 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/7/2005 5:46 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Ok. I don't want to take away from the Holocaust, Luther, and Christian Anti-Semitism thread. I really think that's important. So, I wanted to create another thread dealing with the questions about me. Ok? Thanks! | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/7/2005 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | REPOST!
Bryan:
Wow, Meph. That's really interesting. ORU, huh? They are fairly conservative, especially for some of your theological leanings (not meant to be insulting, please know). Did some of your views result from seeing the limitations of conservative views expressed in your seminary training?
Yep. Fairly conservative is right. It's very interesting though. The seminary aspect of ORU was quite different than the general university. From my perspective, it was the professors. The professors of the seminary were MUCH more "open" to things than the general leadership of the school (ie President Richard Roberts). We had a breadth of theological perspectives in sem when I don't think that was necessarily the case in undergrad.
As far as my own leanings, THAT, my friend, is sometimes a mystery to me. I know some people who were in seminary with me that came out of it more knowledgable, but pretty darn conservative too. And frankly, when I got there, I was pretty much a fundy. Dude, you would be AMAZED how conservative I was when I first went to sem. (If the pastor that got me saved knew what I believe NOW, he's swear I wasn't saved! For real!) What happened? A couple of things...
1) When I first got into theology, I went WAAAAAY past the reading materials assigned to us in our classes. I asked the profs for syllabi to classes I didn't have time to take just so that I could read the books. (They dug this about me. [img]/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img]) I started taking a liking to apologetics (via Ravi Zacharias), but didn't just want to read people like Schaeffer and Kreeft and stuff. So I started reading general philosophy...as well as a LOT of atheistic philosophers like George Smith (Atheism: The Case Against God) and Michael Martin: (Atheism: A Philosophical Justification). Everything I know about process theology ala Whitehead, Hartshorne, Cobb, etc, I pretty much learned on my own time. That's how I ended up reading all of Doc's stuff.
2) My profs were great. I had some "closed-door" conservations with some of them that I KNOW Pres. Roberts would have had a FIT about. But they realized that I really wanted to learn and grow...and that I wasn't being satisfied by no "Hallelujah, Praise the Lord" type answers. They definitely accomodated me, giving me materials and answering heavy questions. I can't thank em enough for that. They also introduced us to the Society of Pentecostal Studies. (ORU held the conference one year I was there.) It was SO GOOD for me to dialogue with theologians like Killian McDonald and Amos Yong (that's where I first met him) who truly took Pentecostal/Charismatic theology and pneumatology VERY seriously...and held a very scholarly line besides.
3) I spent a significant amount of time talking with people who DIDN'T go to ORU. Tulsa is right in the buckle of the Bible Belt. So you know how that goes. However, there are still a few freethinkers around. I participated in an ecumenical roundtable in Tulsa talking about different perspectives of heaven, hell, salvation, etc with some fairly liberal people as well as other conservatives. Also, I spent time talking on computer chatsites to people of different faiths really engaging people and being engaged (including the early incarnation of this board). You'd be surprised how much extra reading material you can get wind off just by talking to other people.
4) One of the best friends from seminary was an atheist. He had come to ORU basically as an attempt to salvage his waning faith. Long story short, it didn't work. But my man was HELLA smart. He'd ask VERY poignant questions that other people weren't even really thinking about. So he and I would hang out and talk a lot about issues with the historical Jesus quests, problems with charismatic theology, etc. I remember one time, we literally spent 8 STRAIGHT hours out in the parking lot of the School just talking about this stuff. Our mutually-held classes had been cancelled for the day and we didn't know about it until we got there. So we just stood in the parking lot talking theology...for 8 hours. Heh. People coming and going throughout the day thought we were CRAZY! "Y'all are STILL HERE???" LOL! At any rate, I definitely believe that we honed each others thoughts a lot! He helped me broaden my thinking tremendously. I helped him to keep believing that sincere, intelligent people could still be charismatically-inclined theists. We owe each other. We TRULY got each other through our last year of that school. Especially when I really started getting disillusioned by the whole "Word of Faith", "prophet-seeing-a-10-foot-Jesus-in-the-middle-of-campus", "Money Cometh" stuff I was seeing in independent charismatic circles. Travis, we made it, baby!!!
4) Heavy interaction with Doc. Nuff said, right? 
I didn't mean to get long winded. But I guess thinking about this just brought back some pleasant memories for me. Wow. I actually DID enjoy Seminary. Thanks for asking this question, Bryan! 
