What An Open Mind Is Not

I see more and more people associating having this “open mind” to being liberal. Political and theological liberalism then become the only true representation of having an open mind. If you believe that gay marriage is immoral—then you have a closed mind. If you believe that one worldview is right and others are wrong—then you have a closed mind. The list could go on and on.

There are some glaring problems with this definition of having an open mind. First, when you say that saying any other worldview is wrong then you essentially believe in nothing. This is the conundrum that is implicit in Postmodernity. Moral relativism is one of a few grave philosophical and logical errors that are made when you step in Postmodern philosophy. The problem is that when you believe in everything then you believe nothing. A critical thinker doesn’t let everything into their minds.

The other issue is that when you write off those with a particular ideology as close minded then the accuser ends up with the closed mind. Much like the relativist fallacy in moral relativism it is self defeating. Is there a better way to approach a more balanced definition of having an open mind?

A Definition Worth Defining

Let’s try this definition to guide our discussion.

Open Mind: Having an “open mind” is when an individual can objectively judge truth claims in light of their own presuppositions in the pursuit of truth and knowledge.

Notice there are a couple of important points in this definition. Notice that this definition applies to an individual to avoid applying the definition to a group of people who falls prey to groupthink. The person also evaluates truth claims which can be anything from a political ideology to a religion. Presuppositions also can greatly color the way we test truth claims so the person has to be honest with their presuppositions and not let a set of presuppositions immediately decide how one feels on an issue. This point is crucial, and its importance is worth noting.

Finally, having an open mind must mean you are seeking truth and knowledge.. If you subscribe to moral relativism you aren’t really searching for anything absolute or meaningful to your existence. Also, if you simply entertain an idea or philosophy as a hobby it will hinder your ability to objectively judge it as opposed to someone who is seeing to know if something is truthful.

Let’s Move On

Let’s use this definition to avoid calling a Christian, or anyone else who believes in absolutes, as close minded. I apply this definition as my friend Aaron Shafovaloff once told me. He said that if someone provided him with an objective, logical, and truthful presentation that Christianity is false that he would hopefully have the where with all to abandon Christianity. That is a great application of our definition, and I invite all to challenge myself and each other.

An Important Sidebar

Before going any further there is an important point to bring to light. As Christians we must acknowledge that our hope is not in this world, its leaders, and policies. We serve a sovereign, mighty God that is working all things to the good of those who love him (Rom 8:28).  To find yourself in immense grief over our political state is to ignore that our focus is to be on the eschaton and not this world that is passing away (1 Cor 7:31; 1 John 2:17).  Keep in mind also that all rulers and authorities are put into that position by the will of God (Rom 13).  With that important note we can move into our discussion.

Proposition 8 and Its Effects

In California, which is known for its liberal voting record, passed Proposition 8 into their state’s constitution. This amendment not only defines legal marriages as between one man and one woman, but it also applies retroactively to all current homosexual marriages formerly sanctioned by the state.  In August of this year the state’s highest court repealed a ban on same-sex marriages which led to the Proposition 8 vote (as well as a ruling a few years ago legitimizing same-sex marriage).  This election similar measures passed in Arizona and Florida bringing the total to 30 states that have passed similar measures.

This last week protests across the country took part in opposing the passage of the act in California.  The protesters are calling on the State’s high court to overrule the amendment as “unconstitutional.”  All this has led to a revelation that many conservatives have touted for a long time?namely the misguided role that judges have in legislation.

It’s become more and more apparent in recent times that judges across the country have been legislating from the bench instead of interpreting and applying legislation. This amendment is particularly important, because it has brought to light that a few judges (or even one judge) do not and should not speak for the general populace.  On issues as important as the definition of marriage amongst others it is very apparent that the populace should decide how such an issue is decided.

We all have the tendency to love electoral results when the outcome is what we desire.  However, liberals have shown more and more that they cannot accept when an outcome doesn’t favor their position.  This contradictory position is no more evident then the protests surrounding the passage of Proposition 8. Instead of acquiescing to the electoral results they vow to fight it as long as necessary for the result they want to come through.

