Disparagements of Perspective or Lies of Malice? Be Free Indeed!

Totalist religion affords us a very tidy view of the world where little if any ambiguity exists. Some enlightened other came before and figured out all that people would need to know to guide themselves with great ease through the rough edges of life. That's how things were sold to me in my group of record as an adult. Critical thinking gets handed over to a religious overseer of souls, creating the illusion of moral blamelessness for members – a process dubbed 'moral disengagement'. 

But there are no pat answers to life's complex problems, and we complex and conflicted human beings make things all the murkier. If you live under a totalist religion, you can skip over the murkiness into a view of black and white, and life becomes a zero-sum game. If someone 'wins' an argument, it means that 100% of the spoils of merit go to one sole survivor, and there can be no merit spared for the other contenders. That all-or-nothingness bleeds over into other areas, too, like power and love and care. If a contender gets some of those valuable commodities, it means that there is less comfort and accomplishment left for everyone else. 

Tweet

Converging Thoughts and Divergent Thinking (Speculations on the Tension Between Divine and Human Agency)

My husband and I think in different ways, but we often come to so many same conclusions independently and even say the same things at the same time. If a week goes by when we fail to utter the same unexpected comment simultaneously, I wonder if there is trouble in our relationship. So it's odd to consider how I comprehend things in terms of global perspective (borrowing a term from Cynthia Ulrich Tobias – Remember her of FoF fame, Moms?) and he comprehends best by looking at the finer details first. I quickly become uncomfortable without the overview when I am handed too many fine details, not knowing where to put them.

He needs the specific, objective details first, as they help orient him. I'm all about framing out the house and getting the plywood on the roof before I can begin to worry about shingles, and he is all about the shingles and the budget. So far, we have been a wonderful match for one another, showing complementary strengths.

When it comes to this discussion of faith and works in the circles of all those claiming Reformed Christianity, the general overview provides me with comfort. For that, I believe that certain writers appeal to me more than others. Throw in the changes in Reformed Theology, Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction that have occurred over the past 15 years. Greg Bahnsen and Rousas Rushdoony graduate to Glory. Those men commanded much due respect that others don't seem to carry in the ways that they did, and in their absence, many different groups of folks lay what often seems like exclusive claim to their ideas. Throw in N.T. Wright, Norm Shepherd, New Perspectives on Paul, John Robbins, things Westminster (both East and West coast), the ever-growing Federal Vision weirdness and what Karen Campbell calls “patriocentric voodoo” that comes out of those who profess things patriarchal and family integrated. The regulatory principle of worship is another detail rich conundrum for me that does not hold my interest, though I also know some details people who become bogged down in what seems like minutiae. Many varieties and numbers of unique and common shingles lay in bundles and in the fray, many of which do not interest me. I'm concerned about where the shingles go, not the fine details of the specifics unless it is vital to my faith and worship. Thus far, it has not been too critical, though it seems those who are interested in these issues tend to be detail oriented as opposed to the over-view-type of thinker.

Human agency versus “faith alone” also confronts me as I write more about the similarities between the patriocentric and the Roman Catholic view of infused grace through ongoing works as a means of ongoing sanctification. As stated many times before, if you are Roman Catholic, the idea that patriocentrics believe that every household creates what is, effectively, an autonomous priest, creating sacraments out of wholesome agrarian living, ought to be offensive. Reformed Protestants should be offended because the patriocentrists (Federal Vision followers included) claim staunchly to be Reformed when they follow a Catholic-like form of government (via their patriarchal priesthood) and a view that differs little from the sanctification process of infused righteousness that Aquinas described. 

This denies the central tenets of all things Protestant and Reformed Christianity in particular. Roman Catholics should be offended because their view of priesthood becomes diminished, particularly when there are so few available priests worldwide. They should also take issue with patriocentricity's creation of countless family-oriented sacraments of wholesome living because they cheapen the significance of the seven sacraments established by the Roman Catholic Church. And as I've stated before, if you want to be Roman Catholic, that is your decision and we still have fellowship in Christ, just not in the specific mechanics of the mediation of justification and sanctification, etc. as it relates to patriarchy. My personal issue concerns these who claim a Reformed faith and Theonomy when they are actually closer to Roman Catholic Theology in their beliefs regarding sanctification. Create a new label, but be honest. Do not claim the Reformation (and likewise, do not claim Roman Catholicism, as they would not readily lay claim to these beliefs either).

