Rogue: n. & v. 1. A dishonest or unprincipled person. 2. joc. A mischievous person, esp. a child. 3. (usu. Attrib.) a. a wild animal driven away or living apart from the herd and of fierce temper (rogue elephant). b a stray, irresponsible, or undisciplined person or thing (rogue trader). 4. An inferior or defective specimen among many acceptable ones.=A wild [untamed = undomesticated = non-indoctrinated] animal [individual] (driven away or) living apart from the herd [community = “church”] (and of fierce temper). [wild].=
A non-indoctrinated individual living apart from the church/community.

Christian: adj.1. of Christ’s teaching or religion. 2. Believing in or following the religion of Jesus Christ. 3. Showing the qualities associated with Christ’s teaching. 4. Colloq. (of a person) kind, fair, decent. n. 1a. a person who has received Christian baptism. b. an adherent of Christ’s teaching. 2. A person exhibiting Christian qualities.

Rogue Christian: Rogue = adjective, Christian = noun"An non-indoctrinated adherent of Christ’s teaching, driven away or living apart from the church/community."

Living apart from traditional church has it's implications and complications. In addition to being a Rogue Christian it also makes me an Abbaian, a follower of the Father.

Abba: father, customary title used of God in prayer. Whenever it occurs in the New Testament it has the Greek interpretation joined to it, that is apparently to be explained by the fact that the Chaldee "ABBA" through frequent use in prayer, gradually acquired the nature of a most sacred proper name, to which the Greek speaking Jews added the name from their own tongue.1

-ian: suffix var. of –an. Forming adjectives and nouns, esp. from names of places, systems, zoological classes or orders, and founders.Abba + ian = Abbaian: Follower of the Way of God the Father.

As far as church membership goes, I am not a member of any local visible church or denomination (which is not to say I am not active within any local church or churches). Denominational background really doesn't apply. I consider myself a member of the Invisible Universal Church, which transcends denominations. I belong to a Postdenominational Christianity.
However, another implication is an apparent lack of doctrine. What's my views on soterology? Am I a Trinitarian ? Am I an Evangelical?

I am often asked, Calvinist or Armenian? Are those the only options? I find the question somewhat limiting. To be honest I agree with both and neither. I think - from a very simplified perspective - Calvinism and Armenianism are the same thing, but from two very different perspectives. If a man's life - from birth to death - were a movie, we would perceive it as an audience watches a movie. we're experiencing it as the movie "plays" or "flows" forward. However, from a divine point of view - from God's perspective - the movie reel is unrolled and the entire film, every static frame, is viewed at once. "Time" doesn't flow. For the occupants "in" the movie, choices and free will exists. From an omnipotent perspective, God can view the beginning, any and every choice made via free will, and the end and it's consequences, at once. Even though free will choices were legitimately made, God still knows their outcome.

I have a problem with predestination and God's chosen elite. It's the inverse implication that bothers me: We have a loving God who has also created people for damnation and without hope.

Some have told me I'm more Armenian because I do believe you can shipwreck your faith and lose your salvation. I don't think I really am Armenian though. You see, both Calvinism and Armenianism share their defaulted starting positions. In both, man is born in original sin, fallen and condemned. At some future point, salvation occurs. They differ on the point of whether that salvation is permanent or not.

Although I believe you can lose your salvation, I'm not convinced we begin in a default state of being "fallen" anymore and I'm not convinced we "accept" salvation but rather (potentially) choose to opt-out of it.

I've been told my "soterology" is closer to a hybred of Catholicism and Universalism. It all have to do with my understanding of the nature of Grace.

1 Strong’s Lexicon for “Abba”

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

The Innerrantist, Part Three: Led Astray

Once we embrace this paradigm it leads to other problems. The train of thought runs like this:

We know that God in immutable – He doesn’t change. I think often times we turn this into meaning, God is stationary and doesn’t “move”.

Now there are many lost people out there in the world today. All they need is to search, or seek out God – all they need to do is find God! After all, you’ve heard the expression, “There’s a God-shaped hole in all our hearts”.

This means they don’t currently have God and therefore God must be somewhere else, and since God is immutable (doesn’t “move”) then they need to move and search and find God – wherever it is that He is.

Now there are also agents of God active in this world: God’s ambassadors. (Here enters the Innerrantist): They know where God “is” and can tell you how to “find” Him. They know and have experienced “the way” or “the path” to follow. They can lead you to God because they have the absolute and unquestionable “rulebook” in their possession. They have “The Truth”.

“The Truth” (or “the way”) turns out to be a series of checkpoints, or criteria, to convince yourself and them that you’ve “made it”. A public confession of your faith, the Sinner’s Prayer, baptism classes, baptism by water, membership classes, church membership, finding your “spot” in their congregational life, etc.

I have a problem with this when it is taught or implied to be the only way.

The Innerrantist’s trick is making a slight switch or change and redefining a term. This example begins with God’s immutability (He doesn’t change), and switching it to mean being stationary and not “moving”... to not meeting us wherever we are... to meaning we have to go to where God really is (the Innerrantist’s “location”)... to having to believe and become just LIKE the Innerrantist... to become, by their definition, a “true believer”.

And it is at this point where we start hearing language like “Big-C-Christians” vs. “Little-c-christians”, or “lukewarm Christians”, and “Being on fire for God!” Ultimately this slippery slope is all about manipulation and the achievement of an all too human agenda. If you can discredit me, then my beliefs and my ideas are no longer valid because I no longer fit a predefined description of a “true believer”. Uh, uh, no way. That’s a slippery slope I’m not going to let us slide down. This type of methodology doesn’t address the question but attempts to make the question moot by discrediting the person asking the question.

“[Fundamentalism] leads to a literal interpretation of the Bible… They focus on the individual and try to make them the same as all the other “true believers”. They quote Bible verses and use zeal to compensate for their lack of understanding. However, when you identify something they can’t explain, their ultimate response is ‘We aren’t supposed to know the answer’.” The Problem with Modernism by J.G. Lenhart

We know that God in immutable – He doesn’t change. I think often times we turn this into meaning, God is stationary and doesn’t “move”.

Let’s go back to the assumption that God doesn’t “move”. I don’t believe this is true. I believe that God searches for us and God finds and meets us wherever we currently are, in whatever state or “place” we find ourselves in.

If Jesus is the perfect reflection of the Father, this is exactly how He met and reached people.

(Next... Part Four: Extinction)

No comments: