Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is close to opening its first local branch that is devoted to theological education!! I don’t know of anything in the last ten years that has brought our ministry team more excitement. Please allow us to explain.

Introducing CREDO - HOUSE OF THEOLOGY

Credo - House of Theology is a proposed new headquarters in Edmond Oklahoma that would not only facilitate our current ministry, but also allow us to take the ministry to the next level in so many ways without falling outside of our current monthly budget.

Think ”evangelical theological hub.” Better, think of Francis Schaffer’s L’Abri Fellowship and you will catch some of the vision. Here is what it will be used for:

The Theology Program: An evangelically neutral place to hold The Theology Program courses. This is greatly needed as people are often more receptive to come to a facility like this rather than a particular church.
Reclaiming the Mind Headquarters: The need for the ministry to be permanently planted in a stable physical location cannot be overstated. Existing in churches and virtual campuses over the years has stabilized our ministry, but we need a home-base to organize our efforts more strategically.
Pastoral Training: Training local pastors who have never had the chance to go to seminary or who desire continuing pastoral theological education.
Children’s Theology: Teaching children theology as a co-op program, especially valuable for home-schoolers. Edmond has a very large homeschooling market which is always looking for avenues of education that can supplement its teaching with a biblical worldview.

Special Seminars: Multiple events will be held bringing in the best speakers on the most important topics from all over the country. Credo House will be a place for local Converse with Scholars events!
Broadcasting and Recording: For some time now a place has been needed where new theological material can be produced. From Theology Unplugged to new courses in theology for children, Credo House will serve as a central broadcasting and recording area for all local Reclaiming the Mind Ministry events.
Theological Fellowship: The Credo House will be open all day (and many nights) for anyone to come in have a cappuccino and discuss theology. The theological library will be available for all.
Theological Store: From The Theology Program DVDs, systematic theologies, Greek New Testaments, theological pens and t-shirts, to our recommended theological books and DVDs, the Credo House will have a humble selection of materials that you probably cannot find elsewhere. This will serve as a resource for our students.
Volunteer Home Base: While we have dozens of virtual volunteers all over the world, we need  a home base to bring some more order to our operations. We already have many local volunteers (lay-people and church leaders) who are willing to put much time and effort into the Credo House. This group will ensure that people will be able to focus their energy on their God-given gifts.

Many pastors and church leaders in the area including Sam Storms and Mark Hitchcock are partnering with us and will serve as founding members and help direct the project.

Bringing theology back into prime-time is a desire of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries!

Our ministry has a long track record of theological integrity. Our commitment is to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Scriptures, believing that the incarnate truth of Christ in the Gospel changes lives at the most profound level. But we must pursue this with all of our hearts, souls, and minds (Matt. 22:27). This will be a place that is truly committed to reclaiming the mind for the glory of Jesus Christ.

We need your help.

The first proposed Credo House can be opened in Edmond, Oklahoma in early 2009 but ONLY if we can raise the funds needed to complete the project quickly.

For this reason, for a short time, we are offering special memberships to all who join us in this mission:

Special Offer:

Charter Membership to Credo

A donation of $1000 to the project.

• Lifetime access to all the courses of The Theology Program offered at Credo (or anywhere Michael Patton is teaching, including online). This includes family members (children only until they are 20 years of age).
• Full access to the fellowship house including library, coffee bar, and a $50 gift certificate to the store for TTP materials.

Charter Theologue Membership to Credo:

A donation of $3000 or more to the project.

• Lifetime access to all the courses of The Theology Program offered at Credo (or anywhere Michael Patton is teaching, including online). This includes their family (children only until they are 20 years of age).
• Full access to the fellowship house including library, coffee bar, and a $50 gift certificate to the store for TTP materials.
• Lifetime access to all electives and seminars that are offered at Credo (or online). This includes their family (children only until they are 20 years of age).

These special memberships will only be offered for a limited time.

In order to get this project secured, $35,000 in pledges is required.

With that said, your quick response to this message using the email below with a commitment to pledge for one of these memberships being offered would be greatly appreciated. You will be contacted shortly thereafter for your donation.

If you have any questions at all, please don’t hesitate to contact me at michaelp@reclaimingthemind.org or call at 405-410-3039.

Below is description, complete with pictures, graphs, and purpose.

Included:

• Office space
• Recording studio
• Coffee bar
• Large presentation area
• Multiple lounge areas
• Library/study area
• Theological Store

Don’t fail to read the “uses of the Credo House.” It will give you a better understanding of our vision.

You can click on the image to enlarge.

*Please note, this is a five-year lease that our board is proposing, not a purchase. The cost for the build-out cannot be rolled into the lease without extending our budget beyond our comfort level. That is why we need the initial funds for the build out.

We hope that this will serve as a model for Credo Houses all over the country.

God bless,

Michael Patton
President, Reclaiming the Mind Ministries

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is supported by the financial partnership of those who believe in what we are doing. Consider partnering with us today.

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

Zane taught Greek and New Testament courses at Dallas Seminary from 1960 to 1987. I took him for more courses than from any other NT prof, and learned a great deal from him. His skills with the Greek text were breathtaking. I never knew a professor who could sight-read as well as Hodges (except for Johnson). And he thought through his positions well. I didn’t agree with him on everything; in fact, I would say that I disagreed with him on most of his positions. I was always a bit nervous coming into his class because I wasn’t sure what he would say that hour that might rock my world. But I enjoyed immensely how he structured the courses, how he argued his positions, and how charismatic he was in the classroom. He was a superb preacher and very persuasive. His electives always had the highest enrollment by far of any NT electives at DTS.

Zane never married. His lifelong celibacy influenced a number of others, including Art Farstad, with whom he co-edited The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text.

He never earned a doctorate, and intentionally so: he thought that such a degree might make him proud.

When S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. shifted out of the NT department at Dallas Seminary into the Systematic Theology department in the 1970s, he recommended to the administration that Zane become the department chair. The administration heeded his advice. Shortly after that appointment, I asked Johnson why he recommended Hodges. “After all,” I said, “you and Hodges disagree on almost everything!” Johnson was a five-point Calvinist. Hodges was slightly more than a ‘Calminian.’ Johnson would never teach something unless he could find it in the commentaries because, as he often noted, the Holy Spirit has been teaching the church for the last twenty centuries. He thought it was arrogant if someone argued for a position that was novel. Hodges seemed to hardly ever hold to a view that could be found in the commentaries, yet he was no arrogant man (nor did Johnson think of him as such). Johnson said that the reason he recommended Hodges was because he was able to defend his views well. This spoke highly of Hodges, but in some respects even more highly of Johnson, since he could have easily recommended someone who was closer to his own views. Chairing a department, however, was not in Zane’s blood. He quit the post after one year, and Harold Hoehner became department chair. It was good that Zane knew his limitations: the NT department at Dallas Seminary is what it is today because of Hoehner.

Zane was a very honorable and ethical man. He was a man of prayer, and his life was one that was lived for Christ’s glory. In spite of his views of soteriology, he seemed to be almost a ‘soft mystic’ in his sense of spirituality. That is, he recognized that God answered prayer and communicated with believers in ways that were not purely rational and logical. Yet Zane’s view of God’s will could almost be characterized as purely rationalistic: write down the pros and cons and make your decision. There was little room for sensing the guidance of the Spirit, nor of seeking peace for a decision before acting in this position. I’m thankful that Zane didn’t practice what he preached!

We were colleagues from 1979 to 1981. When I came back to DTS in 1987 and joined the faculty again, Zane had retired. After his retirement, he began devoting his time more and more to his view of soteriology, embodied in the free grace movement and the Grace Evangelical Society. Although I would strongly disagree with his views, I appreciated how he challenged my thinking and how he would think through his position all the way to the end.

Zane Hodges will be dearly missed. But he now knows the joys of his Savior and is finally home.

· Fosters intellectual growth

· Creates more flexibility in thinking

· Improves listening abilities

So as I pondered these benefits, I could not help but think of how applicable this would be for the Christ followers, aka Christians, as they typically begin learning a 2nd language beginning at their induction into Christianity. It is a language unique to this species that associates with a new set of verbiage that is chiefly identified with language from the Bible. I will call this Christianese. As the Christ follower is introduced to the rudimentary foundations of the faith, they begin to learn key Christianese vocabulary words such as such as “saved” and “redeemed” and “born again”. The Christ follower readily adopts this second language and swiftly expands the Christianese vocabulary to include words like “kingdom” and even whole phrases such as “blood of the Lamb” and “the glory of God”.

To be sure, the learning process is facilitated through association with fluent speakers of Christianese. There is clearly a direct correlation with the degree of immersion with fluent Christianese speakers with the degree of advancement in the language. Readers who are Christ followers and experiencing deficiencies in the art of Christianese need not despair. Groups of proficient Christianese speakers can be found at just about any church that teaches the Bible as the authoritative vehicle of divine communication, especially considering that the Christianese tongue is adopted from this very source.

Once the Christ follower begins to advance in the language, the speaker begins to form whole sentences. These advanced forms are typically related to Bible passages but can also include extraneous verbiage to express Christianese in very creative formats. Some of the verbiage may not be consistent with a holistic understanding of the Biblical source, but nonetheless bolters the aesthetics of the language.

Subsequently, translation does present some challenges with the typical speaker of Christianese when the fluency of the language is not compatible with an understanding of the terms. For due to prolific usage of the language, it is quite common to gain fluency in speech without an adequate understanding of intended meaning. In these instances, the language begins to experience a breakdown because the chief purpose of the vocabulary does not communicate the intended meaning to the Christianese speaker and thus becomes relegated to an empty form of verbiage. Christianese also presents numerous challenges relative to translation when the language is utilized to communicate truths about Christianity with non-Christianese speakers. Typically, these conversations are not privy to on-site interpretation, which will most likely leave the non-Christianese speaker in a state of confusion and inadequate understanding of the truths of what the Christianese speaker is intending to communicate.

So as I ponder the benefits of Christianese, there does seem to be a possible contradiction between the proposed benefits of learning a second language and the intended purposes of the Christianese language. It does strike me that adopting Christianese may in fact stunt intellectual growth, inhibit flexible thinking and destroy listening skills as the language becomes a form of jargon that espouses rhetoric rather than adequately communicate divine truths. For this Christ follower has discovered that God has used the language of 40 authors to communicate the truth about Himself, His purposes, His will and His plan towards humanity. It deserves better than the casual adoption of terms. It deserves an intensive investigation into their meaning. Perhaps the benefits of Christianese is realizing there are no benefits to adopting the language and maybe the preferred solution is to translate the language of the Bible through the lens of contemporary culture in order to adequately translate meaning and transmit truths into a format that can be understood. For clearly, language is designed to communicate. But it cannot do so if it is not expressed in understandable terms. Nor will we who are Christ followers honor the intended usage of the terms written in ancient times unless we can first translate them for ourselves.

First, I want to make clear that I hold to inerrancy. I sign with good conscience the ETS doctrinal statement which is founded upon a confession of inerrancy. I have written on this issue here on this blog and defended what I call “reasoned inerrancy” as a hermeneutical motif for Christian hermeneutics. Therefore, this is not a post about any problem that I have with the doctrine itself.

Second, I want to make it clear that this is not a formal proposal of any sort. Although I am a voting member of ETS, I do not have any aspirations right now of taking this any further than this blog discussion.

Having been involved in ETS for the last eight years, I have come to appreciate what it is about. At least what I think its original and abiding intent is.

From the ETS website:

“Founded in 1949, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) is a group of scholars, teachers, pastors, students, and others dedicated to the oral exchange and written expression of theological thought and research.”

“Oral exchange and written expression of theological though and research.” What this means is that ETS, while decidedly Evangelical, desires to provide a forum where Christian scholars can exchange research for peer review. ETS is not an official Evangelical magisterium in any sense, and it should never be seen as such. It is simply a place to “do” Evangelical scholarship.

I believe this is good and necessary. In fact, I don’t think Evangelical scholars should be involved in popular scholarship, presenting new ideas and influencing others, without being involved in this type of fellowship. Why? Because such forums allow critique and a public square, seeking influence and feedback from peers. In other words, those who avoid such peer review don’t need to be gaining friends and influencing people for their absence begs the question of their scholarship! While such accountability is not nor will ever be above criticism (as it is not perfect—what accountability is?), it is needed nonetheless. It does not have to be ETS, but ETS is an example of such a need in the church.

Starting in 1949 with a small meeting of sixty Evangelical scholars, as of 2005 the ETS membership has grown to more than 4,200.

The ETS doctrinal statement

The society’s purpose gives grounding to a intentionally broad doctrinal statement. From the ETS website about its founding: “While denominational loyalties and doctrinal orientations were widely divergent, there was no disposition whatever to compromise on the one matter which all delegates considered of supreme importance, the inerrancy of the Scriptures.”

The idea here is to be broadly Evangelical. This way, whatever denomination you are from, whatever your view on baptism, whatever your liturgy, whatever your view on predestination, you can find engagement here among those who were bound by one “fundamental”: the inerrancy of Scripture. It is assumed that if society members held such a view of Scripture, they could not verge far off the beaten path. As few anchors as possible creates a stable center of unity and diversity among its scholars. The society chose to have a “doctrinal basis” rather than a doctrinal statement or an extensive confession of faith.

