues to grow rapidly apace from this secular form of religious expression. In my experience, those churches and brethren involved have been caught up in a movement that is very un-Christlike substituting statism and nationalism for Christ. This I cannot, and will not, submit too. It was one of the main reasons I began writing this blog ten years ago even before the idea of Trumpian Christianity was around. It's telltale signs and evidences lay everywhere around the churches I participated in, and identified with, before it all came to a head since the years of 2015-2016 requiring my departure from such unkind fellowships claiming the name of Christ I worship and honor.

So am I an "evangelical"? Yes! I say this with affirmation and definitiveness that I am an evangelical in the historic sense of the word. But do I claim such today in the social circles I interact? Especially when they leave no room for explanation? Nor wish to even try to understand that explanation? Then "no," I am not an evangelical unless I am allowed to tell the difference between being an evangelical Christ-follower versus an evangelical politicist more willing to decry nationalism in Christ's name than His love, mercy, and justice.

As example, I consider abhorrent the very actions of the US government under the auspices of ICE for making a crime of crossing the US borders, separating families, and jailing children. This is wickedness in the very meaning of the term. If the US policy must require such action than I cannot abide with it's policy and wish to remove its draconian laws from the lives of those suffering its insidious affects. I chose Christ over the my brethren's political obsessions of fear, security, and protectionism. Christianity sees the alien and refuge as those requiring great help - not greater persecution. And if my Trumpian Christian friends cannot distinguish this than I fault their understanding of Christ and for choosing the State over their Lord. My prayer for America and the American church is that it repent of its hard heart and work to create a US policy respecting grace, mercy and justice over fear and protectionism.

Below I have listed three articles by Roger Olson detailing the distinction between evangelicalism as an ethos (my kind of Christianity) versus evangelicalism as a movement (which favors either a heighten or lower Christian message to the world of Jesus as Lord). Moreover, today's Christianity must now require those of us choosing to follow Jesus to re-describe ourselves both to our brethren and to the world as Jesus followers over any other apostate gospel purporting to be from Christ but is not. And if we must reclaim the gospel of Christ under some other banner than "evangelicalism" than let us do  so at once because the usage of the older banner name has become apostate in every sense of the Trumpian word. Mr. Olson, to his credit, hopes to reclaim the original definition back to itself, but alas, I fear it is too late and thus have I spent so many recent years delineating why-and-what Jesus-based-Christianity is-and-isn't, and why it must reach beyond its past yesteryears to the years ahead of us that it might become meaningfully relevant again to the masses yearning for spiritual release and freedom from sin's spiritual and humanitarian bondage. So let the elders of the church say with us, Amen and amen, thus shall we do!

R.E. Slater

February 13, 2019

Evangelicalism Again:

Why Are They Not Using My Distinction

between “Movement” and “Ethos?”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2019/02/evangelicalism-again-why-are-they-not-using-my-distinction-between-movement-and-ethos/

by Roger Olson

February 8, 2019

This is my response to the following Religion News article:

https://religionnews.com/2019/02/06/there-are-no-real-evangelicals-only-imagined-ones/

I read it with real interest and was very disappointed. The subject is one I have discussed here and in some of my articles, book chapters, and books frequently. I expended great energy in trying to enlighten people about the difference between “evangelical movements” (which come and go) and the “evangelical ethos” which is world-wide and not tied to any one particular evangelical movement.

The article mentions my colleague David Bebbington’s “evangelical quadrilateral” which describes what I call the evangelical spiritual-theological ethos which transcends any denomination or movement. It can be found in individuals and congregations in almost every Christian denomination.

But the article slides back and forth between treating evangelicalism as a “white movement” and evangelicalism as something other than that. But the distinction between “movement” and “ethos” is not clearly grasped or articulated. I believe it would solve this whole ongoing debate.

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

Are many African-American Christians truly evangelical? Yes—in the ethos sense. Not many call themselves “evangelicals” because they are thinking of the mostly white post-WW2 American movement and the current media-driven political evangelicalism.

In the article one well-known religion writer objects to one of my colleagues categorizing a 19th century African-American woman as “evangelical.” I respect that well-known religion writer, but I am bewildered by his seeming ignorance of the difference between a particular evangelical movement and the evangelical spiritual-theological ethos!

What all the people referenced in this Religion News article seem to miss is that evangelicalism as an ethos (spiritual-theological) is world-wide! The vast majority of evangelical live outside of the United States! How in the world can “evangelicalism” be defined as “white” and “American” unless the people doing so are brainwashed by the media who love to identify being evangelical with being pro-Trump and probably racist?

I am almost certain that Ed Stetzer, Russell Moore, Anthea Butler and others referenced in this article (and especially David Bebbington) know the difference between being evangelical ethos-wise and being evangelical by self-identification to pollsters (or even being evangelical by belonging to a group that calls itself “evangelical”).

