When we last looked in on our free agent heretic it was just before St. Rudolph took to the holiday skies. You may recall his thoughts about how his morphing god found accommodations "within the affairs of people".

Luke the Evangelist tells us that "in Him we live, and move, and have our being". Dave tells us that God "lives, moves, and has his being" in time and space of the cosmos, history, our human interaction.

Which is nice, I guess, for him, but it is in no conceivable way orthodox Christian teaching. I suspect you could probably select at random any decade from church history to find a condemnation of that heresy.

I told myself we were rid of this nonsense for the year of our Lord 2009; he might resume his god-fantasies in the new year, but if I wanted more religious poppycock before the stores closed, I would have to rifle McLaren's or Jones's dumpsters.

Clearly that was the eggnog talking.

On the 18^th he issued an apology to his critics wherever they were vacationing. He made ten points. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say he made a list containing ten items.

Six are interesting to me because of they tell us about Dave Hayward and his peers (if we can abuse the language enough to say that Dave has peers).

1.  I'm accused of inconsistency. I am not trying to be consistent. I'm trying to be honest. I question the assumption that we can even have a systematic theological comprehension of everything.

Just for the record, I haven't read a single theologian, pastor or theological writer who ever assumed that he had a "systematic theological comprehension of everything". (If any of our readers know of such a theologian, pastor or theological writer, please drop us a note containing bibliographical particulars: I've been given gift cards to several large bookstore chains. I have a long list of books I want, but I'm prepared to drop the last one on the list for a book by—or about—anyone who thinks he has a systematic theological comprehension of everything.)

That is just silliness, and probably a lie as well. What men have assumed—or reasoned—is that whatever little they might know could be put into a system. Those are two very different things. Owning all the diamonds in the world is not the same as taking the diamonds you do own and organizing them according to carat, clarity, color and cut.

Mathematics deals with numbers which, like concepts about God, extend into infinity. Only fools pretend that balancing your checkbook is a waste of time and brain cells because we cannot comprehend the infinite. And only fools say that systematizing our knowledge of God constitutes a claim of comprehensive theological knowledge of everything.

2. I'm accused of not telling people what to believe. I'm not trying to tell people what to believe. I am trying to respect each person's responsibility for their [sic] own faith.

This also misrepresents the facts. When we tell our children not to reach up and grab the stovetop, we are not telling them what to believe, we are telling them the truth about stoves, and we too are respecting each person's responsibility for his own actions. Indeed we are expanding this child's sphere of responsibility by introducing him to a distinction he has not yet appreciated. Hot stovetops will burn little fingers no matter what children believe.

3. I'm accused of being a universalist. I know we are all connected. That we are all one. I'm trying to understand this and articulate it theologically.

Given that non sequitur, I can only assume Dave doesn't know what the word universalist means. Everyone is connected in some way, of course: we are all sons of Adam, we are all heirs to his estate, we are all immoral creatures, we all have a Judge at the door.... What we want to know is if we are connected in any particular way that will survive the Judgment of the Living and the Dead.

4. I'm accused of being unorthodox. I'm not trying to be orthodox. I want to know the truth for myself for which I can live and die.

I think the question that leaps to every rational mind is: Are you willing to live and die for a falsehood? That is what is at issue. No one is saying that Dave shouldn't look; what many are telling him is that he won't find truth where he is looking.

5. I'm accused of not being missional. In fact, I think I am more missional! Believing we are all one, I am trying to find an articulation of this unity that bridges the illusory gaps between me and everyone else, including non-believers.

Just because a person thinks he is missional does not make him missional any more than my thinking I live in Buck House makes me the King of England. An impressive host of people are telling Dave that the gaps that exist between people are not at all illusory. I think maybe he should look up the word illusory on the way to checking out the word universalist.

8. I'm accused of being confused. I admit I don't understand. Yet. But I'm desperately trying. I am seeking, and in seeking I will find.

We did actually pick up on the "desperately trying" part, and that is the relevant point. Many people are "desperately trying" and abysmally failing. If they are confused and if they lack understanding, they should be told. And not just because we want to. This is what Jesus did, this is what Jesus told his Apostles to do, it is what the Apostles did, and it is what the Apostles to us to do.

We could even call this "making a life in the way of Jesus".

_______________

Dave Hayward is not just a lonely crackpot. He may well be—and we could certainly wish he were—a lonely crackpot, but you must consider that he is not alone. Dave is groping in a dark place, but he has plenty of company.

If you want to understand your hour in history, you must understand, at some basic level, where the David Haywards and Brian McLarens and Doug Pagitts came from. These fruits don't just fall from trees no one planted.

How did we ever get to the point that simpleminded people would glibly dismiss what no one ever assumed to be the case [that theological systems represent a comprehensive knowledge of everything] and take as a virtue this blind groping for a theology to accommodate the bag of grubworms they call their minds? I mean, who does this?! Who confuses speaking the truth with "telling people what to believe"?

Who tries to extrude a soteriology from this pre-adolescent wish that "we are all connected"? Who thinks wheat and tares are "all one"? Did Jesus ever believe or teach this? In what sense exactly are the children of light connected to the children of disobedience? Where do we find this indifference toward orthodoxy? Where does this denial of truth come from and what makes this search for "truth" outside orthodoxy plausible and realistic to them? Who even wants to build a bridge to span a gap which is merely illusory? These aren't snarkisms, they are serious questions. What set of ideas or what historical moment produces this sort of person?

We will all recognize that there is a disordered mind at work here. We might suggest to Dave some lifestyle changes or treatment options, but Dave is one of millions who has turned his back on reason and feels most comfortable trying to build a faith out of platitudes and mood swings.

Where does this view of reality come from?

Monday I should like to give a partial answer.