2 posts tagged “controversy”
Ages and ages ago, in 1987, when Howard Schultz bought the Seattle Starbucks chain, he standardized and mainstreamed the sale of coffee so that the term "coffeehouse" began to be redefined.
Before that, in America, there were coffee shops such as the lonely diner you might spy while driving through the desert out on Route 66. Coffee shops not only served plain old coffee but were notorious for their single mom waitresses and inexpensive bacon and egg breakfasts too.
In the 1960's after coffeehouses had immigrated from Italy, a coffeehouse became generally known as a countercultural espresso venue serving all kinds of artsy coffee drinks as well as other yummy homemade goodies. They sometimes provided live entertainment, such as a jazz pianist, and utilized building structures that resembled a Victorian style house with wall-papered hallways and antique furniture.
In present day America, coffee shops and houses still exist but now a coffee shop also includes such forms as Dunkin' Doughnuts and Applebee's, while Starbucks is technically considered a coffeehouse. The distinguished lines between the two are further obscured in the fact that many people intermix the ideas. Somehow a coffeehouse is now widely known as, a coffee shop.
Some people, like me, make a ruckus about the whole ordeal by correcting people when the term isn't clear. "At which 'coffee shop' did you want to meet me for a latte?" Our problem is that there is no new term to call the inbetweener coffeehouse/shop since Starbucks and the likes have commercialized the "house" atmosphere.
Teenagers who are not yet teenagers but act like them are called tweens. A country that is neither only republic nor exclusively democratic is known as a democratic republic. But how does one associate a coffeehouse that isn't exactly that?
The current issue that many American citizens have with same-sex marriages is that there is a fundamental difference between a heterosexual marriage and a gay one. They do not want the terms "marriage" and "family" to be redefined. Thus many are seeking a compromise of a "civil union" law that would include all of the civil liberties of marriage.
In the world of Christianity, the Calvinist and Arminian theologies are similar to the coffeehouse dilemma only in that many believers can not fully identify themselves with either one. Some people claim that the contradictory points of both systems are equally true: The elect have a free will. Others might preach that neither one has any truth, while still others are utterly and thoroughly confused. In a case like this one, I find that my arguments can become stormy twisters only to end in statements such as, "Oh, we actually agree with each other. We were fighting over semantical terms."
The same articulation could possibly pertain to the controversy of intelligent design versus evolution. What should we title a person who believes in a literal 24-hour, 6 day creation of aged creatures and of an earth that had evolved over billions of years? Or how does one describe a creationist who does not agree with creationism such as Robert T. Pennock?
I like knowing what you mean when you talk to me and I am thankful that there are standards of communication as well as a freedom to add new vocabulary. It has been estimated that about 25,000 new words are combined with the English language every year. Some scholars calculate that there are about five times as many English words today as in Shakespeare's time. But, why are we now less precise?
Some thoughts concerning an answer to that question is for another blog, but at the moment I would really like to avoid unnecessary friction in communication, while remaining loyal to truth and my beliefs. I would also be thrilled to see more attention given to the nomenclature of coffee. Next time you order that grande triple decaf soy vanilla mocha, make sure your friend isn't waiting for you over at Johnny Rockets.
In most debates, the opposing teams have much more in common than what is displayed in their arguments, and for a reason. The disputers will distinguish themselves as much as possible from each other in order to make a point. In a good debate, we will witness a lot of agreement and respect for the other side of the dilemma, because it actually enables a deeper understanding of the entire ordeal.
But too often one side of the argument will refuse to accept any other contributions than their limited understanding will allow them. Or, sometimes, we are so thrilled with learning a single aspect to one issue because it has been so largely overlooked, that we overemphasize it. I do this all the time in my blog writing. I focus on one view so much that it appears as though I am excluding all other perspectives. Then someone will leave a comment saying, "Yes, but...."
In the church world, this happens almost continually and it's taken to the outermost direction. Like bickering family members, we each stand our ground, and we complain, tear apart, and point with plank-eyes so large that the world has no other choice than to make us the butt of their jokes.
Let's look at fashion in mainstream Christianity today. There is a wide range of diversity in churches across the world in how people dress as they attend a weekly worship service. And yet, the Amish-like, Victorian-era dressed women will take issue with the scantily-clad, more modern apparel by quoting Bible scriptures about modesty and how females ought to refrain from stumbling our Christian brothers. The women excercising liberty in getting dressed that morning will in turn wonder why the husbands of the stiff-necked wives remain married to them, and they quote "Do not judge" verses from the Bible.
