The Future Direction of This Blog

When I created this blog in January, I thought that I would mostly write about two topics – namely, the challenges of my journey of faith, and my struggles with anxiety and depression. I thought that I would write about other topics than these from time to time, and also that I would use the blog to chronicle some of the major and minor events of my life. But my main interest was in writing about the challenges of my journey of faith and my struggles with anxiety and depression. At the time, I believed that the Lord was doing a lot of work in my heart and mind both to draw me closer to Him in faith and to heal my anxiety and depression. And I was right about this. However, I expected that my progress on these issues would be slow and incremental. In this regard, I have been mistaken – my progress has not been slow and incremental, but rather fast and bounding. I am incredibly grateful for this, and I plan to write more about it soon, but I am no longer sure what the future direction of this blog should be. I still want to write a lot about my journey of faith, and I want to write some things about my anxiety and depression. And yes, I want to continue writing about cooking, music, my wife, my dog, and many other such things. Where then is the problem?

The problem is that I have felt a strong desire lately to write about some of my political views, and also about some of my controversial religious views. When I started this blog, I didn’t anticipate having any readers. I like to write, and I find it very useful. I would have been content to write only for myself and God, while forwarding an occasional post to my wife, or a friend. But I now have a few followers, and they all seem to be evangelical Christians. This poses something of a problem for me. For, while I consider myself an evangelical Christian, I also hold some beliefs about religion and politics that are shared by few other evangelical Christians. If I speak my mind about these issues, I may well alienate my current readers and potential future readers as well. Let me be clear – I wouldn’t judge or blame any of these readers for deciding not to visit my blog in the future. And I would be perfectly willing to unsubscribe from their blogs and disassociate myself from them if they decided that they didn’t want my blog to be linked in any way with theirs. But I would certainly hope that this wouldn’t happen.

At this point, you may wonder whether any of this truly matters. Should I really be concerned whether anyone reads my blog? In January, I would have said no. But I see things a bit differently now. The issue isn’t my blog. The real issue here is more complex than that, and it involves the nature of interpersonal relationships and dialogue, especially in (but not restricted to) a Christian context. What should we do if we find ourselves in possession of minority opinions on important issues in the Christian community? Should we keep our opinions to ourselves so that we don’t offend anyone? Perhaps, but that doesn’t seem fully honest. Should we express our opinions clearly and openly? Perhaps, but then we may alienate others, and that can drastically impact our ability to love and serve them. I could write all evening about the complexities here, but I won’t. Suffice it to say that the complexities are real; that they affect all Christian relationships, both offline and online; and that they affect the whole Christian community. My practice in the past has been to keep my controversial opinions largely to myself. I don’t like conflict or confrontation, and I haven’t felt much of a need to make my voice heard. However, I believe that the Lord has been telling me recently that this is wrong, that I need to have more trust in others, and that I need to use my voice more. I also feel that He has been telling me that all people, Christians included, need to do a lot more to love one another, that such love doesn’t come about easily, and that it needs open dialogue.

So, I have decided to describe five of my controversial views below. I realize that this post is already quite long, and I don’t expect anyone to read through all of this. However, I also feel that I wouldn’t be honest or obedient if I didn’t undertake this exercise. If you happen to read the rest of the post and you decide not to visit my blog any more, I perfectly understand and respect your decision. But, if you finish the rest of this post and decide to keep visiting my blog, then let me assure you of two things. First, I will try to write much shorter posts in the future. Seriously. Second, I will rarely write on the controversial topics below, and though I will continue to write about things like cooking and music, I will try to write much more frequently about the Bible and faith.

Without further ado, here are five of my controversial views.

First, I fully affirm the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, and I agree with much – though certainly not all – of the major Reformed creeds and catechisms, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and so on. Thus, I believe that Christ is God, that man is utterly lost to sin, and that there is no salvation apart from Christ. However, I am not comfortable saying who will be saved and who will not be saved, as I am not comfortable saying who has really accepted Christ. In particular, I am not comfortable saying that people who have never consciously accepted Christ cannot be saved. Let me be clear – I do not say that any or all such people will be saved. Rather, I say that I do not know whether any of them will be saved. If any of them are saved, then it will only be through accepting Christ; and, if any are saved, then they will come to accept Christ in ways that I cannot easily understand. The gospels clearly teach that many Jews who lived during the Old Testament period will be saved through Christ, and major Protestant thinkers from Luther to Calvin strongly affirmed this. Some Reformed thinkers like Zwingli believed that some non-Israelites before the time of Christ will also be saved through Christ. As far as I know, Luther denied this. At any rate, I would guess that few orthodox Reformed or Lutheran thinkers have claimed that anyone will be saved in the New Testament period who does not consciously accept Christ at some point. What I am saying is that I’m not sure that this is true. Honestly, I don’t think that I am entitled to a position on this issue. The Bible clearly teaches that Christ is God and that there is no salvation apart from Christ. It also commands believers to preach Christ to the ends of the earth. I believe these things, and I accept this command. Beyond that, it is not for me to say whether someone who died without consciously accepting Christ may have somehow accepted Christ, as many Old Testament believers did. There is no relativism here – only a desire not to go beyond Scripture. I love God with all my heart, and I am as exclusivist about truth as it is possible to be. But I do not feel that I can judge who has truly accepted that truth, or how it can be truly accepted, at least to some extent.

