Scot Mcknight Interview Part 1 & 2

Does morality need God?

There is a post by Scot McKnight entitled "Do you need God to be Moral?" which i found interesting given the nature of the post. He asks this question "How do traditional Christians explain places where there is very little religious belief but there is a clear presence of good, respectable morals and civility?"

I presume many have this idea where a place/ context/ society will become morally bankrupt if they don't have God in the picture. There is some truth to this. It is true that religion does play a big part in the belief systems of people. But i would say now that to be moral one does not need a belief in God.

To me, being moral, having a sense of right and wrong is inherent in all human beings regardless of what one believes. So regardless if one is religious, atheist, agnostic or whatever, being moral is an inherent nature in human beings. Somehow we have this sense of right and wrong.

So how would i give some sort of answer to the question posted by McKnight? Well, the possibility of a place having little religious but having a clear presence of good, respectable morals and civility is possible because we are humans that have a deep sense of right and wrong-morals. So to me it is a belief system in us that conjures up an image of society. Even the people who say that they live by no rules also ascribe to a system of beliefs that talks about how one should live and that too entails a right and wrong way to live, to put it bluntly.

What about religion. Is it bad then? Do we need it? Yes, we still do. Is being religious bad for humanity? Yes and no. I do believe that some religious beliefs suppress how we live. I would not state which though. Let me point to my tribe for example, the Kelabits. As one of the peoples group living in the jungles of Borneo, like any tribal people were animist, beliefs in spirits. Their way of life centered around this belief system. It was an oppressive belief system and gave damaging effects to the conditions of living for them. But when missionaries came they taught these people a new way of life. Teaching them proper hygiene for example. They also taught them about Christianity. In turn as life progressed, my people were living much better after they disassociated themselves from their old belief system.

What i wanted to convey was, it is the belief systems that determine the way of life we all are part of. Being religious ascribes us to a certain center, as well as the atheist system. But inherently we all function under a bigger system that is we all have an inherent moral center. Because of that we are able to live good, happy and peaceful lives.

But although I say this, I do believe that there is a bigger center that guides what we have inherently as human beings. And it is determined by following the center of human and universal existence.

Well, these are just some thoughts that I have. I don't think I have a strong argument here but it's just something worth posting i guess.

Bible and Alcohol

This is quite an interesting post by Scot McKnight. Something that I have been thinking about myself but didn't have the courage to pursue my thoughts on the blog. Lets just say that I take the position of this professor. So if you haven't read it already, here I am directing your attention to it.

Blurb ruckus- Labeling that has created a Blogexplosion

I don't think I have ever seen, in the history of blurbing (mind the exaggeration), a blurb getting so much attention. So much so that it is riding the waves of N. T. Wright's new book called "Justification: God's Plan, Paul's Vision". But on the other hand I hope all the talk generated by the label that Scot McKnight called NeoReformed would spur people to read Wright's book whether you agree with him or not. Heck I'm even going to buy Piper's book (I have my reservations on him but that does not mean he has nothing to offer me theologically) just for the sake of being generous and fair. Though I'm a Wright fan it does not put me in a position of being on the right side (although at time I do feel that way, mind the bias).

Anyway back to the labeling stuff. I don't have any specific discussion stuff in my head on this because there are literally numerous discussions about it in the blogspere and I don't think I have the capacity to plunge into the discussion. There are many more informed people who can do that and I'm enjoying their comments.

One of the things that I notice though is, people seem to want McKnight to name names of who he is labeling NeoReformed. Apparently some are saying that McKnight should come clean and name some names. I got this from a comment in the blogspere

"Scot McKnight is erecting and then burning strawmen. Not naming names of who he labels as "neo-reformed" is moral cowardice."

Whether it would appease their curiosity or judgement if names are revealed, I have a feeling that fingers are going to be pointed right into McKnight's face that he is simply being uncharitable with his labeling. I hope McKnight, or I believe he will not bring up the names. I like and agree with his definition of those whom he calls the NeoReformed. Much of what McKnight is saying is true in my opinion that is. And to put it further quoting from a book written by Tim Stafford on the qualities of Jesus when he warned people was that "...he (Jesus) never singled out individuals". That implies that Jesus also used labels. I think Jesus would make much more blog discussions with his labeling compared to McKnight :). Which brings us also to the implication that McKnight follows on the same stream as well.

But much more credit also in him mentioning Horton. Horton's explanation of evangelicism is spot on to me

One of my favorite Reformed theologians is Michael Horton. We don't agree on theology but I like this guy and I like to read his stuff. Michael recently wrote a piece that uses a different image than the big tent image above. He says evangelicalism is like the village green of early American communities. It was where folks, all folks, gathered to chat and share commonalities. He says evangelicalism is the village green but evangelicalism is not the church. Churches have confessions, and his confession is Reformed. He says we need to worship in our churches and that the village green is not enough; it is where we join with Christians most like us. The key point I make here is the distinction between being evangelical and being Reformed. Michael Horton, I am assuming, thinks the best form of evangelicalism is Reformed; and he probably thinks Arminians and Anabaptists are wrong at some important points. Fine. (I think the same of Reformed, and I think they are sometimes wrong at central points.) But Michael Horton knows that a local church (or denomination) is not the village green. I agree with him 100%.

Echoing McKnight on this, I too agree with him 100%.