# theological anarchist?



## kappazei (May 17, 2012)

I've been carrying on a Facebook discussion with a long lost friend who is very dear to me. He runs circles around me with his arguments and just can't seem to nail him down on his theological position. He just says some very odd things.
Following is but a sample.

"Possibly Paul's greatest strength is also his weakness. "Head" people love rules and systems, and Western civilization is a world buttressed by both their analytical and fearful tendencies. Paul speaks to this crowd in its own language, but in so doing shifts the Gospel from "gut" centred teaching and robs it of the freedom of letting go of fear. Rules provide a certainty, the clarity of a black-and-white world view, which leads to great morality as much as great evil. We really 'eat' this type of sin--we love it. Hitler was a "head" person (I find it uncomfortable to discover that he was probably the same character type as I am), but by the same token, so was Archbishop Romero (the supposed "career company man" for the Vatican who abandoned the top-to-bottom regime and sided with the people). Despite the best of intentions, "head" people tend to create rules and regulations and frequently forget that structures are better tools than objects of worship."

Can someone please analyze the above statement and give me an idea of where he's coming from? Is he like a theological anarchist? I can give you more.


----------



## A5pointer (May 18, 2012)

He needs to put down the cool aid and step back slowly. I have no idea what to make of it.


----------



## arapahoepark (May 18, 2012)

It sounds like he might be reading some emergent literature....they sound similar


----------



## Supersillymanable (May 18, 2012)

Is he saying what Paul wrote was wrong? Or does he affirm the inerrancy of scripture? That might shed some light on what he means/ is saying.


----------



## Miss Marple (May 18, 2012)

Maybe try him with some straightforward, one-concept questions to get him to think out, establish and his beliefs.

For instance, "Do you believe the Bible is the only inerrant word of God?" And go from there.

If he doesn't state definitively that he believes in the supremacy and inerrancy of Scripture, there is the problem. All other discussions end up being superfluous, because, if you reason well from Scripture, he can just deny Scripture if it doesn't suit his preferences.


----------



## py3ak (May 18, 2012)

It sounds like he's making personality types into a more fundamental category than truth or falsehood, right and wrong. He might not go quite that far, but it's probably going to be difficult to sort it out - demands for clarity can be dismissed as the paranoia or obsessiveness of a "head" person (presumably an analytical rather than an emotional type). It might ultimately reduce to the "listen to your heart not your head" message which continues to be awkwardly forced into countless forms, in spite of its vivid lack of success.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 18, 2012)

Because by nature my gut is more persuasive than my head, I know exactly what he is thinking: but I couldn't explain it to all you head types because you just won't get it. 

Pretty much the message I'm getting from my belly, though, is that he wants you to ignore Paul if what Paul says gives you heartburn. 

I doubt he would find any theological significance in the phrase "meat for the belly", but indeed, he rejects Paul's meat because it is distasteful to him.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 18, 2012)

Bob, it sounds like he is trying to characterize Paul's character (a "head" type, i.e., intellectual to the extent of not speaking from the heart / gut) and inferring from this supposed discernment that the Gospel Paul is preaching is of the "head" but not the heart.

The fact is, though, that Paul is speaking by the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of Christ - who is the perfect combination of head and heart and thus Paul is utterly sound in his Gospel preaching.

Your friend has delusionally presumed to judge Paul and the Gospel he preaches; this is what Paul says of his preaching:

1 Cor 2:
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know _them_, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 

If your friend is not receiving the things of the Spirit of God, but rather judging Paul's Gospel negatively, I would fear for his salvation. For we are born again by the Spirit of God through the word, and to diss an apostle and the word given him by God does not bode well for the judger.


----------



## kappazei (May 19, 2012)

Thank you everyone for your input. I asked him what church or fellowship he belonged to these days and the following is his response.

"I trend to self-identify as a Gitite because everyone thinks they know what a "christian" is, and some of the most insistant--even obnoxious about it are those who call themselves "christian." I prefer Gitite because it greatly offends some who know the story--and it should !--and because no while denomination wants somebody like me around, by the same token I realize that I am an instrument of grace, peace and blessing to others. That has nothing whatever to do with my personal righteousness or the lack thereof, it's just a matter of fact."


