Dungeons and Dragons and Doctrinal Debate
— Monday, August 29th, 2011 —
Remember those Dungeons and Dragons people back in junior high school? Well, they grew up, got saved, and are now debating Calvinism, on both sides. This realization hit me this past week when I received yet another Facebook “invitation” to a forum debating Calvinism.
Now, don’t get me wrong, there are some big and important issues involved in discussions about election, calling, sovereignty, human responsibility, etc. It’s just that, all too often, it seems to me that these debates are so intense for reasons other than just fidelity to Scripture.
The Dungeons and Dragons clubs came to mind because those guys, at least in my junior high school, seemed to be obsessed with something that seemed to have no relevance at all to their lives, or to anyone else’s. But D&D became their identity. Because it mattered, they mattered. This was by no means restricted to these folk, and to their video-gaming or skateboarding cousins. It’s the same phenomenon in the people for whom a sports team became a personal obsession. The win or loss of my team is a personal victory, because it is totemic of who I am.
I fear that, all too often, our theological debates fall precisely into this category. We fight them so fiercely because there’s so little at stake in the way we view them. The professional Calvinist in his Internet forum sees a reluctance to embrace effectual calling as a personal attack, as a rejection of him. The anonymous-letter writing anti-Calvinist sees in the Calvinist a repudiation of his own background, of the kinds of churches and methods that led him to Christ. Rather than seeking to understand each other, and love one another with a convictional empathy, we claw and bite one another. That’s because, all too often, what we want is to be right, rather than to build up one another in the faith.
Again, there’s nothing wrong with debating issues of importance. The Body of Christ needs open-Bible conversations between Calvinists and Arminians, dispensationalists and amillennialists, Baptists and paedo-baptists. But theological debate can’t be a form of entertainment. And it sure can’t be a means of proving myself to be worth listening to. Within the broad parameters of great old Christian orthodoxy, there’s room to differ, and to learn, without hearing a rejection (sometimes only a temporary rejection) of my point as a rejection of me.
Debating is a whole lot easier than obedience.
@Dustin Lair, Both are a whole lot easier than rolling initiative against a level 18 beholder.
@Dustin Lair,
LOL!!!
[that last comment should have said "@Josh wiley"]
Amen.
So if I understand your point correctly, we’re now to use polyhedral dice to determine matters of doctrinal significance?
how about getting broader and talking about internet debating in general, about anything. it doesn’t work.
I disagree!
Lol, sorry, just trying to be in the spirit of the debate.
I believe that some things are really worth standing up for and debating but in the end it’s the Spirit that convicts us so we should step back and let God do the work. Any news, sports, politics, show or other type of media, has attempted to teach us that everything must be polarized. You’re either at this end of the spectrum or that end, there is no room in between, I’m right and you’re wrong. Often, while I partially think that’s true speaking of theology, we need to focus and challenged by the discussion and not regard as much of a debate, in which goal there is a winner and loser. We only lose when we don’t listen.
Hey! I resemble these remarks… far more than I am comfortable with.
Wholeheartedly agree! Thanks for the balance, grace and clarity given here in this brief post!
Yes it does!!
Nice work Russ!
Very well stated. Too often we jump on the “attack the opposition” bandwagon while failing to realize that those who are in Christ are NOT the opposition. By all means, discuss and debate issues that are central to Theology, but it must come from a love for the other person and of viewing Scripture accurately (which means admitting that I might be wrong), not from a selfish defense of one’s own value.
Quite an interesting parallel. I was obsessed through my teens and 20s with D&D and various other roleplaying games. I was a Dungeon Master (gasp!) and one of the things we often likedto do as gamers was debate the finer points of rules. On one end of the spectrum you had the “rules lawyers” type of guys that insisted you stick to the rules and that the game was all about the rules. On the other end you had the guys that were all about the story and you bend the rules to fit your story. It could get to be a pretty heated debate at times.
That debate over the rules never did anything to improve the game or the gaming experience. It just caused anger, strife, and ultimately the break up of some good gaming groups. Hmmm…sound familiar in some sort of way?
Dr Moore,
When I read this I immediately thought of your article. Thanks for reminding us about what really matters
http://5ptsalt.com/2011/08/29/has-john-piper-lost-his-doctrinal-mind/#comment-8998
Theological debate is not a rejection of me unless it is complementarianism then it is a rejection of all women’s right to obey Christ’s mandate to preach repentance and remission of sins. And taken to its logical conclusion the complementarian argument is in fact a rejection of Christ’s voice to women to hear what the Spirit is saying to the church.
Wow, thats something I myself am guilty of “But theological debate can’t be a form of entertainment.” Its crazy how quickly a good thing such as theological debate can be turned into an idol in our lives. Thanks for the correction.
