Things I used to believe, but now I am not so sure

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/about/c-michael-patton on 26 Jul 2007
Folk Theology & Sunday Morning Warnings

Comments (38)

Related Posts

• Things I used to believe, but now I am not so sure
• Will One White Lie Send You to Hell for All Eternity?
• Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain: What Does it Really Mean?
• Is Drinking a Mixed Drink a Sinful Compromise?
• A Near Death Experience? A Theological Evaluation of Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven”

38 Responses to “Things I used to believe, but now I am not so sure”

1. Vance on 25 Jul 2007 at 1:57 pm #

   Great list! This is a great mental exercise, and I would add a couple in the same spirit:

   If you accept evolution and an earth billions of years old, you are denying the truth of Scripture.
   (wait a minute, who am I to dictate HOW and WHEN God *must* have created?! Should anyone take such a dogmatic stand based on one interpretation of Scripture. I think we have to rephrase it “if you accept evolution and an earth billions of years old, you are denying ONE INTERPRETATION of Scripture”.

   Catholics are not truly saved or going to heaven.
   (how on earth could I have even contemplated this? While it was not something I held to with any conviction, I just accepted the pervading doctrine of the church I grew up in. Seem pretty ridiculous now).

2. Nick N. on 25 Jul 2007 at 2:35 pm #

   Michael,

   Great post. Coming from a Charismatic Pentecostal denomination I could add a ton to that list — early on my salvation I believed:

   1. If women wear makeup then they must be vain and carnal (Really? Perhaps a little powder and lipstick makes them feel good about themselves.)

   2. Because Paul said it is good for a man not to touch a woman then men shouldn’t shake women’s hands (Really? It seems I confused Chassidic Judaism and Islam for Christianity — never mind that the context of Paul’s statement was in regard to fornication.)

   3. Christians shouldn’t drink alcohol under any circumstances (Good thing that Jesus and the apostles were Jews, huh? They certainly enjoyed a nice glass of wine now and again ;))

   4. If the Bible is not inerrant then we can’t trust anything it says (You and Dr. Wallace have written enough on this topic that my comments would be useless here.)

   I don’t know about Christ’s physical pain being greater than all humanity, but I think there is certainly something to be said of a sinless man suffering and dying for the sins of others — at least in this regard I’d say that whatever he felt must have been more intense than anyone else’s emotional anguish. I can’t be dogmatic about it though.

   Vance,

   I’m with you — just last night I was talking to a couple of fundamentalists and shared my opinion on how a belief in evolution is not an automatic denial of God or Scripture and also that the Bible can be interpreted in a manner which supports old earth creationism. Surprisingly enough, after my comments I was told that I was lost and then a wonderful link to ChristianAnswers.net was emailed to me showing how every theory other than a literal 6/24 hour a day creation is false and of Satan.

   And on the Catholic issue I agree — I am at odds with both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers on a number of issues, but when looking at those essentials that we were discussing yesterday, I realize that they affirm them all (at least those on my list =)).

3. mga318 on 25 Jul 2007 at 3:01 pm #

   …skubalon…

   Oh…the number of times I heard Dr. Bateman say that in class…

   My My…

4. richards on 25 Jul 2007 at 3:32 pm #

   From where I come from, Michael, we call people like you liberal. And a troublemaking liberal at that. Smoking is ok, since I live in tobacco country, and it supports the economy.

   Drinking, however, must never, ever be done by any self-respecting Christian. Unless you are behind the woodshed. And you share with the other deacons.

   Seriously, where TTP has reclaimed my mind the most is with regard to interpretation. I was just telling Rhome this last night — there is a right way and a wrong way to read and interpret scripture, and I had never known another way but the wrong way until TTP.

   One of the side effects of TTP that you bring out is that knowledge does not equal understanding, and understanding does not equal wisdom. This is where I really appreciate the Orthodox descriptions of Christian life, where they emphasize our “partaking of the divine nature.” It’s something that we are and are becoming, not just what we know.

   But then again, where I come from, you don’t need to think. You just need to pray the prayer and put the little fish symbol on your car.

5. I Agree. Pretty much. at Rusty Hinges on 25 Jul 2007 at 3:51 pm #

   [...] From Parchment and Pen: Things I used to believe, but now I am not so sure. [...]

6. Josh on 25 Jul 2007 at 5:07 pm #

   I have a question for you Michael, as to where you are currently landing (and I don’t mean to start a firestorm here lol) on the issue of woman’s “roles” within the church.

   I have dabbled in the book Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Piper and Grudem and have been traditionally raised along those arguments but I have had more recent questions in my mind regarding the Biblical roles women have within the Church.

   More specifically if Elders are suppose to be men, and Senior Pastors (at least within most denominations in the United States) are consider as Elders would you consider it unbiblical to have a woman serving as the role of a Senior Pastor?

   I agreed with this for a very long time, the reason being that God (from before the Fall) had a created order in which He designed it to function. Within this order God has ordained that men would be the ones responsible for teaching orthodox doctrine (i.e. functioning as Elders), which would thus disqualify woman as being Senior Pastors.

