I visit this site occasionally (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/posters.htm) when I need a good laugh. However, the above poster struck me in a number of different ways. First of all I am struggling (if you have not noticed) with some of the ‘unwritten rules’ of the church world in which I find myself. In a conversation with a friend the other day, I walked away wondering what was more important in some people’s minds; the unwritten rules of ‘church world’ or how we learn to live out our faith in a culture in which we are called to be lights?
I have maintained that not everyone sees the world through the same glasses theologically. I have friends who are Calvinistic to the core, you would think that you are talking to John himself, as well as friends who are very Arminian in their theological perspective.
A ministry of balance is what I feel that I am attempting to live out in my personal life as well as the community in which I lead. I choose to seek the Biblical middle ground between the extremes of Charismainia (you read correctly) versus Charisphobia, emotionalism versus traditionalism, and Calvinism versus Arminianism and what I find is that there is no final solution possible. Great theological minds have debated the issues like free will versus the sovereignty of God for centuries without ever being able to reconcile the two. Arguing for one side at the expense of the other is foolish (in my opinion) because by nature it is not provable, and therefore is an argument which no one can win. Can’t we all just get along?
I, myself hold a theological viewpoint that I am very comfortable with, to the point that I can ascribe to a ‘denominational’ statement of faith. My issue goes further than this…
What I really find puzzling is how people will put emphasis on ‘tradition’ and ‘history’ as their statement of faith. I know that my view/interpretation of what it means to “be in the world and not of it” of may differ from some of my contemporaries, but why is it if one’s methodology is different and not their theology, that one could imply that someone is being divisive?