Within the realm and ranks of Reformed Protestantism, I also contend personally, practically, and theoretically with what seems to be the natural and inevitable tension between faith and works in the Christian life. I inadvertently stumbled upon another discussion of this on a blog, all while Sandlin's “Faith That Is Never Alone” along side Elliott's “Christianity and Neo-Liberalism” stare at me from my bedside. They lay beside a copy of “Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment.” I also think of those who clearly follow Theonomy with grace and balanced Christian love in the Spirit of the Law as they pose a striking contrast against the “other supposed Theonomists” who I imagine Robbins would call the ersatz Calvinists. I've been using this term recently because it is shorter than “brave, new angry Calvinists” who recommend stoning of wayward teens and legalism the likes of which seem could only come from one who has never been to the Cross of Calvary. These are those who turn Calvinism into pagan karma through their works-based love of the letter of the law, as if their TULIP was short at least one petal (as if total depravity really never applied to them personally).

I inadvertently wandered into another minefield of what seemed like thousands of individual shingles laying around when I found “Professor Clark's” recent blog post about Theonomy and Federal Vision being identical twins that were separated at birth. Many single details presented there seemed quite valid and reasonable, and other conclusions regarding those and other facts presented seemed either murky or like minutiae. I lack the specific knowledge of those individual shingles that would enable me to rightly lay them in the right place in the right way so as to make a water-tight theological roof. From my global perspective style, the conclusions seemed off even though I did recognize the truth in some observations and facts.

Within a few hours after commenting there (which went unrecognized), many ready answers came to me with both completed framing and shingles in place for me from a source that I don't always agree with implicitly on all matters, but one I hold as most trustworthy and faithful. I am also aware that these are matters that he has studied at great length and one who actually had personal relationships and direct knowledge of the views of others referenced [in the blog theory of the supposed displaced theological twins]. This, Sandlin's response, adds more confidence to my speculations that the discontinuities between the Shepherd and Robbins camps are issues of articulating unique perspectives. But that's a Right-brained thinker with good Right-Left Integration at work, and the Lefties may not “get it,” even if I've articulated this all well. That's okay, as I am comfortable to leave some things obscured through the glass we see through darkly. I'll see it clearly one day when we shall be changed and be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is – the ultimate goal behind and bearing up the purpose for all of these debates.

Here is a portion of Andrew Sandlin's response to Clark, “Reversing Revisionism (on Theonomy, Shepherd and Federal Vision)":

Contrary to what we read on Professor Clark’s blog, I do not support and have never supported the FV. It’s odd that the critics of the FV do not grasp this readily documentable fact, because the FV’ers themselves do. They all know that I cannot agree with and in fact criticize their ecclesiology, their sacramentalism, their liturgy, their covenantalism and much else besides. The fact that I have defended — and will defend — them against historically misguided charges of heresy and “denying the Gospel” no more suggests that I embrace the FV than the fact that R. C. Sproul may defend John MacArthur against charges of heresy and “denying the Gospel” for being premillennial makes Sproul a premillennialist. Such (il)logic is just plain silly, as any thoughtful, dispassionate person must acknowledge.

I embrace the doctrine of justification precisely as it appears in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The exclusive instrumental cause of justification is faith. That faith rests entirely on the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross and from the empty tomb and grasps hard on Jesus as Savior and Lord. The issue is not sola fide, which Scott and I both heartily affirm, but the nature of saving faith. Scott, like his colleague Mike Horton, has made clear his position that justifying faith is exclusively passive (trusting in and resting on Jesus) and never active (submitting to Jesus as Lord and as his disciple). I affirm that it is both simultaneously (in the distinct senses I have stated), and that a faith that is merely active is moralistic while a faith that is merely passive is antinomian. On this point, I dissent from Clark and Horton and I agree with J. I. Packer in Evangelical Affirmations:

There is an evident confusion here between faith as a psychological act, that is, something that you do (in this case, “closing with Christ” as the Puritans used to put it), and faith as a meritorious work, that is, a means of earning God’s favor and inducing his acceptance. When it is argued that to call for active commitment to discipleship as a response to the gospel is to teach works-righteousness, the confusion is clear. The truth is that every act of faith, psychologically regarded, is a matter of doing something (knowing, receiving, and trusting are as much acts in the psychological sense as is resolving to obey); yet no act of faith ever presents itself to its doer as other than a means of receiving undeserved mercy in some shape or form. This is as true of a trustful commitment to follow Christ as it is of a trustful resting on the Saviour’s [sic] promise of pardon. There is no need to restrict faith to passive reliance without active devotion in order to keep works-righteousness and legalism out of the picture.

Packer believes what Clark and Horton do not: a saving faith defined only passively lends aid and comfort to antinomianism, and a saving faith defined both passively and actively does not lend aid and comfort to a moralistic works-righteousness and legalism. Justifying faith is both passive and active, and this is precisely what James denotes when he demands justification by works, which in no way violates sola fide but, rather, protects it.

This also is what NS believes and teaches, but agreeing with NS on this issue is not tantamount to support for the FV, just as RJR and GLB agreed with NS on this issue, and did not agree with JBJ’s views that eventually became known as the FV.

Reversal
This account, all-too-brief, is an accurate summary of the genealogy of the FV. One hopes that it will help to reverse some of the historical revisionism (or just plain ignorance) parading under the guise of thoughtful commentary.

Read the whole post HERE.

Tweet

A Deeper Understanding of Sanctification

More on my ongoing vacation in Lutheranism,

a place that I do like to visit,

through Eric's shared links posted at

"On the Wittenberg Trail"

Here's a topic that I always assume needs no explanation for the Protestant and the Reformed, and, then, I realize that this is a false assumption. This is a subject of great debate within many circles in Evangelical Christianity, far beyond my wildest imagination. Though I rejoice in our commonalities in Christ and know many Catholic brethren that share a deep love for Jesus and the deep love of Jesus in their hearts, on the topic of sanctification, we do not agree.

From my traditional understanding, it was just this issue of justification and sanctification that moved Martin Luther to hang his famed Ninety-Five Theses on that famed door in Wittenberg in protest of Catholic Doctrine. The Catholic church essentially sold salvation through indulgences and works, teaching that sanctification was a process of "infusion" of grace into the life of the believer over the course of his life through compliance with the law and through obedience to the clergy. Salvation depended more upon compliance with standards and works than it did with faith, but one day, Luther had an epiphany. Reading that we were saved by grace through faith and not by works or PIETY in Ephesians chapter 2, Luther realized that salvation was of God and not through man's merit nor through the merit of his works.

This is truly a miraculous thing to understand, because I believe that comprehending this in our human understanding is truly impossible. Salvation by grace through faith is impossible, and God works this miracle of impossiblity into our hearts through faith in Him! Not of works do we boast, and we don't maintain our sanctification or the process of being made holy in Christ through our own effort but by the inner work of the Holy Spirit.

I was overjoyed to read the following. I will hope that you will click on the link and read the entire passage because it is wonderful, though I especially loved the lyrical statement, copied here from that blog entry on Weedon's Blog:

On Sanctification The danger is in thinking that the holiness given you in Christ is not whole, perfect, complete. * It IS. *
It is not at all so much the case that holiness grows in you, but that you grow in holiness.
The gift is given: now we make progress in learning to live from it, so that love becomes ever more our life.

Tweet

Theology and Experience

From the February 2008

"Trinity Review"

Number 274
pg 4:

The Fruit of Biblical Theology

The old paradigm taught that if you had the right teaching, you will experience God. The new paradigm says that if you experience God, you will have the right teaching. 

This may be disturbing to many who assume propositional truth must always preceed and dictate religious experience. That mindset is the product of systematic theology and has much to contribute... However, biblical theology looks to the Bible for a pattern of experience followed by proposition" (Leith Andersen, "A Church for the 21st Century").

Like the Biblical Theology movement, the "Emerging Church" movement is based on the irrational and Antichristian notion that event/experience/history someohow precede propostitional truth/theology.

The Bible alone is the Word of God.
The Trinity Foundation hereby grants permission to all readers to download, print, and distribute on paper or electronically any of its Reviews, provided that each reprint bear our copyright notice, current addresses, and telephone numbers, and provided that all such reproductions are distributed to the public without charge. The Reviews may not be sold or issued in book form, CD-ROM form, or microfiche.

Copyright (C) 1998-2008 The Trinity Foundation

Post Office 68, Unicoi, Tennessee 37692Phone: 423.743.0199 Fax: 423.743.2005

Tweet

How Does Heresy Happen?

Christians who believe that the Bible is God’s inspired and infallible Word of God believe that the instruction in the Bible is sufficient for all of our human needs and has the ability to transcend our times and culture. The difficulty presents when we try to diligently and faithfully apply the proper meaning of Scripture to the specifics of our lives today. 

At this point, without a wise, clear, broad and well-informed perspective, we could easily fall into error. How can we keep from branching off from what God teaches us in the Word into error, be it misguided, false teachings or heresy, especially concerning central and critical doctrine.

Harold O. J. Brown has this to say in Heresies (pg 150):

“The spiritual contrast between these variant views and what we now call orthodoxy lay first of all in the goal that each sought to accomplish: the heretical positions had in common a desire to understand the mystery of God; the orthodox sought to preserve the salvation Christians find in Christ.”

Intent has a great deal to do with whether we descend into heresy. If our goal is to develop and formulate a clear doctrine about a mystery, then we are branching off into dangerous territory. Intent to meet a goal dominates and governs our actions. If our approach however concerns intent to clearly discern what the Word of God teaches us about a particular issue, then we are less likely to fall into error or predispose ourselves to error. Our primary commitment must be to the preservation of the integrity of the Word of God, following a sound hermeneutic.


Paul Elliot, in Christianity and Neo-Liberalism points out several pitfalls resulting from departure from sound hermeneutics into ones that are poorly informed or very narrow in understanding. 

“First, it is not a fixed set of principles or a defined methodology for the interpretation of Scripture.” 

In our postmodern world, truth is determined by experience and meaning is imparted by the person who deems a thing truthful, so it is not an objective measure of truth. Concerning the group that Elliot discusses in his book, these religious leaders stated that as long as their group agreed on the basics of the creeds, they were willing to tolerate the inconsistencies on other levels, sacrificing objective truth in favor of what Elliot calls “artificial confessional unity.” (Pg 248-249)

“Second, notice that the primary focus of the hermeneutic of trust is not on correctly interpreting the words of Scripture at all. It focuses instead on interpreting the words of the church’s confessional standards, and on construing them in ways that are elastic enough to permit the OPC to fit diverging doctrinal views under one big confessional tent… So the hermeneutic of trust is at least one step removed from Scripture. It focuses not on the Scripture itself but on human perspectives on Scripture… It is not only significant that the hermeneutic of trust draws attention away from Scripture, but also that it draws attention to something called the “animus imponentis”, or the intention of the imposing body.” (pg 249)

Elliot goes on to point out an example where Charles Hodge (a mid 19th century seminary instructor at Princeton) argues for the use of “animus imponentis” to maintain denominational unity and prevent a type of pluralism. Elliot says

“But with all due respect to Hodge, to use the animus impotentis as the fundamental guiding principle in establishing conformity to sound doctrine is to adopt a fatally flawed benchmark… By this logic, Rome’s doctrine of justification and the Protestant doctrine of justification have equal standing. In fact, any competing doctrines that bear the stamp of approval of their respective “imposing bodies” would have equal standing. Each imposing body is after all, its own ‘community of interpretation.’” The problem with this method is that the standards will change over time.” (pg 250-252)

Elliot concludes this section stating:

“[A]t the end of the day, what is important is not what men say the Bible says, but what the Bible actually says. For that reason, our starting point in sound doctrine must never be the secondary standards of the church, but always Scripture. It is Scripture that gives meaning to the words of the confessional standards, not vice versa. The hermeneutic of trust perverts this fundamental order." (pg 254)

Tweet

Origins of the Hermeneutic of Trust

Another Excerpt from

"Christianity and Neoliberalism"

by Paul Elliott

(pg 245 -246)

The term “hermeneutic of trust” is not new, and the concept originated not in the field of theology but in the secular field of language philosophy. The “hermeneutic of trust” was popularized by the German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) in his books Truth and Method and Philosophical Hermeneutics.

