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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »