 |
| 
Blood Washed Heretic
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 167
| Posted 7/23/2003 4:46 AM (GMT -6) |   | Quick question...
Doc, why do you refer to your spiritual warfare theory (which I think is outstanding) as a "worldview"?
It seems to me that this implies the view is different at a fundamental level from the good ol' functional Christian worldview. I don't think that's the case at all. I would submit that true followers of Christ, regardless of doctrinal distinctions, adhere to the same basic worldview.
So, isn't it a misnomer to call a position which falls safely within the bounds of orthodoxy a separate "worldview"?
I really dislike the term "worldview" anway, but have yet to find anything better. Anything else would be just as posturing linguistically anyway, so I don't lose sleep over it.
But whether I like it or not, "worldview" theory is here to stay, and according to the working definition I've received, I don't see how warfare theodicy counts as a worldview as such.
Look forward to the answers...
In essentials, unity; In matters of opinion, liberty; In all things, love.
Edited by - Blood Washed Heretic on 07/23/2003 09:47:32 AM
Edited by - Blood Washed Heretic on 07/23/2003 09:47:59 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/23/2003 5:38 AM (GMT -6) | | In "God at War" Greg goes into why he thinks that the Warfare World-View is in fact quite Biblical.
The thing is that, contrary to the theological world-views associated with the Medieval Synthesis, OVTheism stresses the reality of ongoing conflict whereby when bad-stuff happens we cannot presume there was a higher reason/plan behind the incident.
Now I don't care for the Warfare worldview of Greg because it tends to be too manicheistic. Although, I share his stress on the importance of the reality of conflict, but I think most conflicts are of the sort whereby neither party/interest can be delineated as Evil or Good but that it is of paramount importance that we come up with resolutions to said conflicts on a daily basis. Otherwise they fester and end up becoming Yugoslavia/Iraq/Germany-type situations.
Germans are not "evil", they had a lot of pent-up hatred from poorly-resolved conflicts(caused in part by their lack of very strong democratic institutions...).
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Blood Washed Heretic
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 167
| Posted 7/23/2003 5:56 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm not questioning the validity or Biblicality of the warfare view, DLW. It's been a powerful enhancement to my prayer life to think in Greg's terms. My quetion is basically one of semantics.
Why should it be called a "worldview" as opposed to a "theory"?
That's all I'm asking.
Thanks for the input, though. And I agree that in the human arena, the Good/Evil dichotomy is often a false one. But I'm talking in purely spiritual terms in this discussion.
In essentials, unity; In matters of opinion, liberty; In all things, love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/23/2003 6:07 AM (GMT -6) | | I think it's called a "worldview" because it's a way of looking at the world and explaining things.
Those who say there isn't a war going on have lots of scripture to explain away. One quarter of Jesus' ministry recorded in scripture was casting demons out of people, is one example.
Worldviews are more comprehensive and theories are more specialized.
Edited by - Laika on 07/23/2003 11:15:48 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/23/2003 6:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika is right about the difference between world-view and theory.
However, world-views, inevitably, select certain understandings of the world as more appropriate than others. They act as filters.
I.e., when GBush says I don't trust Big Government, I trust you. He is saying that he trusts Big Business. The abuse of power in gov't looms large and the abuse of power in Business(as illustrated in the film "The Insider")looms small.
For example, while the WWV explains the existence of suffering and gratuitous evil, it doesn't explain, but presumes, the simultaneous existence of much order in the world and how we govern ourselves. So when I dissent from the WWV I am saying that how we govern ourselves is not settled and should loom larger in our theologies.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/24/2003 4:57 AM (GMT -6) | | HI BWH. I take a "worldview" to be the ultimate "gestalt" within which one understands all the particulars of their experience. Its the canvass against which our understanding of the world is painted. I think the "warfare worldview" is a worldview because it posits conflict as the ultimate background against which our understanding of the world is to be painted. It contrasts with the blueprint worldview which understands every specific event against the canvass of ONE overriding will -- God's.
DLW: I think most conflicts are of the sort whereby neither party/interest can be delineated as Evil or Good but that it is of paramount importance that we come up with resolutions to said conflicts on a daily basis. Otherwise they fester and end up becoming Yugoslavia/Iraq/Germany-type situations.
Doc: I think one ADVANTAGE of the warfare worldview is that it allows us to identify a NON-HUMAN enemy as the real enemy and to see ALL PEOPLE as the one's WERE FIGHTING FOR. I agree with you Dave that it is arrogant, judgmental, and even itself EVIL to demonize another human. It's the ultiamte act of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Hence, all conflict between humans should be resolved as you say, with the love of Christ (who died for the ones we're in conflict with). But our awareness of, and resistance to, "the Powers," helps us in resolving these conflicts.
Blessings
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/24/2003 7:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Greg
But our awareness of, and resistance to, "the Powers," helps us in resolving these conflicts.
GREAT POINT!!!!
Abraham Kuyper, in his innogural speach at the founding of the Free University of Amsterdam ("Free" meant not connected to the State -- which Kuyper was Prime Minister of even.), said TWO THINGS. One about what can be called "structure," and the other about what is regarded as "direction." ALL of Christ's Creation is declared "good" in Genesis, and Kuyper is famous for saying that "there is not one square in inch of Creation that Jesus Christ does not point to AND SAY 'MINE.'"
All education, administration, research, cultivation, etc. that is about God's Creation has the POTENTIAL to be good. But not everything "is" good. Some is "anti-thetical" to the Created structural Norms that are part of Creation and instituted by God. Polution is one thing. (Bio-engineering ethicists askss questions about other things of potential danger.)