*************************
Bryan:
Hmm, missions: this was your part of your MDiv or just part of the name of the institution? If part of your degree, why did you pick this specialisation(more curiosity)?
It's just part of the name of the Institution. But I did like my missiology classes. Contextualized Theology and Language Acquistion were some of my favs.
**********************
Reader:
What years were you at ORU. I was a freshman when he announced the City of Faith and the 60 foot praying hands.
1998-2002
PS for Reader. In case you didn't know, Evelyn Roberts, Oral's wife, recently went to be with the Lord this past week. I'm hearing that Oral's not taking it well (very understandable) Please pray for the family! Thanks.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/7/2005 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
By the way, you told me that you went to Oklahoma University.
Man, you LEAPT to such a conclusion there! I never said that I went to OU. Actually, I've said a couple of times on the board that I did my undergrad degrees at Texas A&M University (Gig 'em, Aggies!! www.tamu.edu) AND...I know that I've said before that I went to ORU. I think what happened is that I must have said something like "I went to graduate school in Oklahoma" or something like that...and you took that to mean that I went to OU. Not hating on OU or anything, but it really wasn't my type of hype. I've been to Norman, OK before...and well...heh...
So, hopefully, this gets some things crystal clear.
************************
Bryan:
Okay, so after I posted earlier today (see above if you haven't seen this yet), I got to thinking about some of the things you said. It's kinda sad that everybody has to stay in closed doors about what they feel is true in life. I was sorta heartbroken that you could never have a decent theological discussion with the pastor that got you saved and that if you wanted to get real with colllege professors, you'd have to close the doors cuz they couldn't be real with everyone else. and then i realized how many people for whom i am in the same boat. that just sucks. isn't christianity supposed to be different or is that just a campaign slogan?
Heh. You wanna see how deep it can get in general? I know some people are gonna hate me for this one. But it's truth. At the Oral Roberts School of Theology and Missions, there was an informal, but VERY clearly understood rule that was told to all of the seminary faculty directly from the "top" of the University itself. The rule dealt with ORU Chapel. Every Wednesday and Friday, there was a mandatory chapel service that all university students had to go to. The only ways that you could get out of it is if you had a job or a VERY good reason. Otherwise, you were fined $50 for each missed chapel. And you couldn't get away with it either. They took attendance by college. Uh, yeah. Anyway, about the rule. Basically it was this: No teacher or student was to formally discuss ANY (and I mean ANY) sermon, speech, or talk that came across the pulpit in any of the chapels. In essence, it was a gag-order. We couldn't talk about the stuff said in the chapel services. Why, you ask? My thoughts. (and some others) We had a lot of interesting people on the Board of Regents who gave a lot of money to the school. People like...
Kenneth Copeland
Jerry Savelle
Creflo Dollar
The late Mack Timberlake
Marilyn Hickey
Carlton Pearson (past)
Benny Hinn
Now, of course, you'll notice something right away. Lots of "word of faith/TBN-esque derivative theology there. From what I understand about past going ons is this: The seminary students (particularly M.Div and Theology student) would EVISCERATE the often poorly-put-together sermons in class. And it's not like there wasn't a LOT to eviscerate. And so the "top" put the cranks on the seminary professors to prevent this. There would be so many times we seminarians would be sitting in chapel just cringing and looking at each other sometimes. I remember a clear breaking point with me...a point when I decided that I would NOT sit through a whole chapel anymore. It was when a preacher named Dr. Leroy Thomspon came to our chapel and caused a REAL split among some of the university students for about a good week or two.
www.eiwm.org/index.htm
He had a book out called...
[Note: I am NOT raggin' on this guy or saying that God doesn't minister through him in some kind of way. I will say that his form of teaching is definitely not my type of hype!]
Anyway, I remember sitting in this service checking this guy out. But this is what took the cake for me...and a whole bunch of other people. Bro. Thompson asked us to stand up and declare to the stores of money everywhere that they were COMMANDED by the power of God to come into the Church. I'll never forget it as long as I live. We were told to stand up, stretch out our arms, and say as loud as we could Money, come to me...NOW! Over and over again. When I saw a good deal of people in that chapel do this, something in me broke. That's all I can call it. And I just walked out. Just like that. A significant amount of others in the seminary section did too. As we were walking out, my atheistic seminary friend just looked at me. No words even NEEDED to be said between us. And THEN when I tried to talk about it in a HERMENEUTICS class of all places, my prof (with an obvious face of disgust about what transpired) said to the class that we were not to discuss what just happened. From that day forward, I was a "sign-in" only patron of the chapel services, most of the time. For me, it was either that...or leave school. It had really gotten to that point with me.
All of this is to say this, Bryan. Sometimes the "socio-linguistic" context in which you are in really puts a limitation on what you can and cannot deliberate in said context. In a given socio-linguistic context, integrity to that context, at times, means doing things that will respect and enhance that context, rather than cause derision and division within said context. If you find yourself in a more conservative context, you'd just got to understand that and operate accordingly. Sometimes that's the only way things can go down. Think about it. I go to Woodland Hills, right? Do you even THINK I'd be able to talk as freely about things there as I do here about things like universalism, masturbation, or inerrancy? How about HELL, NO! Not that Woodland Hills is Bethlehem Baptist or nothin' like that. (HA!) But the context is NOT liberal, knowhutimean? There's so many friggin rules you have to play by, it does get frustrating. I do bristle under it sometimes. But if there's one thing I understand, it's that the reality of socio-linguistic context has to be understood and thoroughly respected.
It's just the way of things. Does it suck for "freethinkers", at times? Yes, it does. But I can totally understand the nature of the beast.
***************************************
Bryan:
what is your relationship with doc? my impression from reading this board is that you are on the leadership team at woodland hills. do i have that right? if not, i'd be interested to know how you have dialogued with greg apart from this site. or if so, how'd that happen? you started with the books, then what? also, would you say that doc is more liberal than your other influences? the only reason i ask is, i figure from some standpoints, he would be considered fairly conservative. just depends on your perspecitve. some of the guys you were reading, particularly the process and atheist stuff, would be further left than greg and you had already come to them by the time you started reading him so i would think his books would've brought you back closer to the center. but you credit him for taking you to the left. i think you were correct in your tongue in cheek response, "nuff said, right?" but I would be interested in hearing some more.
The main way that Doc and I interacted was via this site (or it's earlier incarnation). We did hook up at some theological conventions and thangs. But most of the interaction we had was on the board. How did Doc take me left? Basically, I started reading process philosophy and theology in response to first looking at Greg's "God at War." When I first read God at War, I had pretty much moved towards a more Calvinistic mindframe. The book was used for a class dealing our seminary had dealing specifically with Spiritual Warfare. (I didn't take the class, but got the syllabus). After reading the book, it suprised me how many of my fellow students didn't see some of the implications. I was like "Yo, THIS guy here is basically saying that God is weak AND don't know the future!!" And some of my homies were like "No, I don't think he's saying that." I was like "The HECK he ain't! It's right there...with that whole Zosia thing!"
So, I was off to understand this crazy notion by this crazy dude named Boyd. So, I wanted to see how all this worked. In looking at the notations, I found out that Doc's thesis was a reconstruction of a "process metaphysic", I was like...hmm..so what's that? So, I pick up Cobb and Griffin's primer on Process theology. Then, THEY talk so much about this guy Alfred North Whitehead and "Process and Reality" that I say...hmmm..so what's that? So, I go get that. By the time, I was done, I had read all this process stuff...AND Doc's dissertation. (That's how I could understand the stuff.) I told ya. I'm a read-a-holic, fer sure.
The only reason I came around to being open to open view theism was because of Doc's dissertation. It solved the problems that I had had with straight process by providing the CONSISTENT locus for the enduring indeterminacy.
So, I guess this is one of the main ways Doc has affected me. Chances are that I never would have been as into process as I am if it weren't for Doc via "God at War" How about that?
****************
Yo, I appreciate that quote, Bryan...
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt." -- Paul Tillich
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/7/2005 9:58 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Yo, this was in a private convo with me brah...I know what you said.  nothing about anything on the boards, because I missed all that. But hey, I think I missunderstood you. My bad...have a beer.
Hey, question(s) for ya.
about the whole "social-linguistics" thing. I have often wondered, all the people at WHC need to do is hop on the boards and see your stuff. Then yer going down. Have you not had ANY flack in that regard? I'm thinking that Greg and Co. have had to have recieved SOME criticism. And it is soo true, THAT is the nature of the beast.
Also, when I was in Dallas at Christ for the Nations, I had to attend chapel EVERYDAY! Got quite sick of it to tell you the truth as did many people. This could be especially annoying because CFNI and ORU are tight (Freda Lindsay and Oral go WAAAAY back, but GO Vinson Synan!!! Execellent pentecostal historian!) so we had our share of health and wealth gaaaaspaaal preachers(ing). Anyway, having said that, do you find ANYTHING redeemable in health and wealth teachings? I think it is "filling in a gap" that is lacking in Church life in some ways, and so while I DEFINITELY remain critical of it, I have also applied what Richard Mouw (from whom I first heard the term) calls a "hermeneutic of charity" to THAT beast.
P.S. By the who-ay, do you like my sig too?
Brandon
"On Plantinga's conception of rationality, a rational belief system will display the characteristic foundationalist structure: there is still a foundation that is noninferentially justified and the relation of rational supports proceeds upward through the higher levels. Where his foundationalism departs from classical foundationalism is in his specifcation of properly basic beliefs. The classical foundationalist has a rather sparse set of properly basic beliefs. Plantinga's foundationalism is much less parsimonious in its specification of properly basic beliefs. He also includes memory beliefs, beliefs about the external world, acceptance of testimony, and belief in God, among others."--Return To Reason, Kelly James Clark Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 5/7/2005 10:01:54 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 5/8/2005 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Meph,
I don't want to take away from the Holocaust, Luther, and Christian Anti-Semitism thread.
bryan: Yeah, Meph. Sorry, I sorta singlehandedly derailed that thread didn't I? Whoops. Apologies. But thanks for startin' the new one so I could ask some of my questions. I think stuff like this is real important. you can ask me stuff too if ya like. basically, when i first got on this site, it seemed to me that you and tom were the sort of gurus around here, you being a little more controversial and at times less stable as well. is it okay to phrase it that way? -- once again, it's not meant to be insulting. in fact, i think it was one of the things i was attracted to about this place. i thought to myself, i don't agree with everything this guy says and some of it i don't even comprehend (my current lack of a theological education inhibits me sometimes when it comes to cool discussions), but i like him. and he swears too. that's cool. you're kinda magnetic, meph.
at any rate, on message boards like this, one of the things you never discover (unless you ask) is who the hell are these people? i feel that theology is really connected to life, not so much in that our theology determines who we are, but that who we are determines our theology. what's happening in society, war, world leaders, culture, communism, homosexuality, who are parents are and how they treated us, our favourite colour (okay, maybe not that one) -- these things affect us and we start looking for answers. those of us who believe in God, look at theology. why DO little girls get their eyes plucked out? does God care? so, in many ways, a board like this is hard for me becuz it divorces the source that feeds into theology from the theology itself. so, i appreciate when people are candid about things like what you've already said so far. i feel like i understand where you're coming from with your theology so much better now. just that little bit that you told me/us does something huge in relating to both you and your theology.
man, sometimes i forget how passionate i am about this stuff.
Meph: When I first read God at War, I had pretty much moved towards a more Calvinistic mindframe.
bryan: you were a calvinist? cool. i spent some time in the determinst camp too. basically, i was a "four-point" guy. i was trying to, but couldn't, accept limited atonement. by the time i understood limited atonement enough to make a formal decision, i had lost perseverence from reading hebrews (it's not even chapter 6 alone. it's all through the whole book) and then total depravity. and once you lose the "T" the whole flower dies.
Meph: Money, come to me...NOW!
bryan: yuck. what else can I even say? okay, lots. you're right that the health and wealth fills a gap. i've been thinking about this a lot lately. there is prosperity in the gospel. no matter how much was going on in in the beginning in the way of suffering for the gospel, etc. paul and co. were not homeless, in the usual sense of the word. i think if you had any homeless guy who wasn't saved and you discipled him and he applied the radical principles of faith and obedience as taught by the master, he would before long, cease to be homeless. perhaps there is counseling and stuff (depending on the person, ya know) in order to get the person to the point of ability to do this, but you see what i'm saying. the gospel does pull people out of the dirt. i think jesus would want to help starving kids in africa if he were around and i think he wants us to. BUT this is NOT anything anywhere near "money cometh." this is, IMHO (gotta add that part right?), worship of mammon. the thing is, "we" (by which i suppose i mean any american other than lowerclass, the definition of which is hard in itself to define) are already prosperous, so this is something that the gospel provides which we are already provided with. it'd be like if part of the gospel entailed giving people faces and we were all walking around going, "face, cometh to me in the name of Jesus!" becuz we assumed that having a face like enrique iglesias was what Jesus meant. while God blesses even those of us who have plenty of wealth with even more, it doesn't then follow that this is something we and everyone esle are entitled to by virtue of the gospel. no, i'm with ya meph. but of course the point you were making was that those of you who did not agree with this "type of hype" would not be allowed to discuss your problems with it, which is detrimental becuz then how can error be exposed? how can we grow if once we run the show, we're untouchable? the thing that makes christian leadership different is the leaders are held to the same standard as everyone esle. if they have moral error, we need to be able to talk about it openly and challenge them to change or let them lead people who don't want to follow a god of moral purity like we do.