Neither the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) nor the Gospel Coalition nor any organization owns the label “evangelical.” Any church historian knows this. So why do we continually run up against this confusion (viz., of “evangelical” with being “white” and “American nationalist” and “pro-Trump” or even of just having some connection with the (mostly white) post-WW2 American evangelical movement? Many evangelicals never joined that. According to historian of evangelicalism George Marsden that movement disintegrated around 1970 anyway!

A huge, huge problem lurking in the background of all this confusion is that “being evangelical” has both advantages and disadvantages. In some contexts it has advantages such as in getting hired in many Christian institutions. In other contexts it has disadvantages such as not getting hired in many Christian institutions! I don’t know any way to solve that problem except to get everyone to recognize the difference between “movement evangelicalism” and “ethos evangelicalism”—a difference I have talked about here many times.

Let me end with an open comment to all the people quoted in the article: Please embrace and use my distinction between ethos evangelicalism and movement evangelicalism. Let it solve these confusing conversations, debates, even conflicts over the meaning of “evangelical.”

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Roger Olson, Board of Contributors:

Evangelicalism simply not a political movement

https://www.wacotrib.com/opinion/columns/board_of_contributors/roger-olson-board-of-contributors-evangelicalism-simply-not-a-political/article_785fecf2-8f8b-5a4a-9110-aff54d94d365.html

by Roger Olson, Board of Contributors 

November 22, 2017

Once again, in a column published here, a political pundit predicted something about “evangelicals” that treats all of us as political conservatives. According to Philip Bump [“Religion, politics awkward mix,” Nov. 12] “evangelicals” will rally to support arch-conservative Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore in spite of accusations of sexual misconduct.

Repeatedly in recent years sociologists, political commentators and pollsters have treated American evangelicals as the Republican Party at prayer. While it is true that many Americans who identify as evangelical support politically conservative policies, platforms and politicians, it is most certainly not true that “evangelical Christianity” is itself tied to any particular ideology.

I recently contributed to a book and then participated on a panel about “The Future of Evangelicalism in America” (Columbia University Press, 2017). During the panel and following discussion at the annual meeting of the Society of Church Historians (Denver, January 2017) I discovered many American sociologists and those influenced by them (journalists, commentators and poll-takers) automatically exclude African Americans from being evangelicals.

As a theologian and church historian I consider this a travesty. “Evangelical” is a spiritual-theological category, not a political one. By excluding African Americans and by tying it inextricably to a passing political fad sociologists and the media have distorted it.

David Bebbington, distinguished visiting professor of history at Baylor University, is nearly universally recognized as a world class historian of the evangelical movement — going back to the Great Awakenings of the early 17th century. Bebbington’s “quadrilateral” of evangelical hallmarks is widely recognized and frequently used by scholars to identify the evangelical ethos.

According to Bebbington, the evangelical brand of Christianity crosses denominational boundaries and is marked by biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism and activism:

• The Bible is considered by all evangelical Christians to be God’s inspired Word written.

• All evangelicals have always believed authentic Christian existence necessarily includes a personal decision of faith called conversion.

• The cross of Jesus Christ is believed by evangelicals to be humanity’s only basis and hope for salvation.

• And, all evangelicals support evangelism, world missions and social action to change the world for the better.

Throughout evangelicalism’s history, however, evangelical Christians have never all adopted a particular social, political or economic ideology.

And evangelicalism is a global movement, with the vast majority of evangelicals living and worshiping outside the United States. Most have no connection with U.S. political ideologies or parties.

African-American Protestant Christians have often shied away from using the label “evangelical” because “evangelicalism” has been considered a white spiritual movement. Recently, well-known, influential African-American rap artist Lecrae “resigned” from “white evangelicalism” because of the pushback he received from white conservative evangelical leaders (whom I would probably consider more fundamentalist than truly evangelical) after he sided with the protests of the Black Lives Matter movement against police shootings of unarmed African Americans.

A few years ago I was asked by an African-American seminary professor (at a mostly white Baptist seminary) if I considered black American Protestants “evangelicals.” I said yes, I do, and I still stand by that. Spiritually and theologically most African-American Protestants believe, worship and live as disciples of Jesus Christ in complete accord with the historical evangelical ethos. While they may not use the label “evangelical” for themselves, once I explain its true meaning as a spiritual and theological ethos, most African-American Protestant students and ministers respond affirmatively — that they fit that mold.

My most recent research project involved revising the Handbook of Denominations in the United States for its 14th edition. (The Handbook is a widely used and respected reference book published by the United Methodist Publishing House/Abingdon Press.) I scrutinized the web sites of all major and many newer, smaller, predominantly African-American denominations and found their statements of beliefs and practices to be perfectly in line with historic evangelicalism even if not with the current American “religious right.”

I am calling out sociologists, journalists, and commentators who exclude African-American Christians, most of whom claim to have a “born again experience” (the main test often used for determining whether someone is evangelical), from being considered evangelical. Evangelical Christianity, properly understood, is not exclusively white, American or politically conservative, even if some individuals and churches are.

*Roger Olson is Foy Valentine Professor of Christian Theology and Ethics at Baylor University’s Truett Seminary. His recent books include “The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform” and “Who Needs Theology?”