Therefore, the initial doctrinal statement was conceived as such:

“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”

Some may argue that this stabilizing anchor should not be one of bibliology, but Christology, since Christ, not the Scripture, is the ultimate fundamental to Christianity. While this is true and I am sure society members would concede Christ as the ultimate center, a mere confession of a unified Christology would not go far in anchoring this type of forum since Christ himself is not an authoritative source document from which one can be critiqued. Another more technical way to put it is that Christ is the formal cause of Christianity while the Scriptures are the material source. Therefore, society members rightly, in my opinion, chose to ground their doctrinal statement in bibliology. With this, one can more objectively critique another’s understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures. Let me be clear once again. I agree that the anchor for this type of society should be in bibliology, not Christology.

Understandably, the society has had it members that don’t represent the best of Evangelicalism and, doctrinally speaking, don’t fit the historic definition of what it means to be Evangelical. When non-Trinitarians began to become a part of the society, ETS voted to amend its doctrinal statement to include a firm adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity in the nineties. In this way, they narrowed the discussion, but believed that such a move was necessary and justified in order to remain truly “Evangelical.”

Recent events have also fueled the discussion causing many members to fear the society’s ability to remain “Evangelical” with such a limited doctrinal foundation. Open Theism, a belief that God is limited by time and in knowledge, bought about the excusing of Clark Pinnock from the Society in 2003. This was based on a “technicality” without having to expand the doctrinal basis. The proposal was that Pinnock, and some other Open Theists, were denying inerrancy by saying that God can get the future wrong.

Last year Francis Beckwith, then the president of ETS, announced that he was converting to Catholicism. The storm caused by this event brought forward more proposals for amending and extending the doctrinal statement. This is especially the case since Beckwith said that he would have no trouble signing the statement in its current form, even as a Roman Catholic.

It was recently proposed by some society members to extend the doctrinal basis to mirror a more Evangelical stance on many theological issues including God’s sovereignty, the sinfulness of humanity, the work of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the Church, salvation by faith alone, and Christ’s future coming. These proposed amendments go well beyond its original basis in bibliology.

However, as much as I understand and respect where such thoughts come from, I am not for such an amendment. I believe in doctrinal statements and detailed statements of faith in many forums, but not this one. To draw the doctrinal circle so tightly would, in my thinking, amount to an exercise in the confirmation of prejudice that does not promote the “iron-sharpening-iron” philosophy that ETS originally intended. Yes, there would be less risk and the challenges from “outsiders” would be less radical, but this type of control, in my opinion, does not foster the type of scholarship that this forum can uniquely provide. Adding such doctrinal stability could turn ETS into a rally rather than a place where rigorous scholarship happens.

In fact, I think that inerrancy is too much already.

Here are my reasons for saying this:

1. I don’t believe that inerrancy is of “supreme” importance as stated here. If such a caveat were included on the ETS doctrinal statement, I would have second thoughts as to whether I could sign it in good conscience. I believe that inerrancy is important, but not supreme, even for such a society to function.

2. Inerrancy is too narrow. With all that has happened over the last fifty years with regard to this doctrine, the doctrine cannot serve as a valid foundational basis for true scholarship. Inerrancy naturally produces hermeneutical assumptions that are not shared by all those who adhere to it. Therefore, it has lost its meaning and ability to anchor without great misunderstandings.

3. Authority is the issue. I think adopting the firmer stance on the authority of Scripture would solve many of the problems that the current statement causes.

I propose this doctrinal statement:

“The Bible alone is the final authority for all Christians in matters of faith and practice.”

That is it. No more, no less.

This would allow for a broad range of scholarship without having certain nuances of the hermeneutics of inerrancy policing the effectiveness of the society’s purpose. It would allow for a broad range of scholarship by truly anchoring the society in bibliology rather than a particular implied hermeneutic that often accompanies inerrancy.

Yeah, BUT . . .

This too broad, allowing for too many loopholes?

It might, but probably not. Any doctrinal statement one puts forth will have its loopholes. But these possible loopholes should not cause anyone to fear. Those who go through these loopholes will provide the challenges that the society needs. I have found that the Open Theism controversy has been a positive influence on the Society, and Evangelicalism in general. Not because many are ascribing to it, but because it has brought serious discussion, challenge, and reaffirmation of our understanding of God’s nature. Sometimes heresy is introduced to provide clarity.

What about Mormons?

If a Mormon can sign the doctrinal statement, they are not really Mormons since Mormons have other books that they believe are as authoritative (if not more) than the Scriptures.

What about Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox?

I don’t think there would be many of either of these traditions who become members of the Society. I do believe that some Catholics and Orthodox could sign this statement in good conscience, but this would be the exception. A Roman Catholic or Orthodox who holds to prima Scriptura, such as Scot Hahn and, possibly, Francis Beckwith, Peter Kreeft, and Bradely Nassif, might be able to sign this statement, but what is the harm? I think that the society would do well with this kind of diversity in scholarship. Again, this would be the exception. But one must realize that as it stands right now, Preterists and Pelagians can sign the document. Are these not much further outside the circle of Evangelicalism than Roman Catholics and Orthodox? Yet I don’t find the society being overrun by such. If they present significant challenges, isn’t that what it is about. Do we fear such? The grounding of these challenges would be engaged through a rigorous study of the Scriptures. That is what the society is about.

What about the canon?

I would be open to defining the canon, but would not be so quick to add this. Again, I don’t think there would be any significant challenges to the Protestant canon, but if there were, wouldn’t be a privilege to engage them? Again, isn’t that what the society is about?

Isn’t this just proposing a foundation of sola Scriptura?

Yes and no. It is a narrow definition of sola Scriptura. Normally I would say that sola Scriptura is properly defined as “The belief that the Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian.” For the ETS doctrinal statement, would take out the “only infallible” since it might cause some members to question the validity of those members who hold to a continuationist view of prophecy (those who believe that the gift of prophecy is still active today). This could be problematic for some of the society’s most valued and prolific members. In the end, Scripture is that which tests all beliefs, including modern-day prophetic revelation.

What about elected officials? What if we had a Roman Catholic president?

I think that the society is controlled by its members. The members would always be decidedly Evangelical Protestant. I doubt that any elected official would fall outside of the spectrum of true Evangelicalism. Besides, as it stands now, ETS could have a Pelagian president. Why don’t they? Because one would never get elected. It is that simple.

Conclusion

With such a doctrinal foundation, I believe ETS would be better suited to accomplish its purpose. While I believe in inerrancy, I think it is, today, somewhat counter productive to the purpose of ETS. It just carries too much baggage that narrows the field of scholarship unnecessarily. If someone believes that the Scriptures are the final authority, that is good enough, in my opinion, as a foundation for the exchange of ideas and biblical scholarship. As well, this would allow many Evangelicals, such as Alister McGrath, Roger Olson, and I. Howard Marshall, who have their reservations about inerrancy, yet are tremendous Evangelical scholars, to contribute to ETS.

I believe that Inerrancy is too much. It represents a twentieth-century American Evangelical phenomenon which often has a spoiled meaning and is no longer effective as it was in a different context. I believe that ETS should adopt a new doctrinal statement that is based on the authority of Scripture, not inerrancy.

Please see my friend Denny Burk’s proposal “Inerrancy is Not Enough“, which would take an opposite approach. It is well argued and needs to be read.

(Let me just say that my views don’t necessarily represent the views of other contributors to this blog .)

But the truth is that I don’t give Preterism a fair shake in The Theology Program. In fact, I don’t give them a shake at all.

Why? Good question.

Preterism is a funny thing. It is something that causes quite a bit of passionate adherence, the degree to which shows great imbalance. The reason why we don’t cover it in TTP is because it is neither significant historically or contemporary. I know that this might seem like an arrogent statement to those who hold this position, but I feel I am qualified enough to make this assertion in good conscience.

Full- or hyper-preterism is the belief, in essence that Christ has already come, we are in the New Heaven and New Earth, and the resurrection has already happened. It is not taken seriously (at least full-preterism) in any academic circles. There are only outspoken fringe groups who would claim the docrine. It would be somewhat of a waste of our time to cover it in The Theology Program (and we don’t have a lot of time).

Really, it is not unlike the KJV Only movement. A lot of passionate followers who believe that they are right. But, in the end, it is found wanting to such a strong degree that no one wants to waste their time with it. As interesting as it is, we don’t cover the KJV Only doctrine in The Theology Program either.

I am sitting at my hotel in the lobby in Road Island. I am attending the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). ETS is society of great diversity and incredible scholarship. I think we have somewhere around 1500 scholars here. Wallace, Bock, Mounce (sitting right beside me right now), Blaising, Enns, Grudem, Moo (although I have not seen him), Copan, Bowman, Craig, Piper, Moreland, and many many others. In the convention area where we all hang out and buy books, there is a booth that a Preterist organization sets up each and every year. They are a very small group and they attempt to flag people down in efforts to proselytize the scholars. In truth, everyone walks past this booth with a little spice to their step and their hand slightly covering their face so as to avoid a conversation that will simply be an exercise in futility (a sinful waste of time). Could the entire world of Scholarship be wrong about this issue? Could the entire history of the church be wrong? Possible, but so could we be wrong about the KJV Only movement. Maybe the KJV is inspired. We have to act with integrity about what we give our time to study. This is simply not something that deserves the time. (BTW: I think that everyone would do the same if the flat earth society set up a booth).

In the end, I have a responsibility to teach what is either biblically viable, historically significant, or contemporarily relevant. I don’t mean to offend anyone with this but full-preterism does not meet any of the criteria at this point in time. Maybe if it is ever taken more seriously we will include it in our program.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a blog that is arguing the exegetical merits or demerits of preterism. Please don’t take it down that road. It is not my intention any more than it is my intention to invite KJV Only advocates to present their view. I don’t want to give such a doctrine a platform at this time (if I do, then I may be having to present it in TTP someday!).

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in predestination. In other words, whether or not God predestines people is not the issue. All Bible believing Christians believe this doctrine. The issue has to do with the basis of this predestining.

The Calvinist says that God’s predestination has no founding in the predestined in any sense. God did not choose people based on any merit, intrinsic or foreseen. This is called unconditional predestination because there are no conditions in man that need to be met. It does not mean that God did not have any reason for choosing some and not others, but that the reason is not found in us.

The Arminian says that God’s predestination has a founding in the faith of the predestined. In other words, God looks ahead in time and discovers who will believe and who will not and chooses people based on their prior free-will choice of him.

The Arminian chooses this position because, for them, it is the only way to reconcile human freedom and God’s choice. Both are clearly taught in Scripture. Therefore, in order to have a reasonable and consistant theology, one or the other must be altered. If God unconditionally choose people, then people don’t have responsibility in their choice, good or ill. Therefore, it is not human choice that is nuanced, but God’s choice. To make sense out of this, the Arminian says that God’s choice is based on man’s choice. Therefore, we have consistency. The tension is solved. There is no tension.

However, the Calvinist is not satisfied with a redefining of God’s predestination. To the Calvinists, man is fully responsible for his choice, yet God’s election is unconditional. Therefore, there is a tension that is created between human responsibility and God’s election. This tension is left in tact since, according to the Calvinist, it is best understood this way in Scripture. To redefine predestination to suit one’s need to alleviate tension seems to be a very rationalistic approach to doctrine. While there is nothing wrong with using one’s reason to understand truth, there are problems when reason takes priority over revelation.

This is one of the mistakes that I believe the Arminian system of conditional election/predestination makes. There is no need to solve all tensions, especially when the solution comes at the expense of one’s interpretive integrity. There are many tensions in Scripture. There are many things that, while not irrational, just don’t make sense. The doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, creation out of nothing all fit this category. So does human responsibility and unconditional election. God’s sovereign unconditional election can stand side-by-side with man’s responsibility without creating a formal contradiction. We may not know how to reconcile these two issues, but that does not mean God does not know how. Their co-existence does not take away from their collective truthfulness.

I believe that the Arminian system sacrifices biblical integrity for the sake of intelligibility and doctrinal harmony. The Calvinistic system allows tension and mysteries to remain for the sake of Biblical fidelity.

I have had people say to me (often) that they are not Calvinists because the system attempts to be too systematic with all its points for the sake of the system itself. I think that it is just the opposite. The Calvinistic system creates more tensions than it solves, but seeks to remain faithful to God’s word rather than human intelligibility.

Now, I must admit. I am confused as to why most emergers that I know of are more attracted to the rationalistic approach of the Arminians than the tension filled approach of the Calvinists.

Fire away…

Walking past the sign at John Marshall High in Oklahoma City which encouraged students to come to Bible study at 6:30 in room 208. Not me. No, not because I did not like the Bible, but because it would be filled with nerds whom I did not want to be associated with. I smirked as I thought that the only reason they were taking this path was because they could not be like me—cool like me. Sure I went to FCA, but all the cool kids did. One kid even approached me, Davey Peirce, and asked me about Christ. I remember his exact words. “Michael, I want you to tell me more about this Jesus Christ.” “Sure,” I responded, “I will get back to you.” I never did. He asked me because I seemed to know a lot about the Bible during that session. Indeed, relatively speaking, I knew more than most. But Christ was a hamper to my style. My indulgence would have to be put on hold if I walked that path right now. I told Christ that I would be back after high school. I was just too busy.

Fast-forward 5 years

With Smashing Pupkins and Blind Melon playing in the background, I lay on the carpet face down in Arizona on my best friends floor in his room. It had now been three years since I told Christ I would be back and here I was. Dropped out of school (although I took my fathers tuition money), drinking every night, playing Madden 93′, living part time with my girl friend, stoned and making jokes about how I would not live past 21. As I lay on the floor, I told the Lord I was sorry. I just did not know what to do. “Lord, forgive me. I don’t even want to be different and for this I am ashamed.”

Fast-forward 1 year

At my apartment in Oklahoma City alone late at night. I happened to have a copy of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. I read through it over a weeks time. I was still living it up, but now a comtempative fear and unsettled emotion continually gripped me. “What? What do you want? I don’t know what to do? I don’t know how to change my desires.” This book further confirmed what I had known all along (and believed). Christ is indeed who he says he is. I am his. “I don’t know how Lord. Give me the desire to have the desire to serve you for I don’t even want to right now. But I want to want to.”

One night after reading the book (I really don’t know why I am telling anyone this!!), I had a rather odd experience that really scared me. In one of those times between awake and asleep, I felt the sudden presence of many evil entities in my room. I know that this is really strange coming from me, but, whatever it was, it shaped me at this time. These “entities”, it seemed to me, were all holding me down and I could not get up. My eyes were open, but I did not have any control. Suddenly, there was an incredible evil in the room. One greater than all the rest. It seemed to search me and examine my will, thoughts, and temptations. After this spiritual examination, this entity said (not audibly), “He is nothing. Don’t worry.” He then left. He said this after he examined how I could be tempted sexually. Since then, I have always been afraid that I would overcome much, but sexual temptation may be my downfall. Still don’t know what I think about that night.

Fast-forward 1 year (keeping track? 95′)

Cycling in and out of my spirituality, looking to my friends like I have multiple personality disorder from hell, I met with Chet Lackey. He was my pastor whose church I would go to before I would hit drown night at the Dug Out. “Chet, I have this crazy urge that has been building inside of me. I don’t know what else to say but I think I am supposed to serve the Lord . . . maybe even . . . ahem . . . go to seminary.” Chet was always so gracious and caring. He love me. I know he did. “I think you are too” was his response. “Wow!”

Fast-forward 6 months

Digging through my mothers book cabinet looking for anything that had the hint of Christian or Bible, I found a series of tapes from Insight for Living. Suffering was the subject. Chuck Swindoll? Never heard of him, but mom says he is the best. So I begin to listen to them. I listened so many times that I had the sermon memorized (still do). Job suffered so much, but would not deny God. I had suffered none, but denied him all the time with my inability to completely commit to him.

Fast-forward 3 months

Chet died. Why? He was very young. His wife, Suzanne, said that I was going to carry on his legacy. Ha! What a joke. But I gave her a hug and dreamed that one day I could be like Chet.

Fast-forward 3 months

Crying by my bed comptemplating my failures. I was drunk and had just sunken lower than I had ever sunk. It seems that every time I would “get out” of the life of sin, I would get back into it and multiply my sin and condemnation ten fold. This failure had come just after I had finished a teaching series called the “All-American Bible Study.” What a fool I was. All these people came to my teaching for months. I talked about the truthfulness of Christianity, the importants of the Scriptures, the prophecies about Christ, then I do something like this. I was making a mockery of Christ. “Lord,” I said with tears in my eyes, “Just leave me alone if I am going to do this! Why can’t I change. I truly want to now, but I don’t find the strength.” The next morning (Monday) I got up and recommitted myself (like I had done a hundered Mondays before). Friday came around and this is the time I fall. Over at a friends house, everyone was preparing for the night. They were all fixed up and in wonderment about what the night was going to hold, how drunk they were going to get, and what girl they would wake up with. I was there with them. The mini fridge opened and my friend offered me a beer. I started to reach out to get it, but I stopped and declined. “Oh, have you quite again” he said in a mocking way” (justifiably so). “Yes.” “Okay, we will see you next week” he said as I went down the stairs to go home alone. I hesitated, almost went back up, and then went on down. I never came back to that life.

Fast forward 6 months

I have a new PC Study Bible computer program. I read the Bible every day. I carry commentaries to work. I memorize large sections of Scripture. I am writing a book, just finished my 100th page. It is called “Defending the Faith to the Next Generation.” I was a know it all. I would scorn you for not reading the Bible as much as me. I had all the answers, theological and practical. Most people just tried to stay away from me. Even my mother said “Michael, all you want to talk about is the Bible.” “So!” I thought to myself, “You sound like you don’t love God as much as me.” Ouch! What a turn around.

Fast forward 1 year

I was now the student body president at American Christian College and University. It was a charismatic school and I was not a charismatic. I sat down by Fred every day in class. Fred spoke in tongues, I did not. When I first began talking with Fred I felt I needed to convert him. He just needed some good theology and I was just the man to straighten him out. But as I got to know Fred I realized that he really did love Christ—the same Christ as me! How can that be? He speaks in tongues. My professor believed that Jonah was a parable and denied inerrancy. But he seemed to love Christ just like me—the same Christ. Ninty-nine percent correct with one percent false equals one-hundred percent false! Right? Well, I was rethinking some things.

I was now working at Southwest Radio Church. It is the longest running Christian radio program in America. It was KJV Only. I was talking to a girl on the phone who asked if KJV was the only version one could be saved by. According to my employer, this might very well be the case. But I was very uncomfortable with it. I began to study the text and the history of the Bible. My employment ended a few months later as I was in the office with the President and said that I could not, with good conscious, work there anymore.

Fast-forward two years

It was my first class at DTS . . . more to come.

[I will be at ETS all this week so it may come later rather than sooner]

But to begin with, I should mention a curiosity in the history of English Bibles. In 1537, John Rogers published, under the pen name, Thomas Matthew, the Matthew’s Bible. He essentially combined the Old Testament of Miles Coverdale with the New Testament of William Tyndale. Besides blatant plagiarism, Rogers also added about 2000 notes to his Bible, many of which were controversial. Far and away, the most controversial note was found at 1 Peter 3.7: “If [the wife] be not obedient and healpfull unto [her husband, he should] endeavoureth to beate the feare of God into her…”! This Bible soon earned the moniker, “The Wife-Beater’s Bible.” I suppose a silver lining in this story is that the fact that this label was so quickly given to the Matthew’s Bible shows us that our ancestors also thought that this little comment was inappropriate. Thank God that note didn’t make it into the King James Bible!

Now if someone could read 1 Peter 3.7 five hundred years ago to mean that he had the right and the obligation to beat his wife if she disobeyed, then certainly some corrective instruction needs to be given.

The first thing to note is that 1 Peter 3.7 ruins the flow of the argument. Beginning in 2.13, Peter had been discussing the person who functioned in the subordinate role in relation to a non-Christian superior. He speaks about obedience to the government—both the king and those he commissions, submission (of slaves) to one’s master, and submission of wives to their husbands. In each instance, non-Christian superiors are in view. But then, at the end of the discourse, Peter turns to Christian husbands. Why does he do this? He didn’t address Christian governors or Christian slave-owners. Why now address Christian husbands? There were Christian slave-owners and even some in government. Why not address them?

As I said, addressing the husbands ruins the argument flow. The reason that Peter does this, it seems, is because Christian husbands especially were not grasping what it meant to be a Christian husband. They needed his advice more than others in superior roles. So he wrecked the literary flow to address a serious problem in the church.