and this doesn't even touch the free-thinking issue. argh. it's like a two-sided coin in a way. we need both the ability to be different in our thinking, but also the ability to challenge each other on what constitutes a mere difference of opionion and what's more than that. but if you can't even say what you think without getting stomped on becuz there's only one right answer, then...argh. how did you even get through it, meph?
okay, a few more: first, a simple one...am i the only one here who doesn't know your real name? are you okay with telling it?
second, i asked something about your role woodland hills. first, you say that if half the people at woodland hills knew what you thought about stuff, they'd be wigged out. my question is, unless you're like in leadership or on staff or something, who cares? or maybe you just mean your conservative friends there, which of course would be important to you. then i noticed with the whole "bush is satan" contoversey at the end of 2004 people were looking for you and doc and someone else to make the official WHC response to people's posts reacting against doc's anti-christian coaltion politics. these two things together give me the impression that you do more than merely "go there." but then, if you were in leadership or something, i'd think you'd have a lot more interaction with doc, even though it's a big church. so...can ya clear this up for me?
oh yeah, and what kind of music do you like? a few artists names would be good and maybe a genre. and what fiction do you read?
bryan
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt." -- Paul Tillich | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/8/2005 1:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
I just found out a week or so ago that you went to ORU. In all my time on this board, somehow I missed that. The FIRST thing I wanted to do was sit down with you and have you share your experience. I could not, for the life of me, figure out how a thinker like you ended up (not in the negative sense) at ORU. I mean, that blew my mind...royally! So when I saw this post, I thought WAY cool!
It's great to hear you tell about your experience at ORU, about how you thought before and during ORU. I'm sure I speak for more than myself when I say that we welcome your input, some talk about yourself, some disclosure of what has made you the thinker you are. It's not only interesting, but when someone starts moving into ministry, as you are, it becomes normal for others to want to know more about your background; what has caused you to tick the way you tick! So please, don't feel hesitant about talkin' to us about yourself, about why you are the way you are and why you think the way you think. It will all contribute to this board's growth!
Remarkable!
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 5/8/2005 1:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Stark,
Stark: In all my time on this board, somehow I missed that.
and again,
Stark: So please, don't feel hesitant about talkin' to us about yourself, about why you are the way you are and why you think the way you think. It will all contribute to this board's growth!
bryan: this is what I'm saying. but i don't think it's just meph. it's all of us. we all wanna know things about all of us, i think. we don't ask becuz we think we're being too personal, but you can't have a community without personality. we're more than the sum total of our respective theologies.
HOWEVER,
although Meph is obviously more than willing to share some of the personal stuff, he can't just randomly blob it all down there. some times you gotta have people be more specific in order to draw it outta ya a little. if there's something you wanna know...ya gotta ask!
if it's too personal, they won't answer it, but i think we should just ask and let them decide if it's too personal.
bryan
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt." -- Paul TillichPost Edited (bryan mccarthy) : 5/8/2005 5:13:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/9/2005 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
about the whole "social-linguistics" thing. I have often wondered, all the people at WHC need to do is hop on the boards and see your stuff. Then yer going down. Have you not had ANY flack in that regard? I'm thinking that Greg and Co. have had to have recieved SOME criticism. And it is soo true, THAT is the nature of the beast.
No comment. Heh. Well, maybe a little bit of comment. Bryan later said:
second, i asked something about your role woodland hills. first, you say that if half the people at woodland hills knew what you thought about stuff, they'd be wigged out. my question is, unless you're like in leadership or on staff or something, who cares? or maybe you just mean your conservative friends there, which of course would be important to you. then i noticed with the whole "bush is satan" contoversey at the end of 2004 people were looking for you and doc and someone else to make the official WHC response to people's posts reacting against doc's anti-christian coaltion politics. these two things together give me the impression that you do more than merely "go there." but then, if you were in leadership or something, i'd think you'd have a lot more interaction with doc, even though it's a big church. so...can ya clear this up for me?