   The problem I have recently run into upon reflection is the massive number of female missionaries in history and currently who preach the Gospel to people who have never heard it, i.e. teaching Doctrine. And from this I find it almost impossible to argue that these woman were/are going against God’s Will in preaching the Gospel to the lost.

   Just your thoughts on this, I feel as though I am stuck in a fundamentalist mindset on this, but I am struggling with Biblical support to free me from it. I also have no desire to conform to the cultural view that it is more “tolerant” or that this idea is forced from not wanting to be “sexist” I’m only concerned as to what God’s Word says.

   Your brother in Christ,

   -Josh

7. Vance on 25 Jul 2007 at 5:27 pm #

   My general thoughts on these types of areas is that we must consider which aspects of Paul’s teachings were concessions to cultural issues in the first century Roman Empire, and which were rules for all time. We see his prohibition of certain dress for women in church, IIRC, or even women speaking in church, and we easily see that these are due to the culture of the time, and what is necessary for the effective running of a church *at that time*. We see the same with slavery concessions, etc.

   So, if we all accept that not all of Paul’s guidelines are meant for the modern church, then we must do our best to decipher which is which. What was the likely purpose of the initial “rule”? Does that still apply today?

   So, let’s say that the reason was because a woman in charge at that time would be scandalous, a distraction, possibly even a stumbling-block, then we would have to ask whether that is still true today. Probably not.

   On the other hand, if the reason was because God simply set out different roles for the genders based on their general gifts and natures overall, and not culturally-based reasons, then we could conclude that these same differences are basic to human nature, and would still apply today.

   Now, that is just a way of approaching the issue, not a conclusion about which of the two possibilities is correct. Because I am a coward.

8. mjfreshoil on 25 Jul 2007 at 7:09 pm #

   Thank you Michael- and thank you Vance,

   I love the list. And the questions about women in church leadership have always been big in my mind. It is interesting to note the comparison with slavery when it comes to cultural relativism. I too have read parts of Wayne Grudem and John Pipers comments on gender.

   It seems to me even though there are Biblical prohibitions against women in leadership, there are also clear exceptions to those rules… in both Old and New Testaments. We see Deborah in leadership which is ordained of God. Was it that there were no Godly men qualified to be judges? And in the New Testament, there does seem to be a place for the role of women in the area of prophecy. This would certainly negate the notion of “women keep silent in the church”. What about Paul stating that there is no male, female, Jew, Greek , bond or free? I have to admit. Im also a coward. I just dont know what to make of it. I think God can call and use women in pastoral leadership. But of course its wondeful here. I have the choice, if I dont believe in it- I can attend a church where women are only allowed to serve in a more supportive role. Once again, like Vance… I am a coward.

   Miles

9. ChadS on 25 Jul 2007 at 7:20 pm #

   When I was growing up I used to hear stories about my grandparents and the things they didn’t believe in. My favorites were always the “Devil’s tools” — dice and cards. Then add into the mix no dancing and no drinking.

   I remember one church Christmas party where our passtor had to hide in the kitchen to steal a few sips of beer so the older ladies in the congregation wouldn’t tsk-tsk him. Nobody could possibly imagine the dirty looks he would’ve received from the over 75 crowd if he was seen having a beer.

   ChadS

10. JoanieD on 25 Jul 2007 at 9:23 pm #

    I love your list, Michael, and I agree with ALL of your points. Which is interesting, because I don’t think we agree on all the same doctrines. We agree on all the ESSENTIAL Christian beliefs that Dan talks about though. I think I am a more “inclusive” type of Christian though. It may tend to make me more wishy-washy. I don’t know.

    In regard to the woman issue…I won’t be a “coward!” I will say that men and woman should be able to use their talents EQUALLY in the service of God, wherever and however that leads them. Being brought up as a Catholic, that would of course put me not in the Catholic teaching of not allowing woman priests. I also think priests should be allowed to marry. The apostle Peter was married and his wife traveled with him! How did that all go so astray?!

    Joanie D.

11. kurtvader on 26 Jul 2007 at 12:10 am #

    Michael,

    Thanks for your confession, I can relate to what you wrote.

    We have been taught by someone and we have believed things because of our teachers. I think that is part of maturity, to grow and have your own conviction.

    Now to find out what to believe right please go to the Book of Concord with your Bible.

    ;-0

    Kurt Vader.

12. Josh on 26 Jul 2007 at 9:38 am #

    I agree with you somewhat Miles, my difficulty lies with in the concept of woman missionaries because they ARE teaching doctrine and I have tremendous difficulty in my mind trying to say they shouldn’t be doing that. I guess a “safe” way one could land in this position is to explain away the definition of “teaching and exercising authority” (or teaching doctrine) into a very narrow and small category that very few people can attain without rigorous and intense study. But this doesn’t seem to solve the fundamental problem found in the issue.

    I also have much respect for Piper and Grudem as theologians and scholars and their passion for the Supremacy of Christ in all things, so I have an extremely difficult time (not that they are “perfect” and always correct on everything) in seeing how their exegesis and biblical scholarship was not done with Gods glory at the forefront and as their purpose.

    My question is: is the issue really about equality or just the concept and ideal of equality? Because it seems to me if we apply this sense of “all things should be equal”, at least in the American sense (i.e. equal opportunity) then woman should also be fighting for the right to serve as frontline soldiers within the U.S. Army. Because unless it has changed, as far as I can remember those positions are restricted to men only. This is no way suggests that woman cannot do it, it simply means (or at least how I take it) that men are better suited than woman for those positions. Obviously I am not a woman so I cannot speak from that perspective, but I don’t see why this isn’t fought after as inequality as well. Which leads me to think that a Pastorate position is more desirable than a front line solider position, and if this is the reason for the debate, that is, the desire to affirm oneself to be on par with a man for the sake of the position, the main thrust behind it seems to be a breeding ground for pride, and not the glory of Christ.

    The argument can be made that, in general and in nature (obviously there can be exceptions) men have more upper body strength and are stronger than women. So they are not “equal” in the same way we have equality in voting for example (i.e. equal opportunity, because that is deemed as an aspect of the mind, not that of the physical appearance or ability (which I think most would agree we have our differences).

    But this “difference” seems to me, the argument that Paul is making in 1 Titus 2:12-15 (obviously the standard verse used in this argument) for his reason of woman not “teaching and exercising authority” because he links Adam and Eve into his argument. In essence it seems as though he is trying to reaffirm the natural created order which was before the Fall.

    I have difficulty seeing how Galatians 3:28 helps show that woman and men are totally and completely equal in this argument (I do no mean in the sight of God, which I think this passage affirms, but in their biblical and created roles, which God clearly designed as distinct) especially since it would contradict Genesis. Paul is talking about our freedom from law the whole time in this chapter (and a large amount of this book), and then in verse 29, he speaks of all of us being Abrahams descendants through Christ. This seems to indicate to me that he is affirming that you do not have to live under the Mosaic Law and you do not have to be a Jew (i.e. change your cultural traditions to fit into a Jewish model), to be saved if you belong to Christ. It seems like this text is just plucked out of the whole context and applied to this argument. I humbly ask that someone can give me some clarification on how this verse is helpful in the gender issue.

    Now I apologize if I’ve offended anyone here man or woman, that was not my intent, I’m still wrestling with this issue and hope that someone can give me some other perspectives to help me feel more confidant on it.

    Your brother in Christ,

    -Josh

13. Josh on 26 Jul 2007 at 9:41 am #

    I just wanted to clarify after re-reading my post, in the 3rd paragraph of my post the last sentence comes off harsh and may be taken the wrong way. I am not saying that all woman or even a majority of woman go into ministry for their ego, especially considering they know they will be met with all kinds of opposition. I was just trying to explain my thought in a way that followed a logical sequence (or at least did in my mind lol.) So again I apologize if this left a bad taste in anyone’s mouth.

14. Marvin the Martian on 26 Jul 2007 at 12:13 pm #

    I feel compelled to comment on the Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creation debate.

    I will say this for sure, it is not an essential for salvation. But I also say this with a great degree of certianty, it is a very important doctrine, and one that cannot be brushed over as “let’s just agree to disagree”.

    First it must be stated that in regards to interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1, if we were to use an authorial intent or historical grammatical hermeneutic, then it is unquestionable that the original intent of the author of Genesis 1 is to communicate that God created the universe and all that is in it in a literal 6 day period of time. Any plain reading of the passage will tell you that. A child reading the passage will tell you that. It has been the only accepted interpretation for hundreds of years of church history. The only reason why other ideas are entertained today is because people apply concepts from outside the Bible, principally from evolutionary/humanistic, psuedo-scientific sources, to interpret the Bible.

    Second of all, there are some serious doctrinal issues that must be dealt with if you are going to adhere to a long age/theistic evolutionary paradigm. To say that God used evolution as his instrument of creation is to say that God used a process filled with death, disease, and violence, all before the Fall of Man (which according to scripture is what brought all that garbage into creation to begin with). Better stated:

    A contemporary of Darwin described the theological impact of evolution in these words:

    ‘The evolution of man from lower forms of life was in itself a new and startling fact, and one that broke up the old theology. I and my contemporaries, however, accepted it as fact. The first and obvious result of this experience was that we were compelled to regard the Biblical story of the Fall as not historic … If there is no historic Fall, what becomes of the redemption, the salvation through Christ?’

    Cited in Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed, Phillipsburg (New Jersey), 1969, p. 171

    If there was no literal, historic Fall, then by logical deduction, there is no need for a literal redemption, which means that Christ died for what exactly? That is something that even a Christian theistic evolutionist probably would not adhere to, but it is the logical consequence of their theology.

    And lets face it, the entirety of scripture itself assumes Genesis to be literal history. Jesus speaks of events in Genesis as literal historical events. Paul clearly believes in the first Man, Adam, and death entering the world through him. I find it very dangerous to try and shove a shaky psuedo-scientific “theory” into our interpretation of scripture, especially given the track record of science through the ages. Science has gotten many things wrong, and it will continue to do so. And let us not forget that the vast majority of scientists have an athiestic/humanistic/naturalistic worldview which does add a tremendous bias to the way interpret their data. The evidence “doesn’t speak for it self”. Evidence is always interpreted through the lens of the biases of the one viewing the evidence.

    Just my two cents worth on the issue.

15. Josh on 26 Jul 2007 at 12:59 pm #

    Marvin,

    I personally agree with the majority of the things you are saying, especially in the logical and theological consequence of not taking the early chapters of Genesis literal. The two things that bother me the most about it are the dating issue and the starlight issue.

    The difficulty that I have run into, and the difficult in which Vance has pointed out (I think) is that many Christians go straight to the Evolution or Old/New Earth debate when speaking with unbelievers (and believers alike) assuming that if they believe in a young earth they, “believe in the Word of God” and in a “old earth view” they have succumb to the culture and need to be proved that their view is stupid and that “ours” is in tune with Gods Word. It becomes an emotional attack on people more than a loving out reach, where the individual has read something or seen a DVD and begins firing off facts at the person in an effort to “win them to Christ”. When the vast majority of people, in my opinion would be much more open to Christ if we actually lived like Christ and spoke and responded in the way in which He modeled.

    Does this mean a watered down version of Christianity? Not unless you make it that, giving milk before solid food is the way God has designed us naturally to grow, and it is also the way He has designed us to grow spiritually too. Living in the Power of the Holy Spirit and tapping into that power to be daily transformed into the character of Christ to direct people to Him for His glorification is what our purpose on this Earth should be and I think many people forget that or miss that part when discussing doctrinal issues.

    I think Michaels question is so true here and needs to be the central and purpose of our conversations with people, “Who do you believe Jesus Christ to be?” From that you can go to multiple directions, but that has to be primal and have centrality. Which I think is what Michael and Vance were trying to say in their postings.

    Your brother in Christ,

    -Josh

16. Marvin the Martian on 26 Jul 2007 at 1:43 pm #

    Hey Josh,

    I can understand what you are saying. Like I said, it isn’t an essential for salvation. If it was, then for a long period of my life, I wasn’t saved. I speak as one who used to be a “theistic evolutionist”. Going to public schools and a public university my entire life, being taught that evolution is unquestioned fact with absolutely zero doubts, I was forced to try and reconcile that with the clearly contradictory account of things in the Bible. I said things like “God couldn’t have inspired the author to write something that he had no concept of”. I would say that Genesis isn’t meant to be a science book, and would keep the realm of science and religion completely separate as it was clear that they didn’t agree. I put my entire faith in the empty tomb, knowing that no matter how many theological landmines spring up from evolution, the empty tomb is the ultimate essential.

    It was a real eye opener to learn that there were actually many flaws in evolutionary theory. It was great to learn that there is actually a whole bunch of brilliant scientists who have no problem in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and that infact, most of the observable evidence fits quite nicely within that paradigm.

    I personally don’t have a problem with the dating issue. I liken the dating issue to an hour glass. There is all sorts of empirical data that can be drawn from observing an hour glass. But unless you were actually there when the glass was turned over, you can’t be certain of the amount of time that has actually elapsed.

    Every dating method employed by science today is fraught with circular reasoning and assumptions. There are numerous assumptions in all dating methods that must be made in order to date something that you weren’t there to witness the creation of.

    Starlight is a bit of a problem, but Einstein helped us out a bit with that, time being relative and all.

    The reason I think the debate is as heated as it is ultimately comes down to a question of authority. Those who adhere to YEC feel that those who postulate OEC are in a round about way, attacking the authority of scripture. I am not saying that is their intent. But that they are choosing science as authoritative over scripture isn’t a good idea and can lead to many other problems. I personally think that if we are willing to say that God didn’t really mean for us to take Genesis literally, then why take other passages literally? If God didn’t really mean that He created in 6 literal days, then maybe He didn’t really mean it when He said that “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me.” Maybe God really meant something different. It is an attack on the innerrancy of scripture. Serious stuff.

17. C Michael Patton on 26 Jul 2007 at 1:48 pm #

    Hey guys. Good discussion, although I have not had time to read it all. Things are really busy

    My current thoughts in a nutshell: I am a complementarian . . . a “soft” one. This means that while I see Paul’s statements as true and the principles as binding, I see them binding only in a normative way. In other words, I believe that Paul says that women cannot teach or exercise authority. This could mean that women are not to hold the position of primary teacher within a church and, therefore, exercise final authority. since Paul acknowledges women as prophets, who do teach in a very real since, we must qualify Paul’s statement as such.

    But at the same time I believe that this was a exhortation that presupposed a normative situation. In other words, Paul was not answering the question, “What if we don’t have any men that are qualified or willing to lead in such a way?” I believe Paul may have answered differently. But the circumstances to which Paul was giving these instructions presupposed normality.

    We also have to take into consideration natural theology. Let’s face it, in normative situations there are things that men are equipped to do that women cannot and there are things that women are equipped to do that men are not. We need to recognize and honor the roles, not fight over them.

    My 2

18. Vance on 26 Jul 2007 at 1:51 pm #

    Marvin, I definitely do NOT want to hijack this thread on the creationist debate, but I would be very happy to discuss it with you by email if you like. I have researched and studied and written about this extensively over many years, and this would definitely undermine Michael’s thread.