Second, I am not an inerrantist about the Bible. In other words, I believe that the Bible contains false claims. More specifically, I think that the Bible contains false historical, moral, and even theological claims. I am an inerrantist about much of the Bible. For example, I would say that I am an inerrantist about the gospels, many of the New Testament letters, most of the Old Testament prophets, and many other parts of the Bible. I believe that I have a very high view of the Bible. In particular, I believe that it contains everything necessary for salvation; that even the passages which are inspired in the weakest sense are nonetheless inspired in a way that no other book is; that the Bible is a special vehicle of grace; that the Bible is our primary source of knowledge about theology, ethics, and the history of Israel; that faith must be firmly anchored in the Bible; and so on. But I am not an inerrantist about the whole Bible. I believe that nearly all of the Bible is inspired in some sense, and that much of the Bible is inspired in a very high sense. I think that one encounters the very words of God in many parts of the Bible. But again, I am not an inerrantist about the whole Bible.

I would like to add that I usually spend at least two hours a day reading the Bible, and that some days I spend many more hours than this engaged in the study of Scripture. Indeed, some days I do little else than read the Bible. I do not say this out of vanity or self-promotion, but only to make clear that I hold the Bible in very high esteem. I plan to devote a great portion of my life to the Bible. I would not do that with any other book, religious or secular – not Calvin, not Augustine, not Shakespeare, and not Dante. I spend a lot of time reading theology and works of biblical criticism, but I only do this because I believe that the Bible is God’s special revelation to mankind. I have little interest in historical theology or biblical criticism for its own sake. I don’t read books on Leviticus or Nehemiah because I am curious to see what academics might have to say about them – I read them because I am interested in acquiring a better understanding of what God has used these books to say to His church. And no – I can’t acquire this knowledge apart from the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit may use such works to help me grow in my understanding of the Bible.

Third, I fully support gay rights. In particular, I believe that gays should be entitled to full rights to marry, adopt children, and serve openly in the military. And this isn’t simply because I believe that such legal rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, though I do believe that – I also strongly believe that there is nothing morally, rationally, or otherwise wrong with homosexuality, and I firmly believe that God thinks this as well. Needless to say, many evangelical Christians will strongly disagree with me. Some of these same Christians may support gay rights on the grounds of the Establishment Clause and how they understand the Constitution. But I doubt that many evangelical Christians would agree with my views about homosexuality itself. Some Christians believe that Leviticus and Romans do not really condemn modern homosexual relationships, and that there is no incompatibility between the Bible’s teachings on sexual ethics and the modern gay rights movement. I wish I could agree with them, but I do not. I think that the Bible clearly condemns all homosexual behavior. I also disagree with Christians who say that the Bible regards homosexuality as equally sinful as, say, cheating on one’s taxes – I think that the Bible regards homosexuality as an especially heinous sin, together with murder, incest, and a few other such sins. Be that as it may, I do not think that homosexuality is sinful in any way. This is one of the reasons why I am not an inerrantist about the whole Bible. I love Leviticus and Romans, and I think that most passages in these books are inspired in a very high sense and contain numerous important theological and moral truths. But I think that they also contain some of the mistaken human prejudices of their authors. I could say more, but I will not.

I want to add quickly that while I do not think that homosexuality is in any way sinful, I do think that fornication is – I think that no one, gay or straight, should have sex out of the context of marriage; but, I also believe that all people, gay and straight, should be entitled to marry. I also support laws against all forms of pornography, and I support much stricter censorship of television, movies, music, and other media for sexual content. In fact, I support much stricter censorship across the board for violent, immoral, and profane content of all kinds. I’m not sure that half of the programs on television shouldn’t be canceled. So, in many ways I am quite conservative, but in other ways I am not.

Fourth, while I am strongly opposed to all abortion on moral grounds, and I think that there should be laws against late-term abortion, I am not sure what to think about the legality of early-term abortion. In particular, I am not sure whether Roe v Wade was correctly decided. I respect the U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, it is an imperfect document, as its authors recognized. The Constitution includes a procedure for making amendments to it, and I would fully support an amendment to the Constitution that prohibited all forms of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother. I want to be clear: I would fully support such an amendment. However, I am not sure that the Constitution outlaws early-term abortion in its current state. I do not say that the Constitution does not outlaw early-term abortion in its current state – I say that I do not know whether it does. If it does not, then it seems to me that the Roe v Wade decision was legally (not morally) correct. But, even if it is legally correct, it is still possible to amend the Constitution. I think that we sometimes mix up morality and law – if the Constitution in its current state allows early-term abortion, then we must accept this fact. That is, we must accept that such abortion is legal under the Constitution in its current state. But we can still push hard for an amendment against early-term abortion. I also think that it is perfectly acceptable – and indeed desirable – both for the government and the church to take active measures to decrease the number of abortions.

Fifth, I am passionate about social justice, and I think that we are commanded by God to make great sacrifices for the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the handicapped, the marginalized, and other vulnerable communities. This does not mean that I support either Democratic or Republican policies to assist these groups, or even that I support government-funded intervention at all, though I think that such intervention is probably necessary. My claim here is only that we have a moral obligation – and that we have received a command from God – to assist these people. Honestly, it is amazing to me that any Christian would disagree with this, but many do, and in fact many become quite angry when you suggest that Jesus commanded that we do anything to assist the poor.

If you have made it this far, I hope that you return. But, if you decide not to return, I want you to know that I am grateful that you took the time to read all of this. If you maintain a blog that I read, I want you to know that I am thankful for your writing. And, if you didn't make it this far, that's fine too! God bless.