The Beacon of Hope

As conservative evangelicals we can look at issues like Proposition 8 and thank God for not allowing us to be as wicked as we could be as a nation.  In a time when the GOP is “re-evaluating” their platform (translation: we need to be more moderate) we can see this promotion of righteousness as an important victory.  While not the only issue relevant to evangelicals in the current political landscape it certainly shows that on the whole we as a nation aren’t as liberal as our popular media would like us to believe.

The gospel must go forth with or without a Republican president, and nothing will inhibit the Spirit of God working in this world for his glory.  We can continue to be kingdom-minded believers who seek to promote righteousness in the public square and also maintain our fierce dedication to the truth that only the gospel  will bring redemption and joy to this fallen world.

Me: So you enjoy studying theology?
Joe Nominal: I don’t need to study theology as long as I have Jesus. That stuff just divides.

I used to get frustrated to the point of acting in an un-humble, and un-Christ like way.  I decided instead to point them to a verse that has stood out to me from Hebrews 6.

Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits. (Heb 6:1-3)

This is on the heels of the previous chapter where the author admonishes the Hebrew believers to move from milk to solid food (Heb 5:12).  It always seemed to be a perfect admonishment to give to believers who seemingly love to stay satisfied with milk and not move onto solid food.

Recently, a deacon at my church named Paul DeHart gave a lesson on this very passage.  It was a perfect opportunity to ensure that my application was in fact correct and not a misuse of the text.  In an e-mail he shared the following application that deserves to be heard by others.

“[W]hen talking to someone, saying something like: ‘I understand that you believe that Jesus is enough, but God has given his children a relationship with Christ, and this involves growing in our knowledge of Him. A good example of this call is found in the epistle of Hebrews where the author challenges the Jews to whom he is writing that they need to move beyond their immature views of Christ which are being twisted by not understanding how He fulfilled many of their Old Covenant practices. In the same way, we today need to grow in our knowledge of Christ so that we don’t start conforming Christ to the patterns and understandings that we have in this world. To understand a proper view of Christ, we need to understand Scripture, and see how Christ relates to us, to the world, and understand salvation, sanctification, etc. The study of these things is theology and it is important to our growth in Christ.‘”

What great wisdom and application?I have nothing more to add!

I have visited all three, and I am familiar with differing levels of each congregation.  I will highlight some major differing points between the three, but most of the differences are primarily ecclessiastical and not soteriological.  They will also range from the most “traditional” to more “contemporary” in how they hold their services.

Kemp Road Baptist Church

Kemp is the church I am a member of and frequent.  It comes out of an association called the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America or ARBCA.  They are creedalistic, in particular the 1689 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith.  They are fairly strict cessationists and sabbatarians, and the congregation numbers between 100-150 each Sunday morning.

www.kemproadbaptist.com

Grace Covenant

Grace Covenant is right down the road from Kemp, and there are very similar in their theological adherence to a confession although they choose the Westminster Confession of Faith although they are baptistic.  You will find more theological liberty amongst their leadership with some being Presbyterian, Dispensationalists, etc.  They also employ a slightly more contemporary form of music then Kemp would.  The teaching pastor also is a member of the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals or FIRE.  They also share a similar congregation size to Kemp.

www.gracecovenant.info

Clearcreek Chapel

Clearcreek Chapel is unfortunately the one I know the least about, but I have visited as well as conversed with some congregants.  Their services would be more contemporary then the previous two, and the congregation size is also larger then both Grace and Kemp.  Of the three, they probably wear the RB title the least on their sleeve making it more inviting to those who don’t understand the Doctrines of Grace.

www.clearcreekchapel.org

If I Forgot Something

If I forgot a congregation and/or someone more familiar with the congregations above would like me to alter the descriptions then please let me know in the comments.  This should be a good resource, however, for individuals looking for reformed and baptistic churches in the Dayton, Ohio (OH) area.

I once flipped through a book that caught my eye entitled Irresistible Evangelism by the former pastor of the Cincinnati Vineyard. I was flipping through and found a horrific graphic that summarized their philosophy of evangelism.1 Basically, the analogy is between golf hole and evangelism. When you golf you don’t just shoot it straight into the hole (unless you’re insanely good), but instead you take one shot into the fairway, then up to the green, then finally in the hole. And each of these steps correlates to the relational process you move through in their method of evangelism. You don’t start off with the Gospel, because you need to first “get it up to the green.” This methodology clearly shows their Arminian/decisional regeneration theology.