    You can reach me at v.mcalister@ejgd.com, although I will be gone starting tomorrow afternoon on vacation to Yosemite.

    But, in keeping with the point of the thread, I think that Josh and you are right, this is not a salvation issue, and it should not be a central tenet of our faith, either way. There are dedicated, Spirit-filled, Bible-believing Christians who believe a wide spectrum of things on these issues. (I am a Gideon who holds to the inerrancy of Scripture, and am still accept a theistic evolution position).

    The problem ultimately comes down to taking a dogmatic position on something that need not be dogmatic. The greatest danger to Christianity in that entire debate is the idea that dogmatic position some Creationists take:

    If you accept an old earth or evolution, then you might as well throw out the Bible. Or, stated another way: if evolution is true, then Scripture is false.

    The danger there is obvious: if someone accepts that statement, or we raise our kids to believe that this statement dogmatically, and then they come to be convinced by the evidence that evolution IS true, we are basically telling them that they can no longer accept Scripture as reliable. That is turning the evolution issue INTO a salvation issue when it should not be.

    And that is the point of Michael’s list, I think. Too often we become dogmatic about non-essentials, or let our honestly held positions rise to unjustifiable levels of certainty and centrality.

    Anyway, for what it is worth, here are two links that do a pretty good job of explaining where I end up on the evolution/creation debate:

    http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

    and

    http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp

    Both essays written by Christians.

19. Josh on 26 Jul 2007 at 2:09 pm #

    Vance,

    Thanks for the info, the basic question in my mind in regard to theistic evolution, is the difficulty in reconciling the Fall (as Marvin stated). Especially in light of Paul’s letter to the Romans specifically talking about how all creation groans because of it.

    I know you don’t want to hi-jack this into a young earth/old earth convoy, but do those links you provide discuss that issue? Because that seems to be the strongest argument against theistic evolution for me, if there’s no fall then there’s no need for redemption and if no need for redemption no need for Christ, etc (as Marvin stated) And if those links don’t, would you mind posting a few?

    Thanks,

    Your brother in Christ,

    -Josh

20. Josh on 26 Jul 2007 at 2:29 pm #

    Michael,

    I have difficulty understanding the statement that you made:

    “This could mean that women are not to hold the position of primary teacher within a church and, therefore, exercise final authority. since Paul acknowledges women as prophets, who do teach in a very real since, we must qualify Paul’s statement as such.”

    What authority would you be qualifying or defining as having authority as a “primary teacher” over a female Prophet apart from God? It seems to me that she is teaching or prophesizing directly from God, which is ultimately advising/teaching men on what to do.

    The context of a normal situation is very helpful in the exegesis of this passage, and it would seem to logical follow, the man (again in normal situations) was responsible for physically protecting the woman. Thus it would follow that the man should protect (i.e. be the ones functioning as Elders and Guardians) Gods Bride, the Church. I understand there has/is a abuse of power regarding only male leadership within the history of Christianity, but I fail to see why evil men behaving in evil ways should negate the natural order in which God created the universe (before the Fall) and has displayed in His Word.

    I don’t see the thrust of the argument from the other side that creates a biblical argument against it. Again I am not a woman and have not experienced anything I would consider sexual discrimination so I am largely speaking out of unfamiliarity in this area. And I still am wrestling with this issue and trying to determine the most Biblical and Christ exalting stance to take on it so any additional information would be extremely helpful.

    Your brother in Christ,

    -Josh

21. C Michael Patton on 26 Jul 2007 at 2:44 pm #

    Thanks Josh,

    What I see in the role of a prophet is one of authority given by God, not simply speaking prophetically from God. Look at the prophets in the Old Testament who served as judges. I think that this was a natural position given the authority that naturally comes with being a prophet. Therefore, I would see the role of a prophet more broadly.

    Putting this in the context of Paul’s statement to Timothy is very hard and causes much confusion. Therefore, I qualify my belief here with much humility and understanding of the other side. But I would see that women have the authority to teach, but not to exercise (present tense) authority over a man. What does this mean? That they serve, in a normative situation, as the primary teacher.

    If the situation had to do with caregiver for the family (in an emotional sense) I would suspect that Paul would say, “I don’t allow a man to act as care giver (present tense) over children.” Would this mean that if the wife died that the children would not ever receive emotional support? No. The man would have to do what he could to fulfill this necessary role. Some men could even find themselves better equipped to do so than their spouse. The exception here, as well as in teaching, does not define the rule, but supplements it.

    Our culture is creating a situation where the exception is being mass produced. Men are either not stepping or are abusive. The role of women is relegated to second class and women are seeking to find dignity in the established role of men which has dignity. The solutions, from my point of view, is not to concede and change our theology, but to dignify the role of women to the proper place. Let’s face it, their ability to nurturing the world make life livable. Without it, where would we be?

22. Vance on 26 Jul 2007 at 3:00 pm #

    Oooh, Josh, you are going to MAKE me do this, aren’t you!

