I wrote about the danger of theological bubbles last week. Here are some reflections and ruminations on the topic. Bubbles can be Baptist or any other denominational variety. They can be Calvinist, Traditionalist, Arminian or any other place on the soteriological perspective. They can be cessationist or charismatic. They can be eschatological. Pretty much any passionately held theological perspective runs the risk of becoming a bubble, when we isolate ourselves from other positions and those who hold them.
It is noble to study the Bible and arrive at dearly held theological positions. It is good to proclaim them, even to try to convince others of them. But there is a danger that such positions are not as scripturally-based as we all want to claim, and that when we retreat into bubbles, we end up reinforcing our own theological prejudices. There is a fine line between the encouragement of friends and building bubbles of isolation.
So, here are my ideas about how people end up in theological bubbles and some of the signs that a person has been enveloped in one.
So, you might be in your own little theological bubble if…
1) On your blog (or other social media), all of your “recommended blogs” share your theological perspective.
You mean that there is not a single blog on the “other side” that is worth reading? Really?
2) You only read books by people from your own theological perspective.
Corollary: When you construct recommended reading lists, only those that share your particular perspective are considered worthy of inclusion. Act as if the “other side” never addressed the topic at all!
3) You spend much time with like-minded friends criticizing and even ridiculing those of other perspectives, but little time engaging them in real conversation.
Suggestion: private Facebook and email groups are a great way to insulate yourself from anyone who does not share your views and avoid any accountability for your representations (or misrepresentations) of the other side.
4) You would rather use straw man caricatures of the other side than labor to understand and accurately characterize their views.
Corollary: When accused of using straw man arguments, you vehemently deny it – convinced that your view of the other side is more accurate than their own definition of their beliefs.
Suggestion: If those of another theological perspective constantly accuse you of straw man characterizations of their viewpoints, reexamine whether you are accurately representing them. You might be building straw men after all!
5) All of the conferences you attend share (and reinforce) your particular theological position.
6) You tend to judge people’s character, integrity and fidelity based on whether they share your theological perspective.
7) You are quick to believe negative reports and conspiratorial accusations against those of different theological perspectives. It is “us against them” after all.
Corollary: when you read such negative reports about your theological opponents, you accept them enthusiastically without exhibiting concern for the accuracy of the facts asserted.
Secondary Corollary: you vehemently defend those who share your perspective against any similar allegations, again, regardless of whether the accusations are founded in reality or not.
8) You abhor behavior in those of other theological perspectives that you applaud in those who share your theological perspective.
Right and wrong behavior (in your opinion) becomes dependent on whether the person agrees or disagrees with your theological perspective.
9) You use theological code words that those of your theological perspective use in a particular, unique way, often exclusionary toward those of other theological perspectives. (I’d like to give examples, but it would be too inflammatory, I fear.)
10) You never, EVER, admit that the other side has any Scripture on their side. “I don’t see how anyone with a Bible could come to that position.”
Face the Facts, dude: For every dearly held theological position you have, there are three or four verses that are easier for the other side to explain!
I don’t want to run the risk of being accused of being in an anti-bubble bubble, so this is your chance to speak out. What say you?
A very good post. I would add that such bubbles can also lead to anti-intellectualism.
Such bubbles can lead to intellectualism as well.
I would describe myself as a Pentecostal, Calvinistic Southern Baptist. I’m never around anybody who shares my perspective, unless Sam Storms is nearby.
Don’t worry, I am close to you, I call myself Bapterianmatic.
I liked Jeff Foxworthy’s “you might be a redneck” jokes better than your “you might be in a theological bubble” material…so in light of my preference, I’ll add some other ones following Jeff’s “patter”:
1. You might be in a theological bubble if you believe a person can’t be saved unless they’re immersed for baptism.
2. You might be in a theological bubble if you believe the Cooperative Program is God-ordained…(sorry William…not intended to poke at you…just to poke.)
3. You might be in a theological bubble if you really and truly believe that ALL R-rated movies are “bad” and ALL G-rated movies are “good”.
4. You might be in a theological bubble if you say you believe in the Great Commission but you still think “miscegenation” is a problem.
5. You might be in a theological bubble if you think the word “Southern” on the name “Southern Baptist Convention” is so important that you can’t let it go.
6. You might be in a theological bubble if you think that all of the people who go to the (older) state convention Baptist colleges are “liberals”.