This analogy, I think, most clearly shows what relational evangelism can go to taken to an extreme. We must first ask: Did anyone in the whole Bible present the truth of God only after the tee and fairway shots? Jesus calls his disciples from the very beginning to repentance, and Peter and Paul both giving stirring Gospel presentations to the masses. I would imagine that if there was a model to clone it would be these gentlemen, but each of these men also contextualized the Gospel to their audience.

I of course don’t want to misuse something, and if I have done so I want to be corrected; so I asked Doug to write a short rejoinder.

I would share your concerns about too much friendship and not enough evangelism as well. The bigger idea of the golf course analogy was simply to help Christians see that God’s word clearly presents the idea of evangelism from a holistic perspective. Way to many Christ followers find a club (a method) that they feel comfortable with and then take it to their golf course everyday. Effective evangelism starts where people are in relationship to God not where we would like them to be. My admonition to Christ followers is to go to their golf course everyday with a full bag of clubs. You will never see Jesus do the exact same thing with the different people He encounters along the way. Sometimes He did a good deed, sometimes He raised questions, sometimes He shared Good news. Apparently He understood that different folks need different strokes. The golf course analogy is just a metaphor intended to encourage people to bring the whole gospel to the whole person. Some days that means we will sow, some days water, and some days we will harvest. If you would like to better understand my take on the whole thing go to my website at GodsGPS.com. There is one article I wrote for Outreach Magazine that might best articulate what in particular the way we should be intentional in our efforts to move the ball ahead on the golf course.

I am curious as to the thoughts my readers have.  Did I take it out of context?  Does Doug’s explanation ease your mind on this?

I will be taking a temporary hiatus from writing full articles, but I will continue to feature content from my sideblog and the forums.  While I will write the occasional article it will be an aberration for a short time. But fear not friends as I will return in full force soon enough!  You can still access all the archives.

I always wanted this to be a place where we can think through the social, political, and theological topics of the day as informed and intelligent Christians, but I want to make sure that I do it out of love for it and the glory of God.  I just need some time to re-focus to return the posting regularity to what it once was.

-Chris

In some of the circles I run in (i.e. Reformed yet intensely missiological) we stand hard-fast by a more biblical definition of contextualization. We believe strongly that the Gospel is relevant without needing to alter it in any way yet we recognize the pattern of the Lord’s witnesses to his truth and holiness expressed most completely in Christ. From Paul on Mars Hill preaching to the Stoics and Epicureans with their paganism (Acts 17) to Jesus’ method to share the same truth in one chapter to Nicodemus (John 3)?a Jewish Pharisee?and the next chapter with a Samaritan woman (John 4). Paul’s declaration that he has “become all things to all men” in 1 Corinthians 9 doesn’t mean that he shared a different Gospel but that he recognized differing presupposition and starting points in sharing the same Gospel to different individuals.

John MacArthur’s Stance Made Clear

One individual, John MacArthur, has taken some strong stances against what he defines as contextualization. Often he is mis-quoted on this, so I thought it would be helpful to look at some of what he’s said on the topic.

I hear a lot today about the necessity to contextualize the message. If I had any sense, I would be wearing a black t-shirt with a skull and crossbones on it and I would have holes in my jeans and there would be no pulpit here. And I would be wandering from pillar to post up here, we would turn the lights down and change this environment because people need contextualization if they?re going to respond. I haven?t found that necessary, nor am I at all convinced that contextualization means anything or has any value in the church. (Source)

The apostles went out with an absolute disdain for contextualization. The modern drive for cultural contextualization is a curse, because people are wasting their time trying to figure out clever ways to draw in the elect. Contextualization is ?zip-code ministry.? The message of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is transcendent. It goes beyond its immediate culture or sub-culture. It crosses the world, and ignores the nuances of culture. It never descends to clothing or musical style, as if that had anything to do with the message of the Gospel. (Source – a transcription)

It would seem as though John has a grave misunderstanding on what careful, thoughtful missionaries are doing in their ministries. It puzzles me that as John reads and preaches from an English bible?which is the very nature of contextualization?he outright disdains contextualization. But to be fair he comments on 1 Corinthians 9 in a way reminiscent of what we would hope for.