I'll say this straight. This makes me nervous. It seems like everytime WHC is discussed more directly like this (ie the "WHC Covenant Partner Process" thread from a while back and 2004 Election debacle thread that Bryan mentioned, etc.), some drama-filled stuff seems to pop off. I can see that there's a reason that people often like to stay anonymous on these boards. Between the "truth brigaders" and "concerned Christians" just parousing pages just to look for the next statement to pull off a website and hang you with, it seems simply problematic to talk more openly about stuff.
But, to tell you the truth, I think my thing is...I really just don't care anymore. If it's THAT wrong for Christians to ask difficult questions, float controversial ideas, and really wrestle with faith...then perhaps I don't belong in a place where that's truly not accepted anyways. We'll see. Moving on...
Well, Bryan. I am on staff at WHC. Have been for a minute now. Check the WHC Website and see if you can guess where I am. (Hint: Not too many people of color on staff, buddy. ) And yeah, I have a decent amount of interaction with Doc (he is pretty busy a lot though). But a lot of the heavy theological interaction took place online. When we talk nowadays, we more refine thoughts on those things than anything else. about the "flak", I can't say that there hasn't been some concern expressed about it. Sometimes, I feel like Malcolm X when he began getting the warnings about possible assassination attempts. Getting stuff like "Hey, why don't you tone down a little." or "You sure you wanna go there. You're kinda putting yourself out there." Stuff like that. Being honest, I would hope that Christians who were genuinely concerned about me would email and talk to ME or come visit ME about those concerns, instead of doing the old end-around "Do you know what some of your staff may believe???" approach. But I've been in this just long enough to experience the disillusionment about how some "church folk" can act. So, I figure that I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
At any rate, from a personal standpoint, I believe that my own personal beliefs are just that...my own. As far as my stances on Christianity in general (with respect to teaching, preaching and whatnot), it seems easy enough to do so in the "broadened evangelical" scope. What do I mean by that? If one reads "Across the Spectrum", then you'll see what I mean. There are many different views on salvation, creation, atonement, etc...ALL of which fall within evangelicalism. (Believe it or not, there are even evangelicals who DON'T believe in inerrancy!) I see nothing wrong with staying within those boundaries. I don't feel those boundaries challenge the socio-linguistic context too much. Basically, I can be respectful of the discussion of the Protestant, evangelical tradition of the church...without personally endorsing everything in said tradition. Trust me. Seminary professors at places from ORU to Bethel to Fuller do NO LESS than this when it comes to their own personal beliefs and what they do as teachers.
Here's my thought. If people at WHC did start going on a tip like how the BGC did with Doc and his open theism, and the clammor's loud enough...screw it. I'm not about causing derision and division. I'll leave. No muss, no fuss. I'll leave. I do believe wholeheartedly in WHC'S vision. I do believe that God has called the church to some great things for the glorification of God. I do feel called there for this season of my life and this point in the church's history. But if things don't work out, they don't...and I trust that God will use me elsewhere.
Hmmm...it actually feels really good to get that off my chest. Interesting. I think that's about all I have to say about that.
[Note for people interested: YO! If you do have some issues or concerns about me in regards to this, I'll ask you. Be a real BROTHER or SISTER in Christ and holla at me about it. You can email me or holla at me when you see me at church. I ain't hidin. I ain't going nowhere. You know where to find me.]
************************
Brandon:
Also, when I was in Dallas at Christ for the Nations, I had to attend chapel EVERYDAY! Got quite sick of it to tell you the truth as did many people. This could be especially annoying because CFNI and ORU are tight (Freda Lindsay and Oral go WAAAAY back, but GO Vinson Synan!!! Execellent pentecostal historian!) so we had our share of health and wealth gaaaaspaaal preachers(ing). Anyway, having said that, do you find ANYTHING redeemable in health and wealth teachings? I think it is "filling in a gap" that is lacking in Church life in some ways, and so while I DEFINITELY remain critical of it, I have also applied what Richard Mouw (from whom I first heard the term) calls a "hermeneutic of charity" to THAT beast.