7. You might be in a theological bubble if you think that women pastors in churches who–as a matter of their own congregational polity–accept women as elders are sinning. (NOTE VERY CAREFULLY: I’m not saying you have to accept them in the SBC…)
8. You might be in a theological bubble if you really do believe you can change a person’s heart by preaching morality.
9. You might be in a theological bubble if you believe the Sinner’s Prayer actually is written down somewhere in the text of Scripture…
10. You might be in a theological bubble if you believe hymns that appear in the hymnal have the same inspiration by God as Scripture and praise songs that don’t appear in the hymnal should never be sung in church.
11. You might be in a theological bubble if you’re more concerned about the historicity of Genesis than you are the imperative nature of the book of James regarding proving your faith by your deeds.
12. You might be in a theological bubble if theology is your first love and Jesus isn’t.
Now my actual point is point #12. The rest were just for fun. 😉
Greg you missed one…Allow me to do my best Foxworthy.
You might be in a theological bubble, if you think that since the KJV was good enough for Paul, it should be good enough for everyone else.
That is not a theological bubble, it is a dungeon! (Sorry).
Steve: I thought of it but decided it was one that we’d covered before…
Stephen, rather than “Steve”. My apologies.
Or you might be in a theological bubble if you make lists that accuses everyone who disagrees with you (on like maybe #5 or #11) of being in a theological bubble. 🙂
John, I’m not sure if this shot was meant at my article or at Greg’s response.
But that is why I’ve labored to get both Calvinists and non-Calvinists here. I’ve even allowed some Cessationists to join our group. And I think I’m probably the ony Dispy on the writing team.
I try hard to avoid the theological bubble, because I think it is damaging.
Dave,
I’m sorry brother, I was not responding to your article which I found very good. I was responding to Greg’s because I thought a couple of his points were unfair and unreasonable.
I tried to sample a whole host of peculiarities, John. I admit I could have done a better job of being an equal opportunity offender. As I noted to Stephen, I actually did pare some off the list that in my not-so-humble opinion are equally goofy.
I don’t oppose leading a prayer for salvation like the prayer referred to as the “Sinner’s Prayer” for instance. But capitalizing a reference to something that isn’t formally defined gives it a concreteness that perhaps isn’t deserved (just to handle one of your potential objections.)
Personally, I found #5 and #11 to be both fair AND reasonable….
It’s only fair and reasonable to you because you agree with Greg. Dave’s article was generalized and had some very valid points, but I found Greg’s list to be abrasive and purposely trying elicit a response.
I actually don’t care if it’s called the Southern Baptist Convention or not by the way. But that you would get offended at me poking at it is kind of the exact point I was making, John.
As to #11. James and Matthew 25 don’t mince words on the subject. The goats are disqualified by their actions. The sheep are qualified by their actions. We can buttress that all we want with the claim that faith is more important, but James puts a pin right through that claim: without works the faith is at best dead if not simply non-existent.
But I’ll confess. My point is really #12. I have known my fair share of “believers” that I really in retrospect wondered if they “believed” or not because they spent so much time assembling little systems to follow rather than simply following Jesus. Every one of those other points was to ask the question “are you following a system or are you following Jesus?”
The bottom line is that you were just trolling, Greg. You took a great article by Dave and added your little pet peeves, and labeled people who disagreed with you as being in a theological bubble. I’m guilty of taking the bait…that’s all it was.
You should go back and read again #4 of Dave’s article and then you might understand why I responded the way I did.
Hey…it brought out a comment by CB. Means no matter how bad my intent was, God used it for good…
Some of these, Greg, are not so much bubble-issues, just false beliefs.
The bubble I speak of involves avoiding those of opposite beliefs. It is not just holding a certain belief, but avoiding anyone who does not share it.
I realize there is a bit of nuance between the point you were making and my riff on Foxworthy to make another, similar set if points. The beliefs I mentioned were directly visible in a church context and sustained by crowd/herd mentality. The retreat to the hermitage if sub-culture protects ALL ideas from Berean and skeptic examination. And building the theological walls both thicker and higher encourages both your viewpoint-specific issues and mine.
Jesus left his hermitage and dealt directly with everday people. Of course, first he amazed the religious leaders at the Temple on what might have been his second incarnate visit at the age of twelve.
That said: the SECONDARY point of my list is how gullible we are, how sometimes we change our minds at a whim thinking we’ve held a position “forever”, how easily we adopt fads, and how harmful all of that behavior is. That speaks to your concerns as well.
“11. You might be in a theological bubble if you’re more concerned about the historicity of Genesis than you are the imperative nature of the book of James regarding proving your faith by your deeds.”