    I think the evolutionary creation article does discuss this some, but I can tell you that, as a person who accepts the evolution of Mankind, I also fully accept the Fall of Mankind, and the complete need for redemption of Mankind. In short, I believe everything important that any other Christian believes about their being a Fall.

    Part of the problem that arises with such issues (to keep this on the track of the original post) is that we often create a “Phantom Menace” of certain concepts. Let’s say there are salvation issues and essentials that we all agree on, and we call them X. Then there are a wide variety of non-essential concepts, theories, interpretations, etc. We call those Y.

    Very often we say “hey, if you believe Y that I don’t believe, then you can’t possibly believe X, and X is essential!” Or on another issue, “if DON’T believe the Y that I believe, you can’t believe X!” And very often they will hold to this with extreme dogmatism, saying it is impossible NOT to slide into a disbelief of the X that we all should believe.

    And, yet . . .

    There are millions of folks out there who DO believe that Y, and STILL believe the X! They all stand as proof positive that this entire “if/then” is a false dilemma, it is a PHANTOM menace because it just does not hold true in the real world. When you have people of such wide diversity as Billy Graham and the Pope who are willing to accept the two concepts of evolution and the Fall of Man at the same time (in our current example), we need to consider that the phantom may be a menace.

    Too often, we create a series of “if/thens” or “but fors”, a long string of them which link something pretty tangential to something very essential. But when we go back to examine them, we find that there is a weak link there somewhere, and we should not insist that Y inevitable leads to, much less requires, a disbelief in X.

23. Vance on 26 Jul 2007 at 3:02 pm #

    Oh, at the end of the second to last paragraph, that should read “we need to consider that the MENACE may be a PHANTOM” and not the other way around. Sorry.

    Where is the edit function?

24. Josh on 26 Jul 2007 at 3:15 pm #

    Ya I agree with you Michael, I’ve listened/read a bunch of Mark Driscolls stuff, and I think the main statements that got me were (or something along the lines of these), “you need single mom ministries, abused woman ministries, and child care programs because men are not stepping up to fulfill their Biblical roles as husbands and fathers.” Then he explained further (and I think I agree with him upon personal reflection and experience) that, “the majority of Christian woman I talked to desperately wanted their husbands to be more involved in church and leading spiritually at home.”

    The difficult thing with your solution (which I agree with) is that schools and the media promote an undignified view of that role as something “lesser”, putting a wedge between man and woman at the get go, which seems quite similar to what happened in Genesis (Eve was separated from Adam, I’m still kind of confused on that one btw lol), and the consequences of that “wedge” were quite disastrous. So I am still kind of confused as to why the rejection it from the other side of the issue. I am probably building strawman illustrations (out of my ignorance), so I would greatly appreciate if someone could enlighten me on the driving force behind it.

    Your brother in Christ, Josh

25. Josh on 26 Jul 2007 at 3:57 pm #

    Vance,

    I’m just trying to squeeze information out of you so you will be able to completely relax on your vacation. Similar to a how a masseuse has does it to your body to relax you. haha.

    I think I understand your concept of Phantom Menaces, which I think are plague within many of our (mine) views of things and in areas of our theology. But I think certain things need to have a logical consequence.

    To simplify things, if we define the Gospel into 4 things, God (A), Man (B), Sin (C), Christ (D). An equation would look something like A+B+C+D= Gospel. I would say, and I think you would agree, that these are all “X” terms that must be believed in for our salvation. If we take anyone of those “variables” out I think it is safe to say we have fallen away from Christian orthodoxy.

    Within theistic evolution we have God (A), we eventually will get man (B), then eventually get sin (C), then of course we will get Christ (D). So I think this is the argument you are making when you say you can be an orthodox Christian and believe in theistic evolution.

    One of the main difficulties I have with it is that it is in direct conflict with what Paul says in Romans about the cause of death, pain, suffering, which is the Fall. It seems to follow that if God used evolution (I am assuming by evolution you mean the concepts of survival of the fittest etc) as a mechanism for creation, then Paul’s statement is false because death and suffering existed within creation before the fall. So it seems that you have to lose sin (C) (or ignore Paul’s understanding of sin) in the equation, and if you lose “C” then Christ (D) has no purpose, because there is no need for redemption. So our equation has been cut in half and we lose half of the Gospel.

    I’m sure you’ve heard this and thought about this issue before, I’m just curious where you have landed with it in your mind (See I am trying to bring it back to Michael’s original intention lol).

    Your brother in Christ,

    -Josh

26. Vance on 26 Jul 2007 at 5:35 pm #

    Yes, this is a basic issue in this area, the concept of “death before the Fall”, and there are many possible ways to look at it. First, there is a difference between the death of a Man and the death of an animal or plant. With Mankind, there is both physical and spiritual life and death. Not so with the rest of God’s Creation. There is a point in time, according to many TE points of view, that human species became “Man”, ie, when God “breathed His Spirit” into Mankind in some way. At that point, everything changed and Man, now with the ability to reason, and the understanding of God and His moral laws, could now sin. Then, well, Mankind (”Adam” means “mankind” in one sense, other TE’s still hold to an individual Adam, but most don’t), did just that, a true and literal Fall. Now, the nature of “death” is a whole different ballgame at that point, since we have both spiritual and physical death happening.