Wow. Vinson Synan. Now THAT's a name I haven't heard in a while. For those of you who don't know, Dr. Synan has written things like "The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century". As Brandon said, excellent historian. He once was the head of the Oral Roberts' University Holy Spirit Research Center. He's at Regent now, as I recall?
Anyways, I've never said that I don't see anything redeemable about prosperity or "word of faith" theology. It's not like I dismiss it all. I do think there are some great things in it, I believe God uses it, all that. I also believe that some things are taken way too far to be truly spiritually edifying.
******************************
Bryan:
oh yeah, and what kind of music do you like? a few artists names would be good and maybe a genre. and what fiction do you read?
All kinds of music. Really. Alternative, world, electronic, rap/hip-hop, jazz, blues, soft jazz, etc.
Bjork
Bob Marley
Tonex
Harry Connick, Jr.
Ray Charles
Norah Jones
Foreplay (a jazz group)
Common
Al Jarreau
Linkin Park
Hopefully, this gives you a breadth.
As far as books, the only fiction I read is comic books and graphic novels. I've been a comic book fan for about as long as I could read.
**************************************
Meph: It solved the problems that I had had with straight process by providing the CONSISTENT locus for the enduring indeterminacy.
bryan: can you flesh this one out a bit? first, i dunno what a "locus" is. i'll look it up today. and the statement as a whole i don't really understand and even if i did i'd probably want an example or two.
Briefly. In my mind, God could know all things exhaustively because all things in existence were, I believed, essentially had the ability to be known exhaustively. In other words, believed that indeterminacy was only epistemological from our end. Process philosophy disagreed with this...but it didn't really clearly lay out "WHERE" the penultimate source of the enduring indeterminacy within all things was located. It seemed like they said that they were just "self-caused" or something and that didn't make sense. (Doc picks this up in Trinity and Process) Doc posited the concept of "dispositions" as to where this indeterminacy was...and HOW it would be in some way indeterminate, even to God.
Does that help?
********************************
Starkman:
It's great to hear you tell about your experience at ORU, about how you thought before and during ORU. I'm sure I speak for more than myself when I say that we welcome your input, some talk about yourself, some disclosure of what has made you the thinker you are. It's not only interesting, but when someone starts moving into ministry, as you are, it becomes normal for others to want to know more about your background; what has caused you to tick the way you tick! So please, don't feel hesitant about talkin' to us about yourself, about why you are the way you are and why you think the way you think. It will all contribute to this board's growth!
Preciate the kudos, man. I truly do hope that there is mainly positivity that comes out of this. Thanks, again.
**********************************
Bryan:
this is what I'm saying. but i don't think it's just meph. it's all of us. we all wanna know things about all of us, i think. we don't ask becuz we think we're being too personal, but you can't have a community without personality. we're more than the sum total of our respective theologies.
HOWEVER,
although Meph is obviously more than willing to share some of the personal stuff, he can't just randomly blob it all down there. some times you gotta have people be more specific in order to draw it outta ya a little. if there's something you wanna know...ya gotta ask!
if it's too personal, they won't answer it, but i think we should just ask and let them decide if it's too personal.
I go with this. If something is too personal, they won't share. And they can say so. I think my own problem is (or at least it has been told to me by some) that I'm TOO OPEN for my own good. Not that I just dump all of my business anywhere and everywhere. But sometimes, I say just enough to poke nerves and initiate controversy...seemingly where it could be avoided by just shuttin' up. "Sheesh, D, you don't HAVE to talk abot everything, ya know." "Well, yeah, I know that...but what's wrong with talking about THIS thing?"
I think some of it is culture shock too. I am sooooooo NOT "Minnesota nice". I find myself being fascinated and bothered by it at times. But I'm coming to understand it at least...and am growing to respect it as a cultural phenomenon. Yep. Big up to Scandinavian culture. Heh.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/9/2005 11:16 AM (GMT -6) | | | Hey Meph,
(Man, I've been waiting for this thread for a loooong time!)
When you read, Meph, do you speed read?
How have you found time to read so much? How did you have the time both to do your degree and to read so much other material?
You must have excellent comprehension. I mean, like, do you ever have to re-read something because you find yourself saying, "Huh? I don't get it!"
Now, you've mentioned a bit about how you got into process theology, but tell us what the literal academic learning process has been for you in general. I mean, what's come easy and what's come hard? What has transpired mentally and academically for you from your personal learning-process experience? In other words, in what areas (and how in these areas) have the pieces fallen into place? What pieces have not fallen into place (in terms of learning)?