And what does Peter tell them? To beat them into submission? NO!! He says that husbands must treat their wives with profound consideration, with the recognition that in God’s eyes both were equal recipients of his grace. I take it that this means that husbands will be held accountable before God for how they have treated their wives in this life. Matthew’s Bible is as far from the mark of the meaning of this text as anything could be.

OK, some specifics. What does it look like for a complementarian husband to treat his wife properly? (I’m speaking of complementarian husbands here because I don’t want to get into debates over whether egalitarianism or complementarianism is biblical. For sake of argument, let’s just assume that complementarianism is biblical. The reason that this should not be hard to do is that, as my egalitarian friend said, complementarianism is a breeding ground for wife abuse. So, if that’s so, no complementarian husband can look at this blog post and say, ‘Well, he’s an egalitarian, so I don’t need to listen to him.’ Fair enough? Good. Let’s go.)

• It does NOT mean that he EVER has the right to physically hurt her in any way. Anyone who reads 1 Peter 3.7 that way has got serious issues and needs to get counseling. And my advice to wives who are caught in a marriage like that is this: RUN! Get out before it gets worse. The first time your husband strikes you, take the kids and leave. I’m not saying get a divorce. That may be necessary. But I am saying show some self-dignity. If your husband won’t treat you with the respect you deserve, this doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t! And the longer you wait, the harder it will get.
• It does NOT mean that he has the right to bully his wife, verbally abuse her, bark orders at her like he’s Archie Bunker, belittle her, or treat her with any less respect than he would his most-respected friend. Husbands, your wife is not your doormat. She is not your slave. She is not there to serve your every whim. She is there to partner with you in the gospel so that the sum of the two of you working together is greater than what either of you could do apart. Peter gives a profound warning in this verse: Husbands who treat their wives right will not have their prayers hindered. In other words, if you mistreat your wives, you have no guarantee that God will answer your prayers. Husbands, if you’re having a multitude of difficulties in life—difficulties at work, difficulties with your children, difficulties with your relationships, difficulties with finances, difficulties with health, difficulties with sexual temptation (the list is endless)—maybe you should look at how you are treating your wife. Maybe God’s not answering your prayers because you’re not honoring her.
• It does NOT mean that he has the right to ask his wife to do anything that is illegal or immoral. And when husbands do this under the guise that their wives have to obey them, the wives need to stand up against such nonsense and challenge their husbands to be more godly. Wives, a complementarian viewpoint on the role of husbands and wives does NOT mean that you should obey your husband when he asks you to do anything illegal or immoral.
• It DOES mean that you are to treat your wives with the same respect that you treat yourself—assuming you do treat yourself with respect.
• It DOES mean that you are to love your wife as Christ loved the church. How did he do it? With self-sacrifice, with placing her needs above your own, with gently guiding her and your family in the ways of peace and righteousness.
• It DOES mean that before your children you two present a united front. The worst kind of parenting is that which the children can easily manipulate by pitting parent against parent. These little monsters are smart; you have to be smarter! Husbands, support your wife’s call in front of the children. NEVER contradict her when she lays down the law for the kids. You do that and you’ve just robbed your wife of any respect and honor that she could have before the kids. This goes for the wife, too. My wife and I have four boys. And they would always try to appeal to one parent after the other one already said no. They’d get smart and wait for a few hours, then spring the request on the second parent (usually me) who did not know that they already got turned down by the first parent (usually Pati). But we got smart too: We asked if they already talked to the other parent. Of course, we didn’t just take their word for it. (Children are totally depraved sinners, too.) We’d call the other parent. And never ever did the second parent say yes when the first one said no. I can’t stress how vital this is. You cross that line and you’ve just damaged the authority that your spouse MUST have with the kids.
• It DOES mean that you trust your wife. Read Proverbs 31 sometime (soon!), and see if your wife is living up to her potential. Ask her what she wants to get out of life. Ask her if she feels unfulfilled. Ask her if she feels threatened by you, or if she is scared by you. Ask her if she feels that you love her, if she feels that you put her needs before your own. Ask her if she thinks you’re a good husband and, if not, what you can do about it. I’m serious. But if you ask her, do NOT then turn the tables and tell her what you think of her as a wife. And don’t use her honesty with you as a weapon against her. If you’re really a complementarian husband, then you should also believe that men are designed to be initiators and wives are designed to be responders. (Not in everything and not in every way, my egalitarian friends; please, let this one go! See caution below.) If you’ve got a list of complaints about your wife, then guess what? You can do something about it by being a better husband, by taking the initiative to truly love your wife. You may be surprised by what you discover.

I’ve only touched the surface of some issues. I haven’t touched on alcohol (but here’s an obvious tip: If drinking tends to make you violent, abstain. Period.) I haven’t touched on pornography or unfaithfulness or a host of other issues. There are many reasons why husbands beat their wives. All of them are bad reasons, wrong reasons, utterly sinful reasons.

OK, enough for now. I’m interested to see where this dialog will go. But please don’t make it your own soapbox on why this view or that view is right. A couple of blog posts ago, that happened and now we’ve got a runaway blog on our hands. 150 comments and still counting! Let’s deal with what constitutes wife abuse and what does not, what a good marriage looks like and what it does not look like. If you get too far off course, either Michael or I will comment. This is too important an issue to get sidetracked.

Your turn.

Considering the activity on my recent blog posts and Theology Unplugged podcasts on the will of God and Barack Obama, I though I would squeeze this lemon one last time (and pour some salt). No, that does not mean take a shot of tequila before reading this!

My basic argument was that whatever faults one may be inclined to find in Barack Obama, he was elected president. In this, it was, in some very real sense, the will of God.

While I was a singles’ pastor for six years, I often dealt with issues from those whom I had married. I had these issue in both premarital counseling and post-marital counseling. In post-marital counseling things got interesting. I would often sit in the presence of a discouraged wife or husband whose marriage was less than happy. For some, things just weren’t clicking. For others, the problems were more serious. Much of the time people would suggest that they had made a mistake. In their mind, they simply married the wrong person and their “soul-mate” was still out there waiting.

These type of things quickly become a matter of theology—very practical theology. The question is this: Is it possible to have married the “wrong” person?

No matter how difficult things were I would always discourage such a direction in thinking. I don’t think that it is ever possible to have married the “wrong” person. I know that this sounds strange to some, but it is simply a natural outcome of my belief in God’s sovereignty. Just as the presidency is ultimately in God’s hands, even if and when people make evil choices, God’s will is ultimately being accomplished.