Gadamer, though not a theologian himself, was a close associate of the existentialist theologian Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), a main spokesman for modern liberal/skeptical methods of Biblical interpretation. [Host Note: Bultmann has been very influential in the development of the philosophy embraced by the Emergent Church.]

Gadamer asserted that the hermeneutic of trust applies to any area of society, not just theology. Gadamer denied the existence of objective truth. Correctly interpreting a text, he asserted, does not mean correctly understanding the original intention of the author. Rather, Gadamer argued, interpreting any text – whether it is a piece of literature, a nation’s constitution or the Bible – involves what he termed a “fusion of horizons.” In this “fusion,” a “community of interpretation” made up of scholars and other so-called experts decides what that community’s view of “truth” will be. Each participant contributes his perspectives to this mix. According to this bankrupt philosophy, a community standard of “truth” is the best that men can hope for. There is no objective truth.

[This reminds me to the Federal Vision concept of hermeneutics as an "intuitive art" versus the traditional view of a serious discipline. Is this Federal Vision "intuitive art of hermeneutics" actually an hermeneutic of trust? Hmmm.]

Tweet

More About Hermeneutics: The Grammatico-Historical Method

So how does one go about all of this?

I prefer the grammatico-historical method (also called the grammatical-historical method, depending on whom you ask) over a literal interpretation of text. 

Tweet

On Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics: "The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text." (American Heritage Dictionary)

How do we properly understand what the Scriptures Mean? I find the fact that the Word of God can speak to me on so many levels throughout so many years of my life one of the most wonderful things about study of the Bible. Though the foolish things confound the wise and the wise things are made simple through the Spirit, certain texts require a great deal of discipline. How do we go about determining what the Bible meant when it makes a certain statement in a particular way?

I believe that it is the great challenge of the Christian to rightly discern the truth about what the Word actually says (and means). If we use sound methods to investigate the truth, we are more likely to arrive at a sound doctrine and sound meaning. Just to put some of this into perspective, let me offer two examples of why a good hermeneutic bears importance to accurate meaning of a text. One of the more telling examples in literature came to me while attending a Catholic college as a born-again Christian. 

I took a literature class called “The Theological Quest” wherein we read a great deal of the existentialist writers as well as the Russian moralists. We read a book called “The Fall” by Albert Camus, an atheist who hated God, but I found in that book more references to Scripture than I find in most Christian books today. The class was taught by a former Baptist minister turned philosophy professor, so it was an interesting experience.

In reading Camus, the protagonist is named Jacques le Baptiste, though I doubt if I’ve spelled it correctly here, wherein the he laments the fact that he is subject to sin and subject to the Scriptural standard of righteousness. Any Evangelical Christian could pick up the symbolism: that of John the Baptist, but one without a savior to for whom to prepare the way—a man without purpose in life. Each page of the small paperback had at least three direct references to a Scripture, indicating the deeper meaning of the text. My previous knowledge and study of the Bible set me apart in that class because of my understanding, so the literature was easier to interpret and held deeper meaning. 

Most of my classmates lacked understanding of the Word and did not comprehend the meaning of the text without additional instruction from the professor and without considering informed commentaries on the book. 

 Fast forward a couple of years to a missions trip I took to Russia. On the plane ride home, I spoke with a Russian with whom I discussed the Karamazov. I loved the book, and I still refer to it as one of the best pieces of literature ever written, so complex and concerned with the deeper meaning of life. I barely started talking about the book, and this Russian gentleman explained to me how my limited understanding of Russian life made my deeper understanding of the text very difficult. The names of the characters were well chosen, and he spent a great deal of time with me, discussing why a particular name was used and the specific meaning it conveyed. I felt rather like those other students in my class where I first read Camus and Dostoevski! 