I agree with the atricle but why poke at the D&D crowd? It is a shame that a genre of entertainment that provides safe gameplay and an intellectual workout should be treated solely as the activity of social outcasts. If you need an example of a useless game why not fantasy football?
“theological debate cannot be for entertainment…”
Not even a little…?? :(
I agree with most of what Mr. Moore is saying in that our zeal for being “Biblically correct” we can forget that we are communicating with our brethren. I remember the D&D folks as people with a lot of time on their hands and laughing at the Church for calling it demonic.
There is a phenomenon within theology proper which I admit puzzles me. Each Christian is only given X ability to comprehend the complexity of our Christian doctrines. Some are equipped with greater abilities to comprehend than others. I have experienced this with my teeny tiny mind. We know that we worship and love a Complex God who chose to communicate with us through natural theology first (the information gets through that there is a God) then the written word (supernatural theology). To comprehend this Book is a monumental task to say the least. To approach it lightly is certainly a fools errand. He also sends the (Paraclete) Holy Spirit to come along side as well as men able to teach and preach this Word. We then with our God given minds aquesse into the indicia.
When my Arminian brother steps up to the podium with pleas for his case and presents his side with great thought and quotes my hearts leaps up to him with brotherly love. He is worshiping and defending God to the best of his abilities. I have been studying Calvinism for 15 years and have just in the last few years been able to wrap my mind around it. Just now have I been able to put my thoughts into words during a casual conversation.
So, yes Mr. Moore, I agree, let’s be careful when we start ridiculing our brothers. If we be Calvinist let’s carry our “Calvin badges” in our wallets and not pinned to our emotional sleeves. However as we do this let us remember this one thing. Words have meaning. When our mental dictionaries start manipulating and bending the meanings of words to stave off hurt feelings or to keep everyone in the same camp then we are both (Arminian and Calvinist) headed down a path to relativism that is holding our culture captive to this day.
Another thought I had as I read Mr. Moore’s thoughts on “heated debates” of Armininism vs. Calvinism is this: What exactly is upon the table for discussion? What’s all the fuss about? Why are these people getting upset and feeling personally attacked? I think it is precisely because of the subject matter that is up for debate. The very Gospel itself. A subject worth every ounce of emotional juice we have to muster. To get angry and take things personal when we are refuted on every other subject matter is idolatry but the Gospel is not “for sale”.
When I hear a pastor from the pulpit say, “If only you….then God”, my defense starts building up because that is not the Gospel. This man is attacking God, not me.
Human freedom against a Sovereign Being is the stalwart in all human religions. The Gospel is of such value that Christ would have his sheep purchased for one thing. To be slaughtered.
Here I stand, I can do no other.
God help me. Martin Luther
darrell
@Darrell Powell,
As much as I subscribe to the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God; as much as it is a doctrine that enhances the mental life of a believer; as much as it is doctrine that gives one appreciation of the nuanced brilliance of God; as much as it a doctrine that gives rational foundation against human pride; it is still not the Gospel.
The Gospel must be believed in order to be saved. Failure to believe the Gospel; according to the words and reasoning in Galatians places one outside of Grace; because the Just and the Justifier moral and legal grounds to forgive and save sinners. There is no parallel anathematizing of those who fail to subscribe to the Sovereignty of God in any Scriptures. And so it should be; because it is a very difficult doctrine to properly understand. Most who subscribe to it tend towards varying degrees of HyperCalvinism.
A person’s salvation ought not to be founded on their intellectual capacity to comprehend complex understandings; else the Gospel becomes not available for all.
Dr. Moore: I doubt very many people debate something like 5 Points Calvinism for such shallow reasons. And even if some argue it in a juvenile fashion (I once watched a 5 year old boy, shocked by an orchestra suddenly commencing a loud classical music movement, shout “stupid, stupid, stupid!”; it was all he could do!) they are perhaps doing their best at the moment on what they rightly recognize is an extremely important issue-though it may appear otherwise to others. What makes 5 Points Calvinism such a big deal is it’s affect on children’s, new believer’s, and potential believer’s view of God-and how that might influence their relationship with Him. Unconditional election essentially states that God looked at all the equally guilty people of history and arbitrarily chose a few for heaven-and the rest for hell-as if He is not also Love. It is impossible to reconcile this point with Acts 17:26-28 (so that they would seek Him, and PERHAPS reach out to Him) nor will it square with the Law of non-Contradiction (it is not Love to choose some for hell when they are no more guilty than the ones He supposedly chose for Heaven). Predestination and Free Choice are peculiar in their juxtaposition together in the Bible, however we deal with a God that is an extraordinary reconciler, unbounded by time and infinitely powerful.
This is one of those posts in which many of the comments simply serve to prove the point of the post. :)