Close related to the question above, what part of "thinking" is difficult for you?
Thanks VERY much, Meph for taking the time to table-talk with us, man!
Starkman
P.S. I ask these kinds of questions, Meph, because I've never done a formal education (but would give anything to do so), and it's probably best that it hasn't gone that way; I have a horrible memory and poor comprehension. So I envy (in a good sense) those who have gone further than I in the bigger picture of what it means to learn.
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/12/2005 1:22 PM (GMT -6) | | One more time...what has become of your atheist seminary friend? Also, 'bout the music Meph Man listens to. It is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out. As a young Christian, I wondered how people could listen to secular music. The beat was of the devil, that sort of thing. But as I grew up, I realized more and more that the problem of LISTENING to music (and watching t.v. or movies, etc) was one of simple absorption not ART FORMS. Mindlessly, absorbing the worldviews that are present in the particular art form. As one engages others in dialog, one becomes more attuned to their own bias and prejudices as well as that of others. In other words, one will be more "discerning" of what is being said, "Is the outlook of this song, movie, t.v. program naturalism? existentialism? materialism?, etc?" and then they can "check it" against their own Christian convictions or worldview
Brandon
"On Plantinga's conception of rationality, a rational belief system will display the characteristic foundationalist structure: there is still a foundation that is noninferentially justified and the relation of rational supports proceeds upward through the higher levels. Where his foundationalism departs from classical foundationalism is in his specifcation of properly basic beliefs. The classical foundationalist has a rather sparse set of properly basic beliefs. Plantinga's foundationalism is much less parsimonious in its specification of properly basic beliefs. He also includes memory beliefs, beliefs about the external world, acceptance of testimony, and belief in God, among others."--Return To Reason, Kelly James Clark | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 5/12/2005 5:07 PM (GMT -6) | | hey meph,
meph: (Hint: Not too many people of color on staff, buddy. )
bryan: yeah, pretty much just one. there's one that's kinda hard to tell the colour, but i think it's a girl so that pretty much narrows it down to the stylin' guy (:D), position will remain unnamed by me in the public sense, even though it's pretty obvious. i think i cracked the name too actually. also not real difficult, given your clues.
meph: I would hope that Christians who were genuinely concerned about me would email and talk to ME or come visit ME about those concerns, instead of doing the old end-around "Do you know what some of your staff may believe???" approach.
bryan: yeah. we can start with us, i guess, right?
meph: Hopefully, this gives you a breadth. As far as books, the only fiction I read is comic books and graphic novels. I've been a comic book fan for about as long as I could read.
bryan: yeah, that's a very respectable list of listening tastes. i like bjork and harry connick jr. as well. comic books, huh? funny you should bring that up. i've been wanting to pick up a graphic novel lately. any recommendations for me? i have some exposure to comics, but i'd like to go a little deeper.
meph: Briefly. In my mind, God could know all things exhaustively because all things in existence were, I believed, essentially had the ability to be known exhaustively. In other words, believed that indeterminacy was only epistemological from our end.
bryan: hmm. so what you're saying is at that point, we only felt free, but were not actually free. since, in theory, everything can be known by god, it IS known by god becuz there is no reason for him not to know something he definitely has the power to know. this is where greg's love and limiting himself concept comes in, which i guess is what you're saying made the process stuff intelligible for you.
meph: Process philosophy disagreed with this...but it didn't really clearly lay out "WHERE" the penultimate source of the enduring indeterminacy within all things was located. It seemed like they said that they were just "self-caused" or something and that didn't make sense. (Doc picks this up in Trinity and Process) Doc posited the concept of "dispositions" as to where this indeterminacy was...and HOW it would be in some way indeterminate, even to God. Does that help?
bryan: so the process answer to how people are libertarianly free, seemed to be "they just are," which wasn't good enough for you, but when you read trinity and process, doc's idea of the disposition being the source of libertarian freedom kicked you over. do i have everything right so far? if so, what is the disposiotions concept? that is, what is this source of freedom he proposed? if not, you may wanna wait on answering this before i understand what you've written so far.
something else i was wondering a few months back, you challenged greg on this site (i've heard he's lost his password so he shant be giving a rebuttal) after your reading of beyond the bounds. did you ever resolve that issue. are you still an OV guy or have you dropped some of its tenets?
bryan
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt." -- Paul Tillich | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:44 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|