You might be a theological liberal if you are less concerned about the historicity of Genesis than you are about a poorly interpreted nature of the Epistle of James, believing it mandates a social gospel that is more important than believing that the Book of Genesis is the inerrant Word of God and is to be taken literally.
“12. You might be in a theological bubble if theology is your first love and Jesus isn’t.”
You might be a theological liberal if your theology is so watered down that you do not have a sufficient understanding of Christology to know who Jesus is in order to properly love and worship Him as the Son of the Living God.
“9. You might be in a theological bubble if you believe the Sinner’s Prayer actually is written down somewhere in the text of Scripture.”
You might be a theological liberal is you do not believe sinners should prayerfully repent upon recognizing themselves as sinners before a just and righteous God, believing in the biblical gospel of Christ and Christ alone to save them, and praying for Him to do so, and faithfully believing He will, because everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
“8. You might be in a theological bubble if you really do believe you can change a person’s heart by preaching morality.”
You might be a theological liberal if you do not teach and preach that a truly born again person will have and therefore live accordingly to a different worldview, ethic, and morality than he or she had prior to coming to faith in Christ.
“2. You might be in a theological bubble if you believe the Cooperative Program is God-ordained.”
You might be just a theological nut if you think God had nothing to do with the concept of the Cooperative Program. Who did conceive of it? Did Satan conceive the Cooperative Program?
“1. You might be in a theological bubble if you believe a person can’t be saved unless they’re immersed for baptism.”
You might be a theological dwarf if you believe baptism by immersion is not the only true biblical mode of baptism and is mandated by Christ and of importance for all believers as an act of obedience to their Lord and Master although baptism by immersion does not provide any atoning power or character.
Those are all my actual points. The rest were just funny.
And he’s baaaaaack!
The crazy part: I agree with everything CB wrote. Though I do hope that we’ll consider what the appropriate bounds is for our efforts at theological “control” (for a lack of a better word) when we interact with other believers. Since I’m not a pastor and work in the “secular” world, it probably is something I’m more sensitive to than others. So to some extent or another, I view some or at times all of these issues that I’ve listed as applying to “how Southern Baptists are perceived by others.”
Just to mention one example: my comment on preaching morality is specifically regarding treating morality as transformative. CB is completely right that not speaking to the nature of sin leads to the potential believer rejecting grace as a matter of continuing rebellion and the kind of rebellion that the potential believer doesn’t even recognize or understand. And yet we as Southern Baptists have a reputation for moralizing that is both difficult to defend and difficult to shake. Hence my “theological bubble” comment about preaching morality.
Each of the points CB addresses has similar nuance from an “outside” looking in v. an “inside” looking in perspective. I appreciate and applaud the continuing vigilance CB expresses regarding policing these kinds of discussions from an SBC perspective. And I guarantee there isn’t even a hair’s breadth between how he views these issues and how I do.
I’ve never met anyone who said they were “Arminian”, only those accused of being one.
Steve, I know lots of Arminian – just not Southern Baptists. Plus, there are some SBC folks (a very small number) who embrace what they call “Classic Arminianism.”
But I get your point. Far fewer people ARE Arminian than are accused of being Arminian.
I actually believe most Southern Baptists could be labelled “Arminian” whether they choose to accept the label or not. Try the survey over at the Society of Evangelical Arminians site in order to determine whether “Arminian” is a proper description of yourself or most Southern Baptists.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/survey-are-you-an-arminian-and-dont-even-know-it-2/
Great link. I think many Southern Baptists unnecessarily seek to distinguish their beliefs from Arminianism when the only essential distinction they’re pointing to is a strong adherence to belief in eternal security of the believer. That article is waffly enough to pitch a broader tent, though, than many specifically Arminian denominations–such as Nazarenes and most Methodists–would be comfortable in…
Dear David: I followed up on your link. Good people are Arminians, no doubt, for I know and have known many all of life. In fact, they are very likely the dominant group now in the SBC. And some are quite vociferous about it, sure that they are arriving at the state of being able to take over and boot out all of the successors and descendants of the founders and those associated with them. I say some, but not all. Dr. Page’s committee did us all a favor, for it allows for the founding theology to be retained, giving those adherents of it the time to rediscover how it really does work, a theology of unity amid diversity, humility amid unreality, verity amid duplicity, sanity amid extremity, rationality amid sensibility, excitability amid inactivity, the perfect storm amid the greatest calm.
