(using Kenneth Burke’s allegorical linking between rhetoric and theology), an attack on a person’s rhetoric is achieved via an attack on a certain theology. And vice versa.

First of all, no “attack” anywhere. Too violent. Critique? Yes. Attack? No.

Oh no, not really. Burke would say that theology is a rhetoric. He would see no difference. But Burke does tend to think that everything which exists fits into the rhetoricians’ purview.

But Burke’s encyclopedic scope aside, the way to critique a theology is totally different than critiquing a rhetoric. There’s a different set of sources, vocabularies, and methods. Sure — there’s overlap; there’s always overlap. I am trained in critiquing religious rhetoric. I can’t judge to see if he is X, Y, or Z in the theological framework. But I can judge a good rhetoric.

I’m still trying to grind that question through the biblical mill. But I don’t think there’s any doubt (especially seeing people’s comments here) that your guns were trained on Berg.

No. That’s just not a fair or correct assessment. If you read it in the whole of the book, that’s just not accurate. He takes up very little space in the whole scheme of things. I didn’t write a book about Jim Berg’s rhetoric. I wrote a book about how religious separatists talk in the public sphere with Bob Jones University being the representative anecdote (Burke term).

There seems to be some confusion between differing types of image. (bottom of p.217ff) We are created in the image of God (Genesis 2) but we are also to be continually transformed into the image of God (I Corinthians 3). I think Berg specifically references I Corinthians 3:18 in Changed into His Image as where he got the title from.

Are you sure that’s the Text for the title? I’m honestly asking (i.e. that’s not a rhetorical question. ). Because if that were the case, it would be “Building on Christ’s Foundation.” Which has another whole trajectory.

When discussing Berg’s terms, you refer to “the flesh” as “the corporeal body,” and therefore “being human”. This seems like an inaccurate depiction of Berg’s definition of “flesh.” He defined it as “an indwelling sin principle that remains in a believer.” It seems reductionistic to say he means “the corporeal body.” (p.218) This also leads to shifting definitions later when you say “We do not know where legitimate flesh-feeding is apt or where it is sinful.” (bottom of p.219ff) If “flesh” is left as Berg’s definition, then “legitimate flesh-feeding” isn’t subjective; it’s an oxymoron.

If you check out critiques of Chaferianism/Keswick theology, there is continuous confusion between humanity and sin. It’s very nearly gnostic in its confusion. Yes, Berg knows (and I’ve had this conversation with him personally) how to define the “sin nature” or the “flesh.” He knows that he’s supposed to respond with “the indwelling sin principle.” But when you see how that works itself out — where he describes things as sin that are not sin!! — you see a completely different picture. Read Changed Into His Image. In there he says that, for instance, sleeping in is a sin. And we all know (all too well) that chewing gum can be a sin, cutting your hair with a too narrow clip is a sin. . . .

As an aside, I would be very interested to hear your definition of “flesh” as used in Romans 7-8 or in Galatians 5. I’ve been reading and re-reading these passages and thinking that if you don’t use Berg’s definition, then it DOES refer to the corporeal body and we’re left with sin equaling being human. So I’m wondering what your “third way” is in this case.

We are full of sin like the Heidelberg Confession says. We do have a tendency to go our own way. I totally agree with that. But here’s the ultimate irony in the whole thing — “going our own way” means building ziggurats to try to reach God, not being sad or being sleepy. It means trying to parse out our own spiritual success in man-made rules.

We have a sinful nature. We don’t have two natures that war against each other. We don’t have a clone of Satan in us (Berg counters my objection to this by saying that it was merely literary flourish. Perhaps. . . . but it’s in every book!! That reveals that it’s more than a writer’s gush.)! It’s not black-dog-v-white-dog. We were dead in our trespasses and sins and Christ made us alive. We are redeemed!!

You know, it’s funny. . . . Every single person I’ve had this identical conversation with over the last two years has concluded exactly as you: so what’s sin then if it isn’t the flesh? There’s a trap in the thinking in which we’ve been raised that doesn’t let us see the passages for what they are worth.

It’s not that we have to perpetually kill the black dog and feed the white dog. The black dog is dead — STOP FEEDING THE BLACK DOG!

I remember our quick blog conversation back in late October about some of these issues… and I must say my head’s not much clearer. Colossians 3 is still proving a stone in the road to my embracing what you’re talking about… Paul’s very clear that he’s talking about Christians and since that’s the case, they should put to death what is earthly in them (there’s no possibility of pre-/post-conversion confusion here like in Romans 7-8). Then he lists a bunch of things to put to death (v.5), some of which are things you defined as “being human.” Paul says: But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, evil speech, lying. Why does Paul say we must put to death what is earthly here in Colossians 3, and in Galatians 5 say that believers have crucified the flesh?

There are a lot of places where you could go either way with Paul saying “since you HAVE put off the old man and since you ARE being renewed in the Spirit of your mind and since you HAVE put on the new man, then stop walking the way the Gentiles walk.” You could say this is a pattern for how we should change. Or this is not the pattern; it’s the past fact that allows us to change. But in Colossians 3, the put off > renew > put on sequence comes in the middle of numerous calls to put off evil and put on goodness.

One of the problems with our previous life is that it severely mishears the same biblical or historically Protestant vocabulary but applies another meaning. They do that with Total Depravity (It doesn’t mean that I’m evil through and through. It means that I’m totally unable to save myself.). And they even do it with the Christian life. The fundamentalist perspective on salvation is like this:

At salvation, Christ moves in (Berg does use this metaphor of Christ moving into your house). He cleans up a little, but for the most part, He sits in the formal dining room and waits for you to join him. He has a cup of tea and waits quietly and patiently. Satan, on the other hand, has a raucous party in the rumpus room. It sounds great!! And at every moment, you must choose. Are you going to sit with Jesus or are you going to indulge yourself and party with the Devil?

What Paul presents is something very different.

At salvation, Christ doesn’t just move in; He performs an extreme makeover! He kicks Satan to the curb. And He renovates everything. It’s all new!! Sure, sure — Satan still lurks outside. And you can be foolish enough to go hang out with Satan. But when you do that, you’re doing exactly the opposite of what God has plumbed you to do. It may feel good because it’s familiar, but it’s not where you belong. It’s not acting like Whose you are!

Another way of looking at it. . . . for the fundamentalist:

After salvation, every moment in your Christian life is a meal. At the meal on one end of the table sits Christ with His very healthy, but tasteless kelp-and-flax-seed smoothie. At the other end? Satan walks in with fresh, hot McDonald’s french fries — supersize — and a Big Mac. Every moment you must choose. Are you going to pick the healthy but yucky thing? Or the artery-clogging but yummy thing? Feed the flesh or the soul?

Again — that’s not the picture we see from Paul (I found this in Classic Christianity:

Before salvation, we’re all driven to dumpster diving for our meals. We’re good at it, and we’ve acquired a taste for garbage actually. Christ owns the finest restaurant where we like to find our scraps. And one day, He comes out and says, “Honey!! WHAT ARE YOU DOING??” And He grabs us and drags us kicking and screaming into His place. He cleans us up and feeds us a feast! Now, we COULD go for the scrap bucket under the sink. That’s what we know. But that’s not His best for us.

The fundy POV makes sin looks great. It actually, I would argue, fetishizes it. This is neither the Reformed perspective (that sin is the perversion of God’s intended wholeness for the world) nor the Wesleyan (intentional disobedience of God’s Law). It’s something else entirely that looks more like Eastern mysticism than Christianity.

The Christian life is not this perpetual, percarious choice-making — that’s pretty lousy Good News, if it is. We’re not walking on a tightrope to get across to our spiritual success. Christ’s yoke is easy and His burden is light. We do the right thing out of gratitude for the Grace He’s already given us, not in order to “get” the Grace we want.