Getting personal: My wife and I met in a bar. Yes, that is right. Fifteen years ago, I was out, drunk and picking up on women. In a drunken stupor, I stopped my wife (my waitress at the time) and said “Before I get drunk, I want to say ‘I love you’” (sweet pick-up line, huh?) We hit it off, and to make a long story short, we got hitched. As I grew in the Lord, I questioned my motivations for marrying her. If you have seen her, you know she is very beautiful. This is not to brag, but to give you a sense of conflict that I have had (and, I am sure, Kristie has had as well). We have had our share of difficulties. I would like to say that things have been great with me and Kristie, but we have some very serious personality conflicts. Sometimes these are so severe, so discouraging, so long-lasting, so unforgiving, that the terrible question pop’s in my head, “Did I marry the wrong person?” It is in these times that my theology begins to lock certain doors.

Are you supposed to meet your wife in a bar? No, not ideal. Are you supposed to love her primarily because of looks? No, not ideal. Can you make wrong decisions that lead to an important decision such as marriage? Absolutely. So, was it God’s will that I marry Kristie. You bet.

You see, I believe that God works with us in our sin. Does he have any other choice? If he did not work through our sin, what does the world “grace” mean and, frankly, when would he work? God brought Kristie and I together and our togetherness has been hard. Yes, it could have been easier had we married someone else. We could have smiled more. We could have been more relaxed. Things could have more “click” to them. We could be setting an example of a “Christian marriage” for all to see. Although I hate to say this, the grass sometimes really is greener on the other side.

But my shade of green is not necessarily God’s.

Is it God’s will for Kristie and I to be together? You bet. Could there have been better choices made? “Better” is rather relative and can get you into trouble. From a human perspective which does not see all ends and is foolishly self-serving, yes. From a divine perspective, no.

God has a purpose for Kristie and I to be together. We did not marry the wrong person. Sometimes we cannot see what is really going on and our passions are clouded by the pain, but we must keep our eyes on the sovereignty of God and find a much deeper level of satisfaction in each other knowing that God—the all-knowing God—has put us together for a reason. In this we swallow our thoughts of mistake and we let go of the humanistic “soul-mate” theory. Once this is done, we find a new fairy-tale marraige that is better than any we could have chosen. Why? Because God knows best. Because God works through sin. Settled, satisfied, and in constant delight describes my marraige when I take this perspective. Don’t catch me on one of those other days.

EDIT: Before you react to this post in a very critical matter, believing I have lost my bearing, heading toward some sort of radical Calvinism, please answer this. If you were talking to someone who was the result of a rape/incest union and they asked you, “Was it God’s will for me to be conceived?” What would you say?

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is supported by the financial partnership of those who believe in what we are doing. Consider partnering with us today.

(HT: Bring the Noiz)

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

2. Teleological Argument: (Gr. telos, “end” or “purpose”) This is also know as the argument from design. This argument moves from complexity to a necessary explanatory cause for such complexity. The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of the cosmology, the voice of God is heard. Therefore, God’s existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the undesigned designer.

3. Moral Argument: This argument argues from the reality of moral laws to the existence of a necessary moral law giver. The idea here is that if there are moral laws (murder is wrong, selfishness is wrong, self-sacrifice is noble, torturing innocent babies for fun is evil), then there must be a transcendent explanation and justification for such laws. Otherwise, they are merely conventions that are not morally binding on anyone. Since there are moral laws, then there must be a moral law giver who transcends space and time. This moral law giver is God.

4. sensus divinitatus (”sense of the divine”): While this argument goes by many names, the sensus divinitatus argues for the existence of God from the innate sense of the divine that exists within all people. This sense of the divine, it can be argued, is the “God shaped void” within all people. This explains why people, societies, and cultures of all time have been, by nature, those who sense a need to worship something greater than themselves.

5. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience: This is the argument from universal beauty and pleasure. Beauty and pleasure are universally recognized as such. Even subjective variation in one’s definition of what is beautiful are not distinct enough to relativize this principle. From the beauty or the sunset over the Rockies to the pleasure of eating certain foods, there is a common aesthetic experience that transcends the individual. This transcendence must have a ultimate source. This ultimate source is God.

6. Argument from the Existence of Arguments: The idea here is that there is no such thing as an argument without order and rationality. In the absence of God, all that exists is chaos. Chaos does not give birth to order. Arguments assume order. Order assumes purpose and design which in turn requires a transcendent being for its genesis. To even argue against the existence of God assumes his existence and is therefore self-referentially absurd. Therefore, there is no such thing as an “argument” against Transcendence (God).

7. Argument from the Existence of Free-will Arguments: If there is no God, then all we have is a meaningless series of cause and effect stretching back into eternity. This series of cause and effects is necessary and determined, being the result of the previous cause and effect. As a billiard ball is hit by another and has no self-motivated movements of its own, so all of human existence exists under the same attributes. All things are determined, not self-motivated, including beliefs. Therefore, if someone does not believe in God, it is not the result of self-motivated free-will beliefs, but because of a determined and fatalistic series of causes and effects stretching back into eternity. To argue against the existence of God would not be the result of looking at the evidence and making a more reasoned decision to not believe in God, but because that is what people were fatalistically determined to do. Therefore, all arguments are absurd and unjustified without God.

8. Argument from the Existence of Evil: Like the moral argument, this argument assumes the existence of a universal characteristic that is meaningless without God. Some argue that the existence of evil disproves God (or at least a good God), but to argue such is formally absurd since one would have to have an ultimate and transcendent standard of good in order to define evil. If evil exists, goodness exists. If both exist, there must be a transcendent norm from which they get their meaning. Since evil does exist, God exists.

9. Argument from Miracles: There are events in human history which cannot be expained outside of the existence of God. Many people have their subjective stories that bend them in the direction of theism, but there are also historical events such as the resurrection of Christ and predictive prophecy which cannot be explained without an acknowledgment of God. In short, from the Christians standpoint, if Christ rose from the grave, then God exists. There is no alternative reasonable explanation which accounts for such an event outside a belief in God. History convincingly demonstrates that Christ did rise from the grave. Therefore, God exists.

10. Pascal’s Wager: Popularize by French philosopher Blaise Pascal, Pascal’s Wager argues that belief in God is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in God and be wrong, there are no consequences. However, if one were to deny God and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice, considering the absence of absolute certainty, is not agnosticism or atheism, but a belief in God.

What do you think. Put these in the order of the most persuasive to the least.

Besides affirming the deity of Christ in both of these passages, the book deals with constructions that do not fit Sharp’s rule and thus have a different force. “Pastors and teachers” in Eph 4:11 and “apostles and prophets” in Eph 2:20 are discussed at length, for example. In neither of these passages is it likely that the groups are identical. The fact that the book came out after Gordon Fee’s magisterial Pauline Christology has afforded me the opportunity to interact with Fee’s arguments that “our great God and Savior” refer to the Father rather than the Son. I disagree with him on this, and argue that the epithet speaks of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, the book had several typos in the Greek due to some font issues at the printer’s. But a corrigenda sheet will accompany each hard copy so that you can spot the errors and make the corrections. If you write to me (dbw@csntm.org), I can send you the corrigenda sheet (in case you buy a copy that was already dispatched to the reseller before the typos were detected).
The monograph will be on sale at the Society of Biblical Literature’s annual meeting coming up in Boston later this month.

Working in my field, I often wonder if we don’t have more modern day Abecedarians in the Evangelical church than we know.

What do you think?

I tell all. Don’t miss this . . .

Enjoy . . .

A friend sent me the blog that was posted at CBMW about my recent essay on the role of women, posted at bible.org. I’m honored that my views would be considered worthy of discussing at CBMW. But I have to say, I think I was misrepresented.

Here’s what the blog post said, “Wallace responded by admitting that he could never embrace egalitarianism because it is clearly unbiblical; the text just does not support egalitarian claims…”

That’s far more than what I actually wrote on two fronts. First, nowhere in the essay did I say that I could never embrace egalitarianism. Not even close. Instead, what I said was that I could not go against my conscience and that, in my view, egalitarians were doing exegetical gymnastics. But even here I couched my statement with a note of personal perspective. Throughout the essay you will see qualifiers such as “For me at least,” “I think,” “probably,” etc. These points were mentioned specifically in relation to my exegetical certainty about the role of women in the church. Probably the strongest statement I made in terms of certainty was “I may not be comfortable with my complementarian position, but I am unwilling to twist scripture into something that it does not say. (I’m not saying that those who take an egalitarian position on this passage are willing to twist the scriptures! But I am saying that I think they are, in effect, probably doing this just the same.)”

Second, I did not say that egalitarianism was clearly unbiblical. Again, I couched all from my own perspective. As I concluded my essay, “after all the exegetical dust has settled, to deny some sort of normative principle to 1 Tim 2:12 is probably a misunderstanding of this text.”

I believe that the blogger got wrong his whole premise for the post because he assumed that I was certain in my exegesis and cowardly (or at least wishy-washy) in my behavior.

The irony here is that I was quoted out of context and misexegeted. I’m sure that some egalitarians will jump on this and say that complementarians do the same thing with scripture!

Allow me to clarify my view: Both since my exegesis is not certain and since this is not a central issue to the Christian faith, I cannot be as firm in my position or attitude as I can be on other issues. What is at stake here is one’s doctrinal and pragmatic taxonomy. The way the blogger wrote about my views it sounded as if he had a flatline in doctrinal nuancing. That, in my view, is not the healthiest way to think about scripture.

Daniel B. Wallace, PhD
Executive Director,
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
www.csntm.org

The rise of the New Atheism, led by what Stark calls “angry and remarkably nasty atheists,” is attested to by several bestsellers, which have presumably signaled a breakthrough for atheism—“that large numbers of Americans were now ready to stand up and admit they didn’t believe in God.” Despite recent claims that the number of atheists has risen sharply in recent years, the evidence reveals something else: “what most people who say they have no religion mean is not that they are irreligious, but that they have no church.”

The percentage of atheists in America revealed by, say, Gallup polls and the Baylor Survey, shows a tenacious consistency over the years: 1944: 4%; 1947: 6%; 1964: 3%; 1994: 3%; 2005: 4%; 2007: 4%. I found it interesting that “the majority of children born into an irreligious home end up joining a religious group—most often a conservative denomination.”

This is true in other countries as well: even in secularized Europe the vast majority don’t claim the title “atheist” (the highest is France with 14%—the same percentage as China). The former Soviet Union and its Eastern bloc satellites—despite decades of atheistic indoctrination—now show only a mild residue of atheism: just 1% in Poland, Romania, Georgia—though the atheists in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic are 6% and 8% respectively. In Russia the score is the same as in the United States: God 96%, atheism 4%! Despite systematic efforts to “cram” atheism down the throats of citizens in the former Soviet Union and China, these have failed miserably. The Communist authorities just didn’t understand religion, and neither do the new Atheists. Rodney Stark’s says this about the New Atheists’ attempts to stamp out religion: “To expect to learn anything about important theological problems from Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett is like expecting to learn about medieval history from someone who had only read Robin Hood.”

Why all the hype about a surge of atheism? Well, what appears to be a rising tide of atheism in America is simply the result of an overrepresentation of New Atheism by the media. And despite receiving maximum coverage on all fronts, Michael Novak notes that “there is an odd defensiveness about all these books—as though they were a sign not of victory but of desperation” (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5922).

This is no occasion for smugness and apathy, however. There is much work to do! As David Kinnaman’s book unChristian (Baker) reminds us, many outsiders to the church have negative reactions to “Christians,” who appear judgmental, out of touch, hypocritical, and so on. On the other hand, Rodney Stark gives us statistical reminders that God has placed eternity in our hearts and that human beings are incurably religious. Even the New Atheists’ affirmation that human beings are “hard-wired” to believe in a supernatural agent (the Oxonian Christian philosopher Justin Barrett talks about the worldwide phenomenon of children being “intuitive theists”), but the New Atheists think this “reductionistic explanation of religion” actually eliminates the reality of God. Actually, this genetic hard-wiring actually reinforces the reality of God’s existence! In Augustine’s words, “You have made us for Yourself, O God, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in you.”

Whether you voted for him or not, my fellow American citizens, Obama is our new president. The balance of powers has now completely shifted. Agree or not, the people have spoken.

I praise God for this. In fact, I will rejoice at the revealing of his will.

Why?

Because, ultimately, God is in control of who sits in the White House. The plans of the heart belong to man, but the Lord makes things happen (Prov. 16:1). God placed Obama in the presidency according to his sovereign will. That is right. Obama is the man God decided would be our next president. This is exactly what he wanted to happen.

Argue with him if you will. Argue about the history of this country, the supreme court judges, the issues of morality, and the moral superiority of our view on taxes but, in the end, “no wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the LORD” (Prov. 21:30).

Don’t bother inviting him to your morning party either. He will not come. No RSVP either. In fact, he won’t even send an angelic representative.

He will simply send a note saying,

“My dominion is an everlasting dominion, and my kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of America are accounted as nothing. I do according to my will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of America. No one can ward off my hand or say to me, ‘What have You done?’ (Dan. 4:35). The President’s heart is a stream of water in my hand; I turn it wherever I will (Prov. 21:1). Let every American be subject to President Obama. For there is no authority except from me, and those that exist have been instituted by me. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what I have appointed” (Rom. 13:1-2). —God

This is why I rejoice with great anticipation, following the Lord in the direction he is leading. In this, I celebrate the election of Barack Obama in as much as I celebrate the revealing of the will of the Lord.

Here is my letter to Barak Obama,

“Congratulations for being my next president. Rest assured that you will have my respect and allegiance for as long as you are in office. I pray that God gives you wisdom and guidance, strength and courage, and clarity and judgment. If you fail in any way, I will not say, ‘Ah ha! I told you!’, but I will stand behind you with prayers of hope. If you succeed in any way, I will rejoice with you. In everything, I promise that I will lift you up in prayer as you are God’s instrument in leading this country.”

Romans 11:33 “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” 35 “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”