I lacked the cultural understandings that conveyed deeper meanings to the characters. (For very obvious example, if I wrote literature and I named a character Clinton or Lewinski, it would take on deeper meaning and would convey and connote meaning beyond my actual words.) Such is true when we study the Bible. When I studied Greek in seminary, I had the wonderful advantage of learning the language from a believer who grew up as an orthodox Jew. In addition to learning the language, I also learned how the Jews of the day used the Greek language from a unique and broad perspective. I developed a great appreciation for the perspective that this understanding brought to the text. 

I found that aspects of this study were much like my experience in medical research, following a logical and well-informed process of investigation so that one can have the broadest perspective and understand the most accurate information about my life’s greatest passion: the study of the Word. 

Stay tuned for a review of the principles of the grammatico-historical method of hermeneutics

Tweet

The Con Artist You Can Trust!

Following the posts about con artists, a friend sent me a link to a much more pleasant take on the con artist.

A snippet from an online article from

Christianity Today's

Leadership Journal

.From The Celestial Con Man:

Could it be that my disappointing experience was God's intent?

by James Walters, guest columnist

A holy set-up I could give lots of reasons for my decision: the poor fit between my responsibilities as the leader of the new service and my actual gifts and passions, my evolving understanding of the word "pastor," my growing responsibilities as a husband and father of three small children. But what most intrigues me about my time in the Pacific Northwest is the way that God so masterfully set the whole thing up.

From the perspective of hindsight, the whole thing is almost comical. We moved cross-country in order to begin a new worship service, waited nearly three years to do that, only to realize that in the end it wasn't really what we wanted to do after all.

It almost goes without saying that the experience had us scratching our heads for a while. Thankfully, a mentor shed some light on the situation by pointing me to a rather obscure verse from the book of Hosea: "Therefore I am now going to allure her; I will lead her into the wilderness and speak tenderly to her" (2:14).

Read the rest of the article here!

Tweet

Perception: A Major Problem for Patriarchy

"Escaping Criticism" by Pere Borrell del Caso)

Patriarchy seems to be an outgrowth of Christian Reconstruction which is largely spearheaded by Calvinistic and Reformed groups. Patriarchy is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination and crosses many denominational bounds however, patriarchy is not limited to Reformed Theology. Because so many different groups and ideologies have contributed to what is now understood to be so-called “Biblical patriarchy,” it can be difficult to sort through. The tension that exists as a consequence of religious freedom in the United States contributes to this problem. 

Tweet

Not Just Whistling Dixie

Life is a journey. I’ve used the term “learning curve” about half a dozen times this past week, as it is a big part of life’s journey. Maybe that's one of our greatest purposes, progressing along on the curve. I know that in discussing matters of differing Christian doctrine, I stated to someone recently that none of us has a corner on truth, and the real challenge in life is leaving our lives with a whole lot less heresy than when we entered into it. Discernment comes through experience, and our responsibility to exercise it always presses us.

Learning the skill of balance between the innocence of a dove and the wisdom of a serpent takes a great deal of work that never ends for the Christian. I’ve come full circle on the “Kinism learning curve” and the emerging Occidental Christianity. I had no clue.

My husband, a graduate of a Southern college with training under one of the most renowned historians regarding the War Between the States, was quite taken by the initial concepts of “League of the South.” He took the mission and purpose of the organization prima facie, believing that this was an organization that fought for state rights, opposed governmental tyranny, defended agrarian freedoms and promoted Christianity. I came of age at a time when Christian conspiracy theories ran rampant as the first movements of Christian protest began to emerge. There was still an iron curtain, we had just emerged from the Iranian hostage situation, and economic times were just starting to improve. In my early twenties, I chose to participate in crisis pregnancy centers rather than picket, but I admired those who followed through on their convictions. Such was the climate of the day. That’s what good, committed, serious Christians my age did. So it pulled on my heart strings and opposing tyranny held great appeal.

