You know that phrase, right? "This isn't a hill to die on" means "Let's not fight about this." It means, "I believe a certain way about this and you don't, but I don't believe it is important enough to fight about." So, when it comes to Christian living, what constitutes "a hill to die on"? What does that look like to us? How do we determine, for instance, "This is a sin" when so many others are saying it's not? How do we decide, generally against the flow, that this is the right thing to do and that is not?
I grew up in a time when there were still Christians who declared that smoking, drinking, dancing, and even movies were sinful. Almost no one believes that anymore; at least, not all of it. (I suspect smoking and even drinking still show up on some lists.) What changed? These weren't, as it turned out, "a hill to die on." Why?
Meet Isabella Chow. She was at UC Berkeley, a student senator. She was asked to vote on a resolution that she felt endorsed and encouraged the LGBT identity and lifestyle. After prayer and counseling from other believers, she abstained from the vote. While she opposed "discrimination against or harassment of any person or people group" and declared LGBT folk "significant, valid, wanted, and loved," she was assaulted from all sides. Her own party rejected her. She was subjected to abusive language, false accusations, demands for resignation, and more. She felt this was "a hill to die on." Why?
There are things almost all Christians stand on and there are things that are up for grabs. Do we stand on Penal Substitutionary Atonement or do we negate God's Word about Christ paying for our sin with His blood? Do we stand on the Divine Breath of Scripture or do we waffle on the Bible containing God's Word but not actually being God's Word? Do we stand on the very narrow "Christ is the only way" or give in to a more inclusive version? Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Do we? Or do we suggest that there are other means by which to get to the kingdom?
I'll tell you where I stand and you can decide for yourself. I stand where it is absolutely clear from God's Word what God said. I submit that this is much more frequent than many people give the Bible credit for. When it's clear, I have no reason not to stand there. Some is less clear; I'll be less firm. I'm not as hard over on eschatology as so many others are, for instance, but I'm certain Christ will return. When every biblical reference to homosexual behavior declares it a sin, I have no problem standing there. Smoking? Not in there. Women leading the church? No, that's straightforward in there. Eating at a restaurant on Sunday? (I actually had someone ask.) Not clear enough to nail down a position. Wives subject to husbands who are subject to Christ? It's absolutely clear. Politics? Not much in there. The kind of music to play in church? Not much in there (although I will point out that Psalm 150:5 calls for "sounding cymbals" and "loud clashing cymbals"). Drinking alcohol? The Bible does not forbid it, but it does forbid drunkenness, which, as it turns out, is the primary reason people smoke marijuana. Home schooling? I'm in favor of it ... but it doesn't appear to be a biblical command; I won't be standing there. This means that I will stand on very unpopular places and, as it turns out, waffle on some other very popular positions. At least I know the basis, and it's not merely my opinion.
19 comments:
Assuming that you CAN admit the reality that while those things are clear to YOU in YOUR opinion and as YOU interpret the passages, that nonetheless, the reality is that OTHER people hold different opinions and interpretations.... Assuming you can recognize that reality, can you then encourage these Others to pursue God the best they can with the best understanding of Scripture that they can figure out that is most clear to them and do so with a good and clear heart?
If not (and i sort of assume you can't encourage us to pursue God and righteousness as we think God is most clearly understood), then where does that leave us? That you think we should accept your opinions regardless of whether we think you're right or not?
How about this one? I am not an arms raised, smile-across-my-face, teary cheeked worshiper. (A little caricaturization there). I am a hands-in-my-pockets, head bowed, eyes closed type. I've got no problem with either method.
When Paul states in 1 Tim 2:8, "Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument", do I sin when I pray without lifting up holy hands? Of course, there is more to this verse - "without anger or argument" is probably the most important thing. But I've been wondering lately about the lifting of holy hands as a command from Paul.
When Paul says to pray followed by "lifting up holy hands," I assume he is saying "pray, and pray without anger or argument," a kind of Hebrew parallelism where he is saying the same thing in two different ways. I don't think he's suggesting, "The only proper way to pray is with hands lifted and, oh, by the way, they will need to be holy hands, so get that taken care of before you pray." If some might declare this to be absolutely clear and, therefore, mandatory and a sin to fail to do so, I will have to classify it as not a hill for me to die on. (I've never heard anyone say it is.)
I'm sure I will regret this, Dan. It may even be in violation of Scripture. But I have to respond to this. Why would you require me to allow other people to hold a different opinion (the topic here is "a hill to die on"), by which you must mean "Let them be", when YOU WON'T DO IT YOURSELF? You feel the apparent compulsion to repeatedly correct everyone on the Internet who holds a different view than yours and then complain that they're correcting opinions that are different than yours. Why do you expect something different from them?
As for "opinions," yes, they will differ. Mine are taken straight from the texts. I align mine with the historic, traditional, biblical, orthodox views, the ones that have a long string of agreement along with clear textual support. I've said it is about clear texts; that's not good enough for you. I've said that on less-than-clear texts I don't stand as firmly. That's not good enough for you. It appears as if the only satisfactory position on which you will allow me to stand is that there is no knowledge, no confidence, nothing approaching certainty. There is nothing but opinion and we're looking at pure biblical relativity with "What I think" as the voice of God which, of course, must mean nothing else to anyone else.
Except ... that's not how YOU operate with those of us who hold the historic, traditional, biblical, orthodox views, the ones that have a long string of agreement along with clear textual support. Perhaps you should practice what you preach and let me believe the Bible as I read it with the rest of the Bible-believing saints.
I suspect you’ll regret that.
On a more serious note, I think the difference between progressive and conservative believers and this is that progressive believers don’t have any pills they are willing to die on. How can there be something that is so important, that you believe so strongly in, that you are willing to die for it when there are no absolutes? No one is going to stake out a claim and defend an opinion to the death.
It seems to me that what you are saying, and what many who are conservative would say, is that this is an issue of trust in God. If a sovereign God has communicated his truth to us, Then it is completely reasonable for us to trust that. Even trusting to the point of dying. It takes absolutely nothing to simply spout opinions, it takes courage to be willing to stand for something even if it means death.
I certainly am in no position to pass judgement on the missionary who was recently killed, but I appreciate the courage and devotion it takes to risk death to spread the gospel.
It sounds like they have no such hills because they lack the basis for them. "Because I feel like it" or "because it's my opinion" gives one very little actual basis for "a hill to die on."
Exactly, once you replace objective truth with feelings and facts with opinions, you have no rational reason to choose a hill to die on. One opinion is as good as the other, so you just move from hill to hill. It’s one of the more convincing things to demonstrate the reality of the resurrection. The fact that the disciples, and others, chose to die rather than deny the truth.
For so many, however, it seems that "the hill to die on" is "You cannot have a hill to die on. We don't believe in that, but we will fight you to the death to prevent you from doing so." By the very repeated claim that all understanding of Scripture is purely opinion they eliminate reality and God's Word.
So, you seem to be saying that they are intolerant of anyone who asserts that there are hills worth dying on, that seems strange.
They say, "We won't tolerate intolerance" not realizing that tolerance requires that others have a different position that they do ... that should be tolerated even though they disagree.
Here's where I disagree with you guys: Dan's position is to protect what he wants Scripture to mean, insisting that he truly believe it actually says what he wants it to say. Our position is that our desires don't matter against what Scripture does say...specifically for this discussion, those areas that are crystal clear...unambiguous...unequivocal.
Further, Dan's position is not that we can't believe as we do, but that we MUST accept that his "interpretation" (or opinion, or "hunch") is every bit as likely as ours (if not more so), and that we are wrong, delusional, arrogant, oppressive and speaking for God to insist that he's NOT abiding what is crystal clear. The most blatant example, of course, is the homosexual issue, though there are others.
For my part, I simply desire something akin to a legitimate, sensible, intelligent argument in support of his, or any other opposing perspective, that stands up to scrutiny. It's been about ten years now, and I've yet to get such an argument...only weak attempts that end with surrender disguised as frustration as if there is something wrong with me...never him. Thus, he carves out license to believe what is convenient, never denying himself for Christ while posturing as a devoted believer.
Marshal,
I believe you have correctly expressed Dan's view. However, if Dan were to be consistent with his view, then he would remain silent about our view that "The Bible is God's Word and says what it means and, therefore, is God speaking" because my interpretation, opinion, or hunch isn't in line with his, but he's being tolerant, not requiring us to hold or believe something simply because he demands it. Yes, he regularly skirts the issue of the plain meaning of the text and refuses to allow that it means precisely what it says even when he's arguing that it does (See, for instance, his take on "Blessed are the poor" where he argues that the poor are blessed for being poor so we need to help them. Why? They're blessed. Why would he want to change that?)
The primary difference in views is that we stand where it clearly speaks and aim to submit to that, comfortable or not, and he views his own interpretation as the source of authority in these matters and finds nothing (through the filter of his own opinions) uncomfortable in God's Word. But given his "it's a matter of opinion" position, I cannot fathom why he won't let us have ours.
Art, I also think you have expressed to Dan‘s view reasonably well. However, I am trying to be a little more broadly in what I address than simply arguing against Dan‘s point of view. I will note, that in the past Dan’s view has been closer to what Stan describes. Where Dan held his opinions, but egg knowledge that it was possible to disagree with his opinions on a reasonable rational basis. Of late, he has been referring to his opinions as reality, and refusing to acknowledge that it is possible to disagree with his opinions reasonably and rationally. It might be more accurate to say that he is arguing that our specific positions don’t meet his threshold for reasonable and rational this agreement, but our positions tend towards orthodox Christianity which makes his contention somewhat more untenable. I don’t think we disagree as much as you seem to think, I just think that limiting the conversation to Dan’s tiny minority opinion makes much sense.
And I do regret having posted his comment and responded to it.
Dan said, "What I object to is you all suggesting that your opinions are facts or the one and only interpretation of God's word or God's ideas."
Dan denies that we cannot know with any certainty the one and only interpretation of God's word or God's ideas but seems to still argue that all interpretations are mere opinion which suggests that we cannot know ... well, you get the idea. If it is wrong to think that opinions are facts, then it is wrong to conclude that we know the facts about God's word ... ever. Dan denies this ... while appearing to affirm it.
(I suppose I'll have to give it a second thought if Dan ever actually affirms "I don't believe my opinions are facts." But, then ... he'd have to admit that mine might be and we'd have to ask, "So, why are you bothering to make truth statements about them?")
In that case, Dan is objecting to something that doesn’t exist. He is objecting to a strawman of his own construction. He’s constructed a fantasy, and is arguing against it. He is certainly not dealing with reality.
The strawman argument certainly fits with his behavior. We are not pretending we have special knowledge of God's word or the meaning of specific texts one which he disagrees with us. But either the words means something apart and together with the others that form sentences and passages, or they do not. It can't be the latter, but for him it needs to be in order for him to commandeer license to believe what he prefers, rather than what the text implies he should. Yet again, if he insists on his own interpretations...claiming it's what he sees in those words, sentences and passages...I would simply like, for once as a special treat someday, an actual reasoned, rational and fact-based defense of his positions. He insists he's done this as well, but has always inevitably bolted with questions still on the table.
Good luck with that.
Post a Comment