It’s a completely different story.

In the spirit of point number 3…

1) Responding to #2 above… In the situation you’re describing (using Kenneth Burke’s allegorical linking between rhetoric and theology), an attack on a person’s rhetoric is achieved via an attack on a certain theology. And vice versa. You’re just quilting the other direction. So it seems disingenuous to say “I’m not attacking Berg’s theology, I’m attacking his rhetoric.” You’re attacking Berg’s theology to attack Burke’s rhetoric. And, given the tone of the chapter, I would say you’re actually attacking Burke’s rhetoric to attack Berg’s theology. Maybe Berg’s theology needs to be attacked (in an academic sense). I’m still trying to grind that question through the biblical mill. But I don’t think there’s any doubt (especially seeing people’s comments here) that your guns were trained on Berg.

2) There seems to be some confusion between differing types of image. (bottom of p.217ff) We are created in the image of God (Genesis 2) but we are also to be continually transformed into the image of God (I Corinthians 3). I think Berg specifically references I Corinthians 3:18 in Changed into His Image as where he got the title from.

3) When discussing Berg’s terms, you refer to “the flesh” as “the corporeal body,” and therefore “being human”. This seems like an inaccurate depiction of Berg’s definition of “flesh.” He defined it as “an indwelling sin principle that remains in a believer.” It seems reductionistic to say he means “the corporeal body.” (p.218) This also leads to shifting definitions later when you say “We do not know where legitimate flesh-feeding is apt or where it is sinful.” (bottom of p.219ff) If “flesh” is left as Berg’s definition, then “legitimate flesh-feeding” isn’t subjective; it’s an oxymoron.

** As an aside, I would be very interested to hear your definition of “flesh” as used in Romans 7-8 or in Galatians 5. I’ve been reading and re-reading these passages and thinking that if you don’t use Berg’s definition, then it DOES refer to the corporeal body and we’re left with sin equaling being human. So I’m wondering what your “third way” is in this case. **

I remember our quick blog conversation back in late October about some of these issues… and I must say my head’s not much clearer. Colossians 3 is still proving a stone in the road to my embracing what you’re talking about… Paul’s very clear that he’s talking about Christians and since that’s the case, they should put to death what is earthly in them (there’s no possibility of pre-/post-conversion confusion here like in Romans 7-8). Then he lists a bunch of things to put to death (v.5), some of which are things you defined as “being human.” Paul says: But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, evil speech, lying. Why does Paul say we must put to death what is earthly here in Colossians 3, and in Galatians 5 say that believers have crucified the flesh?

There are a lot of places where you could go either way with Paul saying “since you HAVE put off the old man and since you ARE being renewed in the Spirit of your mind and since you HAVE put on the new man, then stop walking the way the Gentiles walk.” You could say this is a pattern for how we should change. Or this is not the pattern; it’s the past fact that allows us to change. But in Colossians 3, the put off > renew > put on sequence comes in the middle of numerous calls to put off evil and put on goodness.

Arg. I’m getting brain cramps. Trying to overcome my tendencies that “I don’t wanna know if the answer’s not easy.”

Avoiding critique and/or seeking to silence it does not create an intellectually vigorous environment. Things become rather stale and the end result is a stance(s)that is culturally irrelevant.

Thanks for sharing. Good thoughts!

I now understand why you were fired.

Somewhere in the first half of the chapter you mention how separatists stay away from the “unclean” to avoid being defiled. I’ve been reading Leviticus recently and have been blown away by the entrance of Jesus into this world of clean and unclean categories. In Christ, everything became clean–there is no record of Jesus purifying himself after touching lepers, the blind, the dead, the woman with the issue of blood, etc. It flips the story on its head from a tragedy to a comic romance, just like you’ve said. Great, great stuff!