The more I study and discuss theology, the more I realize that passionate discussions concerning diversities of positions can quickly grow into the necessity of proving the point regardless of the discussion’s redemptive value. When disagreements abound, I am increasingly asking the question of how significant it is and is it worth proving the point. This of course is gauged by what is essential vs. non-essential, as Michael’s post here describes. As I seek to gain discernment regarding picking my battles, I thought of adopting this modification of the Serenity Prayer as a guide in theological discussionsUpdate: Lisa has kindly reminded me to give credit where credit was due. The quoted piece above was originally posted on January 16, 2010 at Parchment & Pen as "The Theological Serenity Prayer" written by Lisa Robinson. Accessed via RSS feed on January 16, 2010.
Lord, grant me the serenity to humbly accept the theological inconsistencies that do not make a differenceThe courage to graciously challenge the ones that doAnd the wisdom and knowledge to know the differenceLet’s learn to pick our battles folks. Like Kenny Rogers said, “you gotta know when to hold em, and know when to fold em”
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Avoiding Theological Arguments
I thought this brief post at Parchment & Pen offered a good reminder about choosing our theological battles carefully. I found it especially relevant in light of Enns' review of Erosion of Inerrancy. The issue, of course, is that we all have different ideas of what are essentials and non-essentials. Clearly for Greg Beale, his view of inerrancy is an essential. I think it's a good example of how apologetics is too much about proving or defending one's position and not enough about openly examining both the position and the evidence.