----------



## Unoriginalname (May 19, 2012)

"I trend to self-identify as _condescending_ because everyone thinks they know what a "christian" is, and some of the most insistant--even obnoxious about it are those who call themselves "christian." I prefer _being condescending_ because it greatly offends some who know the story--and it should !--and because no while denomination wants somebody like me around, by the same token I realize that I am _obnoxious_. That has nothing whatever to do with my personal righteousness or the lack thereof, it's just a matter of fact." - *Fixed*
In all seriously though, his position is really just silly when you look at it. As Ruben said earlier he is elevating personality categories above categories such as truth and non-truth. Since Paul clearly got it wrong, I would press him to see how he became so enlightened and figured this all out. This could help you figure out who your friend is being influenced by.


----------



## kappazei (May 19, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> In all seriously though, his position is really just silly when you look at it. As Ruben said earlier he is elevating personality categories above categories such as truth and non-truth. Since Paul clearly got it wrong, I would press him to see how he became so enlightened and figured this all out. This could help you figure out who your friend is being influenced by.


 Ha ha. Ok, that _was_ funny. And yes, Ruben is right. I'll call him on this about elevating personality and await his response. I just asked him if there isn't anything else going on here behind his 'concern' for the church that we're placing too much emphasis on Paul.


----------



## kappazei (May 19, 2012)

[/COLOR]So I found this link online and it fits with my friends rants. The Ten Tenets Of The Gittite Way, By Chris Webb - Kilted Faith - Brotherhood of the Kilt


----------



## fredtgreco (May 19, 2012)

kappazei said:


> [/COLOR]So I found this link online and it fits with my friends rants. The Ten Tenets Of The Gittite Way, By Chris Webb - Kilted Faith - Brotherhood of the Kilt


Bob,

I love this. The guy you are speaking with thinks "Christianity" is too "rule based" and that we should not follow the personality of a man named Paul. So his solution is?

To follow some guy named Chris Webb, whom no one has ever heard of, and who does not have the actions behind his words (giving, being stoned, helping, rebuking, etc.) that Paul does (not to mention the matter of inspiration). And the sum of being a Gittite? Yes, wait for it....wait for it....


RULES!!!!



> The Ten Tenets of the Gittite Way
> 
> 1. Be who and what you really are without apology.
> 
> ...



And not just rules, but rules with Jack Handy's "Deep Thoughts" to boot!



> Here is the same list with brief narratives ... the narratives reflect my personal take on each of the Tenets, if yours differ from mine it is perfectly fine. I am only a Gittite myself ... I could be wrong.
> 
> 1. Be who and what you really are without apology.
> 
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (May 19, 2012)

kappazei said:


> [/COLOR]So I found this link online and it fits with my friends rants. The Ten Tenets Of The Gittite Way, By Chris Webb - Kilted Faith - Brotherhood of the Kilt


Bob,

I love this. The guy you are speaking with thinks "Christianity" is too "rule based" and that we should not follow the personality of a man named Paul. So his solution is?

To follow some guy named Chris Webb, whom no one has ever heard of, and who does not have the actions behind his words (giving, being stoned, helping, rebuking, etc.) that Paul does (not to mention the matter of inspiration). And the sum of being a Gittite? Yes, wait for it....wait for it....


RULES!!!!



> The Ten Tenets of the Gittite Way
> 
> 1. Be who and what you really are without apology.
> 
> ...



And not just rules, but rules with Jack Handy's "Deep Thoughts" to boot!



> Here is the same list with brief narratives ... the narratives reflect my personal take on each of the Tenets, if yours differ from mine it is perfectly fine. I am only a Gittite myself ... I could be wrong.
> 
> 1. Be who and what you really are without apology.
> 
> ...


----------



## py3ak (May 19, 2012)

> We hope and believe we are right, but in the things that are unknowable there is no way to know that we are right. For this reason always keep an open mind.



What if we're wrong about it being a good idea to keep an open mind? If your mind is truly open, you can't dismiss that thought.


----------



## kappazei (May 19, 2012)

py3ak said:


> What if we're wrong about it being a good idea to keep an open mind? If your mind is truly open, you can't dismiss that thought.



When he replies, I'm going to put this to him. Thanks.


----------