Another current controversy in the religious world is, "Which church is the true church?" The unchanging Roman Catholic tradtional church claims its authority, while the Radical, Evangelical churches protest that their movements are where the Holy Spirit is saving and changing real lives. Many churches attempt to take the best from both worlds.
There is a large controversy in the publication of Bible versions today. The King James Version came under attack from the Revised KJV and both sides are still arguing through counter-attacks and accusations of conspiracies regarding which scholars and which manuscripts has better and earlier evidence. Today, to the great distress of KJV only advocates, there is a wide range of Bibles available differing not only in translations but in emphasis: There are sports fan bibles, recovery bibles and wedding bibles.
How do we decide not only which translation is the most accurate, but which bible should we use personally? Which church should we attend? And how should we dress? Does the Bible (any version) have anything to say about these things? I believe the Bible gives us answers, although the answers are not so easily understood. The Bible give us guidance in every area of life, believe it or not, and the direction comes in the form of principles.
One commonly misunderstood biblical principle is the one of law and grace and this concept covers many Christian contoversies today since one side of an issue is always getting de-emphasized. I have to confess that I personally often fall into the same trap.
The law is simple. It is any biblical or other commandment, or rule, etc. The law of God stands on the tablets of stone passed from God to Moses, and was culminated through the death of Jesus Christ. Since it is used as a standard for measurement, it's accuracy should always be challenged with complete strictness, and in all essence, it should remain unchanged.
Grace, however, is hardly static and is much more complex. It is a new "law" judged from the freedom of the heart. Love would qualify as grace and there is no law against love. The endless manifestations of grace stand on the resurrection of Jesus Christ which opened up to mankind through the early Spirit-filled church literally any combination of possibilities.
The Bible is an ecumenical document just as much as it is a piercing sword. It rightly divides its own word of truth and then it delivers the whole counsel of God. It is the most exciting and truthful debate mankind could ever witness.
Many people write off the Bible because of its seeming contradictions while forgetting that all truth is multi-faceted, like a diamond. Through a fine mess or much friction, the Bible breaks down dividing walls and merges twos into one, like a marriage, or like the coming together of Jews and Gentiles through the gospel. It groups diversity into one, such as the trinity, a family unit, or members of a body, or citizens of the world throughout history, and yet with cultural uniquity. It converges law and grace perfectly without compromising their intrinsic properties.
Law divides while grace draws together, but the coming together can not occur unless there first exists a division. The law is sharply seen in the Fall of man while grace is beautifully demonstrated in the mercy of God toward the forgiveness of sins. Furthermore, one can not be what it is without the other. Throughout the Old Testament, the law was clearly always meant to be a matter of the heart and likewise, the New Covenant explains that the Law of God is much more severe and a call to perfection than we realize.
As humans handling the truth and love of God, even if we understand this perfect yet delicate balance, the problem lies in explaining it. The Apostle Paul had the same dilemma. Grace was so misunderstood that he had to emphasize it, only to cause more misunderstanding. "Should we sin more so that grace should abound?" No, that is not grace. From a biblical view, our sins are erased, and yet we battle against sin every day. Grace has completely forgiven our sins, so that it will enable us to sin no longer. God's grace is the only means of obeying God's law.
How does this apply to our personal lives? We must avoid the extremes while embracing them. It is the highest challenge to humans because it is the greatest paradox, with no higher reward for doing so, and no greater punishment for failing. It makes no sense to the logic mind alone nor the imaginative heart alone but thankfully, God created each of us with both.
In the world of fashion, the truest expression of style is what is appropriate. There is a tremendous amount of freedom, far beyond what modern man has designed and yet the clothes must fit and be functional. Many churches today overemphasize either biblical tradition or biblical liberty, and yet all of them must acknowledge the imperative contribution of both. While we depend on top scholars to judge the accuracy of a translation, we appreciate that the gospel can be spoken in the language of the youngest babe, with only colorful illustrations or words alone.
The Bible starkly commands us to be discerning, pointing out false doctrine, and yet to leave the judging even of ourselves to the rightful Judge. This is because the unseen world portrays itself through material actions; we can appreciate the sun so much more when we are not veering directly into it. It is possible to deeply obey and worship God with all of the heart in the strictest of tradition, or in the absence of all of them, although we can prefer one over another.
This truth can and should enable us all to finally retreat to our honest selves while broadening our understanding of truth. We have each been given different gifts and talents, and we have started off with different backgrounds and with conflicting character traits. This is all part of the amazing plan. Let us each place our trust in the perfect balance of law and grace in our own unique way, with the understanding we have been given and with the humility that our greatest knowledge falls short, so that the righteousness and love of God can save and keep on saving, all who believe in it.