How do people think religiously, how do they perceive truth??those are the starting points that Paul was establishing. That?s a far cry from saying that to reach this generation we must do their music, we must dress the way they dress, we must live the way they live, we must be familiar with the baser components of their culture. That?s a million miles from what the Apostle Paul had in mind. He was talking about those things that controlled their thought process and their worldview. (Source)

John does correctly recognize that presuppositions is the main concern in contextualization, and for this I want to rejoice. However, John apparently marries the idea of contextualization with becoming like the culture around us. That is the very nature of a misunderstanding that some have indeed applied to sharing the Gospel, but it is not what we should strive for in our ministries.

The Test of Biblical Contextualization

This stance of John’s was brought up in this year’s Together for the Gospel. John mentioned it by name, and Mark Dever spoke next. It was interesting to see them balance one another throughout the conference. Mark spoke on “Improving the Gospel: Exercises in Unbiblical Theology”. It was a fabulous look at the fundamental nature of the Gospel, and he speaks of those who un-biblically exercise what they perceive as “contextualization” to the Gospel. He then outlines very clearly what true, biblical contextualization looks like (in his point #3 around 40 minutes in).

Contextualization should never make the Gospel more palatable to the sinner–more acceptable. In fact, one test you can use very practical my preacher friend of whether not a particular attempt at contextualization has been successful is to ask if it has made the offense of the Gospel clearer. There’s a test for appropriately reaching your audience. The Gospel is relevant to every sinner on earth.

Up until that point I had not heard such a God-honoring, biblical, and full definition of contextualization. Mark’s point is the very litmus by which we must gauge not just our contextualization efforts but our evangelistic efforts on the whole.

The Need for Balance

We must recognize that fallen humans can take such as an idea as contextualization and pervert it to the point where we must then look and act like the world in order to be “relevant.” However, a careful study of the Scriptures reveals the tool exercised by the biblical characters to bring glory to God through the tireless, and accurate preaching of the Gospel of God through Christ Jesus.

You’ll notice his snide remarks such as that “civilised” people don’t believe in sin and that he wishes he could pick and choose Christianity to his liking. Never-the-less, it is a provocative example of an honest atheist. It brings home Jesus’ saying: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers’ clubs and atheists’ associations?the sort of people who not only scoff at religion’s intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil. [...]

Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin. Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.

Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and?probably most difficult of all?argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists. The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. [...]

It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. . .Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.

The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.

My interest was peaked by following the Web Urbanist blog, and I decided I wanted to try and see/capture some of it here in Dayton. I called Mr. Martin who is “in the know” on these things, and he showed me some amazing spots. An abandoned train center, paper factory, and some other closed factories in Dayton. In the paper factory a homeless man living in there even gave us a tour around! It was a humbling experience. I thought sharing the pictures would peak someone’s interest as mine was.

I confess that I am a sinner.  A person so full of sin that I am deserving of nothing more than your just and swift wrath.  I have disobeyed, slandered, and ignored you.  I’m sorry that I live my life as though you don’t exist.  I instead presume upon my own abilities, talents, and ambitions and fail to acknowledge that you have given me those things and desire me to use them for your purposes and glory.

I confess that I am not the man of God I want to be or that you want me to be. I fall prey to sin that grieves your spirit and makes the work your son did on the cross something peripheral in my daily life.  I continue to fall prey to gossip, pride, and I’m continually "puffed up" and not full of the humility and love shown so aptly in your son.  Help me to understand what it means to serve and not to be served.

I confess that I prioritize other things in my life over communing with you and spending time in your holy word.  I love your word, and it continues to speak truth into me while convicting me of my need to continue to pull close to you.  Thank you that your word tells me that you will continue to pursue me despite my obstinate heart.  Help me to realize to not take that for granted but continue to pursue after you as well with all of my heart and being.

I confess that I don’t understand what it meant for your son to become sin on my behalf.  The one who knew no sin took on the fullness of my iniquity and removed it so that I might enter into your presence.  Father help to impress this truth upon me in my everyday life so that I will desire to share the great news of your son sent by you into the world to save sinners like me.  Help that to become a reality that so engrosses me so much that I can’t think of anything else and instead hold every thought captive to your son.

Amen.