    The whole concept of what Paul may have meant by “death” may be very nuanced. One argument could run like this:

    Did Jesus come to undo the “death” that occurred at the Fall and to provide a redemption from that “death”? Yes. Do those who accept this redemptive gift still die physically? Yes. So, it can’t be referring to physical death, since that means that Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice was a futile effort, and we know that is not true. It would mean it didn’t work. Instead, let’s consider what Adam and Eve (or Mankind, if you like) actually suffered “on that day” and what those who accept the redemptive gift actually receive. Mankind was “kicked out of the Garden”, thus losing full communion with God. That is Spiritual Death. And what do we obtain when we accept that gift of redemptive sacrifice? We get a renewed communion with God, which is Spiritual Life!

    And this is for eternity, which has nothing to do with physical immortality. We know that both the redeemed and damned will have eternal physical life, it is just a matter of where that eternity will be spent. For those who have been redeemed from the Fall, they will spend it in God’s presence, thus in eternal Spiritual Life. Those who are not redeemed will spend it out of God’s presence, thus in Spiritual Death.

    So, there is an argument that we should “spiritualize” such passages to some extent. No, this does not answer every aspect of the issue that could be raised, but there are unanswered questions when viewed other ways as well.

    I think the point is that we need to avoid becoming too familiar and “comfortable” with the way we have traditionally read certain texts and be willing to reexamine them if there is sufficient reason. Remember, at one point, the entire Church read many passages of Scripture as requiring a geocentric universe!

    As someone with a degree in ancient history, I have read a lot of ancient texts and long before I even considered the evolution issue (and thus while I was still nominally a young earth creationist, since that is how I had been raised), I had concluded that the first chapters of Genesis could not have been meant to be read as strict literal historical narrative. That is simply not how people wrote about their past, and God DID use humans to first tell these stories and first write these texts, and there was an original audience who would never have considered such texts to be what we expect out of historical writing today. In fact, they would have considered such an approach unappealing. The way they told stories about their past was a way of emphasizing the WHO and WHY, not necessarily the WHEN and HOW.

    So, the texts would be TRUE stories of LITERAL events, but would not have necessarily been told using our modern method of literal historical narrative. They preferred figurative language, symbolism, typology, etc, to tell about these past events. If you asked them whether it was “true” they would have said “of course”. If you asked whether it was a literal narrative of events, they would have looked at you kinda funny and asked what you meant by that!

    There is a reason why we call Herodotus the “father of history” since it is accepted that he is the one of the first to even attempt to tell literally factual history (and he was not even too strict about it!). Before that, that style was not even used. This is kind of hard to get our heads around today. In our modern minds, we only value texts and stories about the past to the degree that they are factual narrative accounts. To the extent that they are not this particular style of writing, and do not use a literal historical narrative approach, we view the text as untrustworthy or even “wrong”. So, when we suggest that Genesis may not have been written the way WE would write it, or the way we value texts of this type, many see that as an attack on Scripture.

    And, there is not really any slippery slope here, since we ALL acknowledge that there are various types of literature used in Scripture, covering a couple thousand years and dozens of writers. We do not read Acts the same way we read Revelation or Job. So, it is not a case of not “trusting” Genesis, and thus being in danger of not “trusting” the Gospels. I TRUST Genesis entirely, and believe that everything it says is absolutely TRUE. I just don’t think it says what some people think it says.

    You are right, I do feel more relaxed and ready for vacation!

27. Marvin the Martian on 26 Jul 2007 at 6:43 pm #

    And, there is not really any slippery slope here,….I TRUST Genesis entirely, and believe that everything it says is absolutely TRUE. I just don’t think it says what some people think it says.

    Do you believe in the Global Flood that wiped out all creeping things? Do you believe that people used to live 800-900 years old? Forgive my presumption, but I doubt you would. Are you not already on a slippery slope?

28. kolabok21 on 26 Jul 2007 at 6:44 pm #

    Several things ladies and gents,

    We must remember the vast majority of people myself included, may not have more than an 8th grade education, ok it worked out to this 20 years ago. But seriously some of the language and terms means nothing to a lot of people. They simply believe the truth of Christ.
    I like what Stott said, the centrality of Christianity is the cross of Christ. That’s what the early church was teaching, the risen Lord, everything else does not matter does it?

    Secondly, in so far as the debate over Y.E. & O.E., I like what Vernon McGee said, anything after 6,000 years will work, be it 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000, what ever you want because after that time it’s all about God and creation when ever it was spoken. Don’t know J. Vernon McGee go here ttb.org
    Personally I just don’t see Y.E. in God’s design. I have a hard time believing Adam was naming T-Rex like the answersingensis.org folks believe.

    And thirdly Michael I like your style man you think up so great stuff, maybe too much

29. C Michael Patton on 26 Jul 2007 at 6:57 pm #

    Thanks Kalobok. J. Vernon McGee is awesome to listen to. I do a good imitation–at least I used to.