I expressed a great deal of concern about this “League” to my husband however, because I am a strong advocate for equality and very much against hegemony (the posturing of one group over other subordinates). He assured me that this was a good organization that was first and foremost Christian in purpose. He investigated it at the time, to the best of his ability, finding nothing stating that the organization had any racist leanings. I’ve even attended conferences that different states groups have hosted, but this was however all before I had knowledge of this thing called kinism. But times, they’re always ‘a changin,’ aren’t they?

I don’t know if it was 9/11 that set everything into a tailspin or whether it was just the natural progression of things. The aging and passing of good and balanced Christian leaders of yesteryear have not helped matters and the course of events. It’s been a heart wrenching and rude awakening for me. Due to some catastrophic life events, I had no resources with which to be concerned about the state of things in Christianity at large, and then it became suddenly unavoidable. I picked up great momentum on that learning curve, as it seemed that all at once, people who I believed to be honorable and trustworthy suddenly became otherwise. I had coasted through a phase in life, too pressed to keep up with things, but I had convictions and checks along the way.

I urged and pressed for a reevaluation of where we donated funds. I woke up. I questioned and reevaluated those groups that I trusted in times past based on my previous perspective on the learning curve and their gradual changes over time. I learned that many trusted Christian Reconstructionists now functionally advocate for theocracy and authoritarian versus libertarian ideals. I learned that the League of the South made position statements in favor of kinism (although the online documentation of this has recently disappeared). The Monroe-Moscow Axis presented itself. RC Sproul, Jr. seemed to lose more of his mind every day, and I waited for Dad to step in and do something. I’m glad that I did not hold my breath.

I look back on some of these events in shame, but I realize that it was all part of the learning curve that I pursued as a consequence of my service and worship unto the Lord. I regret that we ever gave a dime to the League of the South. I regret that we supported Chalcedon after RJR’s passing. I regret that I ever supported some of these creation science groups. I wish that we had stopped support of American Vision after they restructured and hired a Vice President with great affection for this so-called “Biblical patriarchy.” With the rise in popularity of Vision Forum and Howard Phillips’ actions concerning the pragmatic pro-life equivocation, I am deeply sorry that I ever supported the Constitution Party.

I’m sorry that I took my husband’s word that RL Dabney’s views were consistent with my own without reading them for myself. I’m sorry to discover that my husband believed the words of others concerning Dabney without reading Dabney's words himself. But it’s all part and parcel of the learning curve. The great challenge comes as one decides what one does when one realizes that they were in process and by virtue of good Christian character, trusted that what they took prima facie was appropriate. I believe that my personal actions and testimony have always demonstrated that I am dedicated to equality and freedom. (I'm still proud of the day that I tried to lean out of the car in the middle of a Shreveport KKK rally to scream "Jesus was a Jew" in the US driveby shooting capital, even though they didn't care much about Jews in Shreveport. I'm proud of my work at the "charity hospital" there.)

I was very good at the innocence of the dove, and the wisdom of the serpent came at a high price. I broke bread with kinists because I believed that they were my brethren and because I believed that our purposes were common. I trusted that they had no concern with race and that they argued in no way for the virtues of enslaving others. We were mistaken, and my husband and I repented. And at the other end of the learning curve, I’m pleased that I can have compassion for myself and for those who lead me astray. But that does not make it right.

 Like pendulums, we swing from extreme to extreme, hopefully learning how to be stable and plumb under the power of the gravity of Gospel. They are still my brethren, but I believe that they are in great error. I hope that they believe the same of me but will come to swing my way in time, as they venture on their own learning curves.

So praise God for the learning curve!!! I’m no longer what I was before and not all that I will be. My heart has been crushed and woven back together in, by and with God’s healing love. The learning curve means we are yet alive, growing and living from glory to glory in Christ. May I begin to worry when the rude awakenings stop. May I always be rudely awakened by my own heresy and sin. And may I leave this life of learning curves with far less sin and heretical belief than I had when I embarked upon the journey. And all glory be to God for his great grace and mercy towards me and those who trust in Him.

Tweet