Christians MUST recognize that scientists working in all fields, but who do not know Christ in their hearts have two traits: First, their science if done well is good science. Second, if they do not have God in their hearts, their well-done science, while mostly on track, CAN (I said "can.") have at many of the points where one theory builds on another, have subtle differences distinguishing it from the best biblically-based and Spirit-lead conclusions that could be drawn.
Notice this: Those following in Kuyper's tradition should not divide the world into a dualism of "sacred" and "secular/profane." Every square inch is "sacred unto God" in Kuyper's words. No field of work or learning, tilling or tending is any more or less sacred. Gardening is equally a Godly calling as preaching the Word from the pulpet!
BUT THERE IS AN "ANTITHESIS." THERE IS EVIL POTENTIALLY (SINCE THE FALL) IN EVERYTHING -- EVEN IN PREACHING.
As Rev. Boyd said: "But our awareness of, and resistance to, "the Powers," helps us in resolving these conflicts."
It is wrong to throw every part of one field into an indiscrimanent catche -- like business used to be thought secular by Evangelicals before about 1975. And it is wrong to throw out the person who is making a wrong conclusion in science as being a poor scientist.
But we must lead all to Christ, who is the Master of EVERYTHING that is created, in heaven and on the earth! Amen. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/24/2003 7:48 AM (GMT -6) | | | Frankly (I'm talking to all you Armineans right now.) Knowledge and appreciation of the "Antithesis" is one of the great strengths of "Calvinism," and HUGE contribution to the envigoration of Evangelical Christian Higher Education (the CCCU), through persons like Van Til (who was at Dordt College), and his influence on Arthur Holmes (at Wheaton College). | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/24/2003 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
HI BWH. I take a "worldview" to be the ultimate "gestalt" within which one understands all the particulars of their experience. Its the canvass against which our understanding of the world is painted. I think the "warfare worldview" is a worldview because it posits conflict as the ultimate background against which our understanding of the world is to be painted. It contrasts with the blueprint worldview which understands every specific event against the canvass of ONE overriding will -- God's.
The other view of world-view is that it is a lense through which one looks at the world. I.e., WWV does posit conflict as ubiquitous in the world but construes the nature of the conflict in manicheistic terms. An alternative view of conflict would be an emphasis on its pervasiveness but with a focus on pinpointing the object of the conflict and the conflicting values at stake deigned to the end of helping resolve the conflict and ensure that, in the resolution, neither party unduly manipulates the other. This would be the view of conflict common to Catholic Social Thought and it draws its imagery from law, not warfare.
quote:
DLW: I think most conflicts are of the sort whereby neither party/interest can be delineated as Evil or Good but that it is of paramount importance that we come up with resolutions to said conflicts on a daily basis. Otherwise they fester and end up becoming Yugoslavia/Iraq/Germany-type situations.
Doc: I think one ADVANTAGE of the warfare worldview is that it allows us to identify a NON-HUMAN enemy as the real enemy and to see ALL PEOPLE as the one's WERE FIGHTING FOR. I agree with you Dave that it is arrogant, judgmental, and even itself EVIL to demonize another human. It's the ultiamte act of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Hence, all conflict between humans should be resolved as you say, with the love of Christ (who died for the ones we're in conflict with). But our awareness of, and resistance to, "the Powers," helps us in resolving these conflicts.
Doc and I actually do agree more than we disagree. I agree with what he said above. As with MR, even though the conflict is no longer between humans and machines, there still is Good and Evil and Evil didn't just happen on its own. It sure ain't coeternal with Good.
I just think that we should not focus on the evil one. Too many of us are too weak and may stumble from that. Ultimately, in focusing on concrete manifestations of how we Christians let our lights shine and stressing the importance of prayer, we defeat the powers even if they don't take center stage in how we view the world.
And that my friend is what differences in world-views or world-canvases are.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/24/2003 9:28 AM (GMT -6) | | While your at it, Doc can you explain to me again why "Anabaptism" follows from the WWV?
here is an excerpt from when Tyler/Modes and I were playing God...
quote:
Modes:given that we don't have a theocracy, much less a Christocracy, we should expect trouble in our political systems. I would say, don't distract yourself unduly with that unless you really feel called to do so. Yes, I am a good anabatist in this respect. Except an anabaptist would even ignore a call by God into redemptive work in the government. So I am considerably left of that...
DLW:Doesn't the term distract here presume a knowledge of what God has called us to do? Jesus was not an anarchist and he didn't call for an overhaul of the existing structures of his time, but he did critique and call for changes in much of the rules that prevailed in his community, where he did have say-so. This isn't saying that rules, in and of themselves are wrong, but that we are to be critical of what we have received and how they can become warped beyond their original, well-intended purposes.
Anabaptists were violently persecuted by the state. Avoiding it and working hard at being extra-productive so as to buy protection from the state were its self-defense mechanism. It is anachronistic for you to claim your social circumstances are even remotely similar. You work for a church of mostly upper-middle-class people who work for corporations/businesses that currently do have considerable sway over the government. As such, you are indirectly a beneficiary of the powers that be not one that is always at risk of being persecuted by the powers that be.
So I don't see how You/Doc connect the dots to get Arminianism. I later told Tyler that I thought his position actually sounded quite Lutheran. As for yours, it seems to have a totally depraved view of the state and to grasp for an a-political center. The center can only be meaningful in my view if it is dynamic and if it is dynamic/changing then we will have conflicts over what direction that change should go, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit does not provide us an exhaustive blueprint and there are evil forces seeking to undermine the quality of witness...
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:59 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 |
|
|