To explain all that I meant by the foregoing would take a whole course in American Church history, and it is not meant as a throw off on anyone but as a summary of the sources and the actual realities that I encountered in 6 years of research which covered not only the early Baptists in America but all 2000 years of church history, the later from the perspective of the churches or groups that were persecuted, like the Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Paulicians, Arnoldists, Waldensians, Priscillianists, Lollards, and others.
The advocates of the Calvinistic theology of today hardly, it seems to me, have a grasp on the way things were done during the period of the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions. Just consider how Jonathan Edwards, the leading Calvinist theologian of the 18th century, could preach a sermon on the subject, Pressing into the Kingdom (I forget the text just now and my concordance is still hid in one of several hundreds of boxes and I am doing a few books at a time as my heart permits). And then there is Whitefield stomping his foot and bidding the Angel wait to see if he could report more souls being converted to the throne above. There is also the story of Whitefield and Wesley both claiming that they would not be able to see the other in Heaven due to the one being so close to the throne, a real warning to those who are so sold on their position to the exclusion of all else (and this is not to speak against the committed followers, for that would to be to speak against myself). What it is, is a reminder of how God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick (and we are all crooked sticks, including especially myself). Remember how Spurgeon was converted by a Methodist lay exhorter? I once had a list of noted leaders in both the Calvinist and the Arminian camps who had come to salvation under the preaching of someone in one camp, and yet they went on to be the leaders in the opposite camp. It is enough to make one laugh and cry at the same time. Even our Southern Baptist Prototype for today’s so-called Arminian Southern Baptist, Elder Reuben Ross, came to a knowledge of salvation under a Sovereign Grace preacher and at the end of his life was laid to rest under the preaching of one of the same persuasion. And then there is a relative of mine by marriage, a DOM and former pastor of a number of FBCs, including one of 600 in attendance, who was won to the Lord by a Calvinistic youth pastor, praying the sinner’s prayer, and who was ordained to the ministry by the same supralapsarian hyper Calvinist that I was, Dr. Ernest Campbell, and who to this day hold a position that is about the same as the Traditionalist. I would also mention my former pastor who is a signer of the Traditionalist Statement and who got up and preached a sermon on Jesus wept, and Spurgeon could not have preached a Sovereign Grace Sermon on that text that was any better. I know I heard him.
All of this is meant to get you all to think, to imagine, if you please, what kind of theology is it that can produce that kind of latitude without departing from the faith, nor insisting that anyone must change his views in order to work together. It even allows for individuals to change from one view to another. There is one I have heard of who moved from Calvinism to Arminianism, and there are others who did the reverse. And there are those who have not changed at at all; they are stills stuck on what they think is dead center, whatever that is.
Finally, I hold to what some call limited atonement or what I define as Particular or purposeful redemption, because I believe that, in the end, it will win more souls than will the general atonement view, any day of the week. You all forget or do not know that General Baptists were present in America, even in this state in which I live today (and I have preached in their churches in Arkansas), and it was not them who got the ball rolling for the Awakenings or the Great Century of Missions. All one has to do is read the records of those who were involved. We will be able to work together, because it was the Lord’s will that children learn to get along until they grow up enough to realize that their love for one another is more than sufficient to handle such differences without the bloody results that have usually ensued from such variations. Remember, Fellows, we are the folks who not only advocated religious liberty (as did the General Baptists), but the same people who put it into law and practice, inspiring the new nation to do the same. You would be proud to know what they did. God bless the Southern Baptist Convention till we all come in unity of the Spirit.
Dave,
This has nothing to do with this topic, but please allow me to say: I am so-so happy to see the old format return. I deeply missed the old format. I thought we would never see it again. I’d started finding reading & navigating the new format less enjoyable. But wow!!! Dead things do come back to life. Thanks to you & whoever else may be responsible for making my day with the return of the old format.
Dwight
I know I shouldn’t share this, but I actually felt like I had hit a page in the Wayback Machine when the format changed back and I thought I had somehow broken something…and it made me smile!!
I admit that I am in a theological bubble, the bubble that is concerned with prayer for, and establishing the theological means of, the Third Great Awakening, the one which wins the whole earth in one generation and continues for a thousand generations and a million billion planets, deo volente. If we only understood and perceived how the theology which we seek to derive from the Bible (through filters designed to subvert it) is meant to enable and empower believers to be balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic, regardless of the circumstances, to the point of giving ourselves to prayer, pleading the promises mentioned in Jonathan Edwards Humble Attempt, then we might have reason to expect the turn-around that is coming.