30. Vance on 26 Jul 2007 at 7:15 pm #

    Marvin, you are right, I definitely treat those the same way I treat Genesis 1 and 2. But that came right along with the analysis of all of early Genesis. But this is not a slippery slope, it is just a slope, where the truth lies somewhere down the way. If you stay at the top, with an insistence on strict literal narrative in every text in Scripture, you will be in error. If you go all the way to the bottom and treat all the texts as non-literal, figurative and symbolic, etc, you will be equally in error. And you would have to agree with this, since I am sure you do not read every word in Scripture in its strictly literal sense. So you are already partly down that slope. Does it feel slippery to you? No, because you feel confident that you can tell the difference. And so do I.

    Or, more directly, I am confident that some are definitely meant to be literal narrative, like Acts. Others are definitely meant to be figurative and symbolic, like Revelation and Genesis 1 and 2. With some others, it is less certain to which degree the author was intending strictly literal narrative, so I withhold absolute judgment and am not too concerned about that. This is not at all an unstable or “weak” view of Scripture, it is actually a very robust and strong view. It is also not correct to say it is a “low” view of Scripture, since it is not diminishing ANYTHING in the text, or disbelieving any of it, or dismissing any of it. It is all there for a reason, and it is all God’s Holy message to us, infallible and inerrant in the most important way (which has nothing to do with literalism in every text).

    Of course, there are some texts for which there is a theological reason for knowing that it is meant as literal history, and this can point the way as well. Like the details of the life of Christ and the resurrection.

    Here is a little example I sometimes use. We read that Jesus “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Now, we know that God is spirit, without a human body and human lungs that create literal breath. Yes, He could take that form, but I don’t think we see God taking on the form of a human just to create humans. Yes, we see this as describing a literal event that happened in history. SOMETHING happened, and the language used is powerful and evocative and CONVEYS the essence of what happened. But it is not strict literal narrative. If you found out tomorrow that God did not actual take human form, take a deep breath and blow into Adam’s nostrils, but that the language was figurative and symbolic for what really happened, you would not say that the text was “wrong” or “false” or even “misleading”. Of course not.

    God, in many of these texts, were telling of things for which mere pedestrian literal narrative would likely be impossible and would fail to evoke the power and “spirit” of the events. So, instead, use the style of the day: powerful evocative symbolism, figurative language, typology. Give the spirit of the WHO and WHY, since the HOW and WHEN are pretty unimportant by comparison.

31. C Michael Patton on 26 Jul 2007 at 7:35 pm #

    OK, this blog has officially been hijacked!! This is the hijack police. Great discussion, but we need to get back on track. Maybe one of you can write a blog on Euangelion and then this can be carried on. In fact, you can just take one of your posts and use that for the blog.

32. Vance on 26 Jul 2007 at 7:44 pm #

    Hey, I did my best, but I felt like Pacino in Godfather III, they just kept pulling me back in!

33. Things To Reconsider | Through A Glass, Dimly on 26 Jul 2007 at 10:54 pm #

    [...] C Michael Patton has an interesting post at his blog: Things I used to believe, but now I am not so sure [...]

34. murmex on 27 Jul 2007 at 2:04 am #

    Wow, there has been a flurry of activity here. And now we can’t keep going because of the hijack police. Is that because some may feel the discussion is producing more heat than light> there are a lot of legitimate questions here and I would like to ask a question. What was created first, sarlight or stars? Another question is , how old is the earth. Just for thught, sometime read the lengthy article at

    http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/reading/article.cgi?id=61

    Just something to think about. I do believe a lot of our differences could be toned down a bit if we took the time to ask each other what we mean by some of our statements.

    Like when you say “All sins are equal in God’s site do you mean God has a webpage or do you mean “sight”? I don’t think that you are saying God would overlook 36 mph in a 35 because He wouldn’t care. But I really don’t know that unless I ask you.

    Thank you all for your contributions to this article.

    David

35. buhlly88 on 27 Jul 2007 at 7:27 am #

    This is a great list and good discussion. I just wanted to add one thing that I first believed:

    If you really love God and want to follow Him will all your heart, then you must drop everything, go to seminary, and become a missionary.

    Don’t take this wrong. I think it’s awesome to be called in the ministry, but I used to think if you didn’t go into the full time ministry then you could never live and be all out for God.

36. C Michael Patton on 27 Jul 2007 at 9:43 am #

    lol David. You know, I don’t think that God really cares that much about 36 in a 35. There are gnats and camels in God’s theology!

37. Vance on 27 Jul 2007 at 10:33 am #

    buhlly88, that is a great point.

    My father was a pastor, and many assumed that with my intellectual pursuits and interest in theology, I would head down that same path. But I chose history and law instead. Occasionally, I used to think I was not fully in God’s will because I did not go the other way, but I have come to realize that I never had a true calling to full-time ministry. Instead, I teach sunday school, and am the president of my local Gideons chapter, where I speak in churches about a third of all my Sundays! Ironically, many pastors use the opportunity to go on vacation, and want me to take the whole sermon time. So, I am in the pulpit after all.

    I guess that God uses His workers the ways he wants!

38. TgdyCmdy on 02 Aug 2007 at 8:45 am #

    I have just made a mental note to read you more often. Excellent piece.
    Thank you.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail