Bart Ehrman has become the new media darling of the 21st century. He’s been on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, the Colbert Report, and virtually all the major news media (e.g., NPR, ABC, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, and countless others). Publisher’s Weekly, which reviews newly released books for a general readership and is the bible for the main secular bookstores in America, ran an article not too long ago called “The Ehrman Effect,” showing that books by Ehrman as well as those stimulated by his writings (both pro and con) have captured a large market. Beginning with Misquoting Jesus (2005), followed by God’s Problem (2008), and most recently, Jesus, Interrupted (2009), Ehrman’s books have sold by the tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands.

What makes him so popular? Essentially, he’s a former evangelical who is becoming increasingly outspoken about leaving the faith. He’s now a ‘happy agnostic.’ And he’s not just someone who abandoned the faith, but someone who is a bona fide biblical scholar. The media are fascinated by him. Most recently, CNN ran a story on him (May 15, 2009) entitled, “Former fundamentalist ‘debunks’ Bible.”

To those who live in the world of biblical studies, CNN’s headline is a yawn. We’ve heard it before. Some years ago, I was on a committee that was working on a revision of the standard Greek grammar of the New Testament. The grammar, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by Blass and Debrunner and translated by Robert W. Funk in 1961, has been known by students of the New Testament simply as Blass-Debrunner-Funk or BDF. Yes, that Funk, the former head of the Jesus Seminar. This small committee met annually for about ten years; Bob Funk occasionally showed up to urge us along in his own inimical style. Since he died and the chairman of the committee, Daryl Schmidt, died, the revision of this important work has come to a standstill.

In one of our annual two-day meetings about ten years ago, we got to discussing theological liberalism during lunch. Now before you think that this was a time for bashing liberals, you need to realize that most of the scholars on this committee were theologically liberal. And one of them casually mentioned that, as far as he was aware, 100% of all theological liberals came from an evangelical or fundamentalist background. I thought his numbers were a tad high since I had once met a liberal scholar who did not come from such a background. I’d give it 99%.

Whether it’s 99%, 100%, or only 75%, the fact is that overwhelmingly, theological liberals do not start their academic study of the scriptures as theological liberals. They become liberal somewhere along the road. I won’t discuss why that is here; that’s for another blog post. My point is simply this: Bart Ehrman is hardly unique.

But he’s adored by the media because here, finally, is someone who has seen the inside of the evangelical movement (or fundamentalist fortress) and can speak intelligently both about it and about the Bible—but from a viewpoint that no longer embraces either. Or so the media think. This is old news to biblical scholars. But what makes Ehrman different is that here’s a liberal scholar who not only writes for the public square; he also speaks about his own spiritual journey in those books.

I guess, in the end, I do get Bart Ehrman. He’s capitalized on a trend that finds its greatest impetus in Bob Funk’s Jesus Seminar: liberal scholars speaking in the language of the people, and being brutally honest about their beliefs (or lack thereof). But for anyone to think that the ideas presented in such trade books are new, earth-shaking, never-before-heard-of or dealt-with trouncings of the historic Christian faith knows very little about the state of biblical scholarship today.

Send post as PDF to

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Naming an idea can be risky. The newly-named “idea” takes on a life of its own and can then be accepted, rejected, modified, ignored, loved, or despised. Nevertheless, I’ve decided to finally name that cluster of ideas that has been gestating for some years now—about fifteen, to be precise. I actually think the child was born a few years ago, but he’s been awaiting an identity—something that will distinguish him from his look-alike siblings that came before him. So, the name I’ve given my course of thinking is RetroChristianity. I will explain exactly what this means and why I chose this particular name in due time. But to do this successfully, I first need to name and describe a few other concepts in contemporary Christian thinking. These terms include “Orthodoxy,” “Heterodoxy,” and “Heresy.” To these common labels I want to add two more: “Metrodoxy” and “Petridoxy.”

By “Orthodoxy” I signify the correct view on the central truths of the Christian faith and a proper practice of Christian works. As a rule of thumb, orthodoxy is that which has been believed and practiced everywhere, always, and by all. The “all” includes those who people who intend to be counted among orthodox Christians and who have generally been regarded as such by other orthodox Christians. Orthodoxy means holding the right opinion about crucial Christian truths and acts in keeping with what Christianity has always believed about these things. Some things that fit this general criteria are: 1) God created all things out of nothing; 2) God is Triune: one divine essence in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; 3) The eternal Son of God became incarnate through the Virgin Mary and was born Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one unique Person; 4) Jesus Christ died to pay for our sins, rose from the dead victorious, and ascended into heaven, waiting to return from heaven to earth to act as Judge and King; 5) The Holy Spirit inspired the prophets and apostles to compose the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which are unerring norms for the Christian faith; 6) The Church is Christ’s body of redeemed, baptized saints who by faith partake of the life and communion with God through Jesus Christ in the new community of the Spirit. Some universal practices have included baptism as the rite of initiation, the Lord’s Supper (or communion, or eucharist) as the rite of continued fellowship, evangelism, missions, charity, worship, and Bible teaching. Many other things have been taught and practiced everywhere, always, and by all, but this sample list indicates the kind of central, crucial doctrines that mark one as “orthodox.”

Now this all sounds simpler than it actually is. Sometimes it requires a little bit of squinting in order to overlook minor blemishes on an otherwise hopeful history of orthodoxy. The reality is that without constant check-ups and regular cleaning, orthodoxy is subject to “truth decay.” This can happen to individuals, to churches, to vast communities, to entire generations. But don’t despair! One of the main functions of the Spirit of Truth is to guide the church into truth, to restore her to orthodoxy when she veers too far, and to breathe into her renewed vitality. The history of the church is filled with these revival movements that retrieve forgotten aspects of orthodoxy. So orthodoxy can never be taken for granted. It must be constantly re-received and re-taught. It is not passed down from one generation to another in the form of a creed or confession if that creed or confession is not faithfully and intentionally taught. Orthodoxy is not bestowed upon the next generation through the Bible if the Bible is not read and explained within the context of classic orthodoxy. There’s no such thing as orthodoxy by osmosis or trickle-down orthodoxy. It must be intentionally and clearly taught everywhere, at all times, and to all. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

“We are on the verge—within 10 years—of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.”

I did not write this. It comes from my friend Michael Spencer in his recently published article in the Christian Science Monitor. It is the introductory statement to a wonderfully provocative argument concerning, what Michael believes to be the coming fall of Evangelicalism.

While Michael and I share many of the same concerns (in fact, when I read his thoughts on this subject I wonder if we were not separated at birth), I am not quite as pessimistic about the future of Evangelicalism as he is.

I will add my contribution to this issue, hoping to give Michael’s propositions support while giving a slightly different perspective.

What is going to happen (Michael’s future “prophetic” vision for Evangelicalism):

Michael believes that “Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants” and that “This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West.” As well, “public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.” He goes on, “Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I’m convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.”

I will talk about this in a moment. Right now, I want bypass the “what”" and look at the “why?”

In a section entitled “Why this is going to happen?” Michael proceeds to give us the “State of the Nation” of Evangelicalism; seven reasons why Evangelicalism is in its current condition. I want to look at the first four.

1. First, Michael believes that Evangelicals have become too closely identified with the political right. Being identified as such, he believes that “Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.” Michael says that “Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can’t articulate the Gospel with any coherence.”

It is a very sad fact that Evangelicals (taken from the root evangel which means “Gospel”) are almost universally hard pressed to articulate the Gospel in a way that represents the biblical and historic heritage of the message. Without the Gospel, all the social values we can muster amount to nothing. I have said this before: right practice without a foundation is rubbish. We have replaced the Gospel with a message that simply mourns over the statistics of social concerns. Mourning over the sins of our nation and political identification will come. Try as you might to completely separate them, Christians—evangelical Christians—will always support the political party that lines up most faithfully with our values. It is our duty to do so. But these values are not the Gospel. If you can defend these values more than you can the Person and Work of Christ, you have the cart before the horse.

2. Second, Michael says “We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught.” Not only have we failed to pass it on, we are at a point where those who are supposed to pass it on simply can’t because they never received it in the first place! We are two, maybe three, generations beyond this ability. We are simply running out of people who are even qualified in any sense to pass on “orthodoxy.” The faith “once for all delivered to the saints” somehow got lost in the mail. Those who suppose they are passing it on are passing on their own orthodoxy which they have created based upon the eternal value of their own opinions. There are not many, especially within Evangelicalism, who can trace the faith beyond their own conversion experience. A faith such as this, has no business surviving. Orthodoxy needs to be resent.

3. Third, Michael believes that “There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile. Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.” I am not quite so pessimistic, but I do think he has his finger on the wrist area. Denominations need to survive, but their reasons for existence need to experience a philosophical overhaul. The divide and territorialism has become a stench for the church and this coming generation will have none of it. Evangelicalism as an idea is supposed to unite Christians of a variety of backgrounds under common essentials. Not only is this not being accomplished in pop-Church today, but it is not even an aspiration. Many don’t even know the name of the umbrella under which they find themselves and, frankly, they don’t seem to care. If the umbrella is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and anti-Obama, then Michael is right . . . we are done for. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

It was in my expository preaching course that I learned it. It was driven into my teaching psyche and intended to become a part of my basic presupposed knowledge of ministry. Without it, all your preparation would be in vain. Lacking this, your message will fail to do what God actually intended it to do.

It is the message for a new generation. It is something emergers know and they know that they know it. It is what  I hear on blogs, read in books, and a continued favorite among those who are despondently depressed and shamed when surrounded by “fundamentalists.” It is pridefully stated as if this epiphany is going to miraculously wake a sleeping Evangelical culture of John MacArthur and John Piper groupies.

What is it?

“Belief is no good without practice.” Wake up and smell the manna!

Sounds reasonable doesn’t it. Let’s put it another way.

“Belief is not the end, it is a means to an end. The end is doing not believing.”

In preaching, it goes like this:

“If you don’t have a way in which people can apply the lesson to their lives today, you have not really done anything.”

Another:

“Introduction. Body. Three points of application.”

A friend said it the other day. We visited a church led by a young seeker-friendly preacher. After the lesson he said, “Now I really liked that sermon.” “Why?,” I asked. “Because it has so much application,” he responded. “That is what I need—application.”

The idea here is that belief, in and of itself, is not the end game that God has for us. God primarily wants us to be active in our practice. Good works, being nicer to people, acting out our love, giving to the poor, self-sacrifice, not cheating on tax-returns, avoiding certain web-sites, bringing home flowers to your wife, forgiving your father, protecting the unborn, knowing when to set down the beer, taking your daughter out on a date, remembering to say “I love you” (don’t just suppose they know), and trading your Hummer for a Honda. These are all things I can do today. This is what we need. Right?

emergentos moschos skubula

(Excuse the French). Nice translation: “What a load.” Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Mark Juergensmeyer’s book Terror in the Mind of God claims that religion is violent by nature. It tends to “absolutize and to project images of cosmic war”—even if the ultimate goal is peace and order. To prevent violence and bloodshed to get to this point, religion needs the tempering influence of “rationality and fair play that Enlightenment values give to civil society” (U Cal Press, 2000 [242, 159, 243]).

Three years earlier, Regina Schwartz wrote about the “violent legacy of monotheism” (which includes Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) in the book The Curse of Cain (University of Chicago Press, 1997). Belief in one God and exclusive truth claims will mean that those embracing the “one true God” will reject, hate, and remove all who do not embrace their God or worldview (63). It creates an “us-them” mentality. To preserve our identity and religious purity, they must be removed.

The “New Atheists” make the same sorts of claims. Indeed, they have been emboldened by the September 11 terrorist attacks to launch an all-out rhetorical assault on religious belief—an effort that has a religious zeal all its own!

Have these 9/11 attacks vindicated the claims of Juergensmeyer and Schwartz? Yale theologian Mirsoslav Volf’s 2008 essay “Christianity and Violence” offers a superb response to such criticisms. (It was published in War in the Bible and Violence in the Twenty-First Century, eds. Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens [Eisenbrauns]). I’ll follow his discussion as well as offer some of my own comments.

For starters, we’re not denying that the Crusades, Inquisition, and Europe’s religious wars are a tragedy in the history of Christendom. But do these events reflect the essence of Christianity? Why pick these anti-Christian events as the focal point of one’s criticism? Why not look at the example of Jesus—not to mention Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, and other Christian peacemakers? Indeed, violence carried out in Jesus’ name flies in the face of Jesus’ own teaching and example. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I have said that there is no compelling reason to say that the Bible teaches the so-called supernatural sign gifts have ceased. I have also said and demonstrated that the history of the church evidences a de facto cessation of the sign gifts. As well, I have said that, despite being open to the gifts, my personal experience is lacking with regard to any of these gifts, either through direct or indirect experience.

Because of this, I would say that the only responsible position for me to hold right now is that of a de facto cessationist. In sum, this is why I am not a charismatic.

Some have objected to my beliefs citing what they suppose to be an inconsistency.  While admitting that the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased, I am still not a  charismatic. Why is this? Isn’t the Bible, not personal or ecclesiatical experience, my ultimate guide?

The answer is yes, the Bible is my ultimate guide. It is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. If church history or “Michael history” says one thing and the Bible says another, then I (in theory) go with the Scriptures.

However…

While I did say that the Scriptures do not present any compelling evidence that the gifts have ceased, I don’t believe that they present any compelling evidence that they have continued either. In fact, I would say that the Bible does not necessarily speak to the issue any more than it does the closing of the canon. Remember, the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the canon is closed, yet I believe based on the same de facto arguments that Scripture is no longer being added to. I would argue that the Scriptures have been (for lack of a better word) “closed” due to an exhaustion of purpose. Interestingly, charismatics would make the same argument, believing that the while Scriptures never explicitly say that that the canon is closed, they believe it has nonetheless. Why do we all believe that the canon of Scripture is closed even though the Bible itself does not say that it has closed? If we were theologically honest, our answer would be very simple: Because it, as a matter of fact, closed! It is a de facto argument. The canon of Scripture is closed because God has not sent a verified Apostle or prophet who added to it in the last 2000 years. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I was discussing religion with a gentleman this evening. It was a very interesting conversation in which he recounted to me how he used to be a Christian in a Baptist church. But he left Christianity for Buddhism not too long ago. He explained that the reason why he left Christianity was because of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In short, he felt that Christians were on the wrong side of this issue.

This is representative of so many in our cultural Christianity. This gentleman’s argument was simple:

Christianity is determined as valid or invalid upon the character of its adherents.

In other words, if Christians do not act a “good” way, then Christianity itself is discredited. In this man’s mind, Christians were on the wrong side of the conflict, therefore he left Christianity for something more suitable in keeping with the character that he supposed should accompany those who follow the true God.

I am going to make a statement here that I suppose is going to make many of my readers upset. This especially goes for those who are more “emerging” in their thinking. Here it goes:

Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents.

Did you get that? Let me repeat.

Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Regrettably, I must pause and submit another excursus. While it might seem to some to be a frustrated reaction having to reiterate an important issue, I am actually glad to have to do so since the issue of this post is so central to my argument. (So scratch my initial “regrettably”!)

Just about every objection that I have seen so far has been something I have belabored with blood, sweat, and tears to say is not the issue. Many have objected to my arguments about why I am not charismatic, especially those arguments from church history, citing all the miracles that have taken place. Their argument is that if there are truly so many miracles throughout church history, the one who says that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased—the cessationist—are in error.

This is really misunderstanding both my argument and, I believe, the issue at stake. It is not about whether miracles take place! It is not about whether you believe in miracles. It is not about whether you have experienced a miracle or heard of someone who has! We all believe in miracles! Continuationists and cessationists do. Quoting the church fathers who say that there were miracles in their day is something both charismatics and non-charismatics can accept. It does not add to the discussion.

Again, let’s be clear. According to how I am defining the issues (which I believe are correct) . . .

A continuationist/charismatic is one who believes that the so-called supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, worker of miracles, etc. are normative for the church and that we should commonly expect people to be gifted with them.

A cessationist is one who believes that the supernatural sign gifts ceased after the death of the last Apostle or shortly thereafter due to an exhaustion in their purpose. Therefore, we should not expect such gifts in the church today. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I have thus far discussed what it means to be charismatic equating a charismatic with one who adheres to a continuationist view of the “supernatural sign gifts.” In other words, a charismatic is one who believes that gifts such as prophecy (speaking on behalf of God), working of miracles, healing, tongues, and, if you so define them, word of wisdom and word of knowledge are normative for the church today and that we should expect people in the church to possess and practice them.

I have said that I don’t believe that there is any compelling biblical evidence to say that the gifts have ceased in any dogmatic way. I have also said that one of the primary reasons why I am not charismatic is because I have never experienced such gifts in a way that would compel me to believe that these gifts, as they are expressed today, are legitimate. I am not saying that I know that there are not legitimate expressions of these gifts out there, I am just saying that I have not experienced such. I have to be responsible and discerning with my mind before God. Therefore, my life is experiencially wanting in this area. I have every desire to believe that God is working through people in such a way, giving these gifts, but I am charismatically dry.

I now have to turn to the evidence of history. Our faith is nothing new. It is one which finds its roots in two thousand years of a legacy of saints that have gone before us. The expressions of our faith should find analogous representation in body of Christ, both living and dead. If those who have gone before us do not share our faith, then we have a responsibility to question the legitimacy of our beliefs.

From my studies, I do not find the practice of the supernatural sign gifts being in any way normative before the twentieth century. In other words, it does not seem that the historic church was charismatic in the way I have described above. In fact, I would describe them as de facto cessationists. What I mean by this is that they were cessationists out of necessity, not out of theological compulsion. They, like me, had simply not experienced the supernatural sign gifts. Again, this is not the same thing as saying that they had not experienced the miraculous or God’s hand of intervention (beliefs that all Christians share), but that they did not believe that individuals possessed the supernatural sign gifts. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

In the last post I breifly described what it means to be Charismatic in the theological sense of the word. In essence, it does not necessarily have to do with a belief in God’s intervention in history or his willingness or power to perform modern day miracles, but, properly speaking, it has to do with a particular belief often called “continuationism.” As apposed to “cessationism” the “continuationist” believes that the so-called supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and healings (among others) are still active gifts of the Spirit given to people today. The church, according to continuationists should seek, expect, and promote the use of such gifts. All Charismatics are continuationists and all continuationists, properly speaking, are charismatics (even if you must use a small “c”).

Now I want to give a short defense of the Charismatic/continuationist position. Please understand these represent what I personally believe to be the strongest arguments, biblically, theologically, and practically, for the position, but this does not represent an exhaustive list of the arguments.

1. Acts chapter 2 seems to suggest that the gifts of the Spirit (particularly prophecy) would be normative for the church.

Notice especially 14-21 where Peter is explaining to the many Jews gathered to see why these people were speaking in tongues.

“Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’”

Peter is obviously arguing that the events that they are witnessing are evidence of the “last days” prophesied by Joel. Peter believes that the powers being displayed are evidence that the “last days” had begun. Including in these last days events are great miracles. But most importantly, Peter believes that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit during these days results in specific events: “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” These last days events do not indicate a certain duration or cessation. In fact, it would seem that they will last until the “day of the Lord.” Therefore, it would seem that Peter believes that the giving of such gifts is a perpetual norm of the last days. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I used to walk through Christian book stores and choose my books based on whether or not the author was a charismatic. I would pick up a commentary and turn immediately to 1 Cor. 12 (the section on spiritual gifts). If the author believed that the spiritual gifts were for today, I would put it back on the shelf in disbelief that the store would carry such misleading material. If they did not believe that the gifts were for today—if the author was a “cessationist”—I would consider purchasing the book.

Such was the time when I believed that all those who believed that all charismatics were practicing a different Christianity, at best, or demon possessed, at worst.

I am not a charismatic, and I have my reasons, but I do not feel the same way today as I used to. Let me first define the terms and set up the field of play.

The word “charismatic” can be used in many ways. It is taken from the word “charisma.” Websters Dictionary defines it as “a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader).” Many would say that Barack Obama has charisma in such a way. Charisma is taken from the Greek charisma which means “gift.” Its root, charis, means “grace.”

In Christianity, “charismatic” refers to those who believe that certain “spiritual gifts” such as tongues, prophecy, and gifts of healings, are normative for the church. In the Scriptures, we are told that God gives certain gifts to everyone in the body of Christ. Representative gift lists are mentioned in 1 Cor. 12, Rom. 12, 1 Pet. 4, and Eph. 4. Some of these gifts seem to be natural extensions of the recipients personality (leadership, teaching, encouragement) while others distinguish themselves by their extra-ordinary nature. A charismatic is one who believes that God still gifts people in the church with the extra-ordinary or supernatural gifts and that these gifts are normative in the body of Christ for the extension of God’s message, glory, and grace.

Charismatic is not a denomination, but a trans-denominational theological stance or tradition which can find representation in any denomination or tradition, including Evangelicalism. In fact, I think that the charismatic position (or some variation thereof) is the fastest growing tradition within Evangelicalism.  Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Having just come from the annual Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) conference, I want to propose something for discussion concerning the doctrinal statement currently ascribed to by ETS. Whether you are familiar with ETS or not, this conversation will be beneficial to you, especially my students.

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. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

A friend wrote to me recently, asking why I haven’t written anything about wife abuse on Parchment & Pen. She urged me to do it because, according to her, complementarianism is rich soil in which to grow this kind of wickedness (she’s an egalitarian). Now, I could dispute the merits of that viewpoint, but I’ll pass. Instead, I want to take a pro-active position on what the Bible says about how a husband should treat his wife. I’ll talk about the do’s and don’t’s.

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? Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Over at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website (www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Never-Apologize-for-Gods-Truth) a blog post was put up on October 28. The title of the post: “Never Apologize for God’s Truth.” The blog post is a discussion about my essay, “Some Reflections on the Role of Women in the Church: Pragmatic Issues,” posted at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=6133. I thought it misrepresented my views in some serious ways, so I wrote a response. I had thought that that response would either get posted on the site (it wasn’t), would have caused the author to alter what he said (he didn’t), or at least have stimulated the writing of a letter to me from the CBMW folks (they weren’t). Regrettably, I have to post my response here, because of the one-sided story that was given at CBMW. Here’s what I wrote:

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.)” Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I was watching a gospel presentation on the web the other day. You know, one of those dynamic slide presentations that have a nice piano playing in the background, warm colors, and leaves you wishy washy at the end. Well, this site walked people through the Gospel telling what Christ did and how it is we can have eternal life. At the end of the presentation people were called upon to say this prayer:

“Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner and don’t deserve eternal life. But I believe you died and rose from the grave to purchase a place for me in heaven. Lord Jesus, come into my life; take control; forgive my sins and save me. I repent of my sins and now trust in you to save me. I accept the free gift of eternal life.”

So far so good, right? Well, yes . . . but . . . I am not going to pick the prayer apart with a theological fine tooth comb, but I do want to show you what the next slide in the presentation said. Here it is:

• If you have truly repented (turned away; forsaken) from your sins
• Placed your trust in Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death
• And received the gift of eternal life
• You are now a child of God forever.

Now, I don’t know about you, but that first bullet point has me slightly concerned. Now I am not sure I am a child of God. Has anyone forsaken their sins? I have and continue to try, but no luck yet. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

In a recent SBL Forum, Tony Burke charges conservative scholars with doing bad historical research, biased in the extreme against the apocryphal gospels in particular. The provocative title of his essay is “Heresy Hunting in the New Millennium” (Tony Burke, ” Heresy Hunting in the New Millennium,” SBL Forum , n.p. [cited Aug 2008]. Online:http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=787). He picks on several known scholars who have brought their scholarship to the marketplace. Burke especially charges them with being apologetically driven in such a way that they are prejudiced against reading the ancient apocryphal gospels fairly: “Proper research and sober argument take a back seat to the apologists’ goal of buttressing the faith.”

Those who are singled out for criticism are Darrell Bock, Craig Evans, Gordon L. Heath, Philip Jenkins, Timothy Paul Jones, J. Ed Komoszewski, Stanley Porter, Ben Witherington III, and N. T. Wright.

The arguments that Burke uses often reflect his own strong biases, of which he seems to be unaware, for virtually everything that he criticizes among these authors can also be said about modern-day defenders of early heterodox Christianity. The response by Rob Bowman (http://www.religiousresearcher.org/blog/?p=54#more-54) displays this point for point.

I would hope that we could dialogue on the real issues of substance about the historical Jesus rather than allege that a person can’t possibly be telling the truth because he or she has an opinion about a particular ancient source. Why is it that evangelicals are frequently alone in their recognition that all of us come with biases when it comes to Jesus, but that we all have something to contribute and that we can all learn from one another? I guess historical positivism isn’t dead yet.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

With all the renewed conversation about the emerging church that is blanketing the web once again, I thought that I would enter the “conversation” in a somewhat atypical way.

Some are proclaiming the death of the emerging church saying, “The emerging church is dead—at least in nomenclature, if not in spirit.” Others such as Scot McKnight, Andrew Jones, and Dan Kimball are calling this a nominal death, believing the name itself is no longer descriptive of the original intent of the group, but that the principles expressed will move on. Scot’s post had the spirit of a “call to arms” of the emerging ethos. Others, such as Brian McLaren and Tony Jones may to be holding on to its designation with some hesitant resolve (if you you will allow me to combine those two words).

For those of you ready to sing a courtesy dirge, for those who are preparing their “I-told-you-so” sermon for this Sunday, for those who are breaking out the campaign, hold on. Put the cork back in. I don’t think this type of celebration is yet in order. In fact, I think that this is simply setting up for the second coming of emerging.

To me, this is a good thing that has been in the works for the last few years. It is a natural result of any attempts to reform. The movement is correcting itself. As a result, we see emergers distancing themselves from one another. It is interesting to see the way they are distancing themselves. There are no rope burns on either side. Really, it is just a matter of starting a walk together, holding  the hands of many shared concerns. But while this walk initially allowed some close associations, the ever so slight angle of the direction has proven that they were never really headed the same way to begin with. Its a matter of geometry.

How about a chart to describe this! (Start from the bottom).

(Click to Enlarge) Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Warning: an imbalanced and emotionally non-irenic post ahead. Don’t read as it may only cause disappointment among many of my more progressive friends.

The latest Barna survey was published last night. Its intent was to evaluate the Evangelical position concerning the environment. In sum, it argues that Evangelicals are “going green.” You can find it here.

One paragraph in particular caught my attention:

“Most Christians are not satisfied to be mere observers of the green movement. Three-quarters of self-identified Christians (78%) agree they would like to see their fellow Christians take a more active role in caring for God’s creation in a way that is both informed and biblical. Among evangelicals, 90% would like Christians to take a more active role in caring for creation, with 67% agreeing strongly. This sentiment is firmly endorsed by a majority of active churchgoers who are Catholic (52%), mainline Protestant (62%), and non-mainline Protestant (67%).”

I would agree with the basic thrust of this as I too am concerned about the environment. However, I am not going “Green” or even “going Green” in any way. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I am a Calvinist, others are Arminian. I believe in a premillenial eschatology, others are amillinial. I am a traducianist with regards to the creation of the soul, others are creationists. I believe in inerrancy, others believe that this is an archaic naive doctrine. There are many points of doctrinal division that I am going to have with people, some of which are much more important than others.

Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Who is causing this disunity in the body of Christ, them or me? Do these division demonstrate the doctrinal bankruptcy of sola Scriptura? Should we elect of a Pope of Protestantism? Or could it be that God has a purpose in his allowance of disagreements?

There are a few different ways that I could answer this.

1. Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied deep enough (lack of scholarship).
2. Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied broad enough (lack of perspective).
3. Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied long enough (lack of wisdom).
4. Others don’t agree with me because their traditional prejudices have created a learning disability that keeps them from the truth (lack of freedom of thought).
5. Others don’t agree with me because they have sin in their life that is blinding them to the truth (lack of holiness).
6. Others don’t agree with me because we don’t have an infallible authoritative interpreter of Scripture that would bring doctrinal unity?
7. Others don’t agree with me because they are not Christian. If they were, well . . . they would agree with me! (lack of salvation).

Generally speaking, I do not default to these possibilities. Don’t get me wrong, these are all possibilities. It could be that people deny the truth (assuming that my position is such) due to ignorance, lack of perspective or wisdom, traditional bindings, sin, lack of authority, or a presupposition of godlessness. But I think we need to be careful about any negative prejudgments about people motives and the ultimate reasons for disagreements. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Is natural revelation God’s word? Or does Scripture only qualify for such a title? In other words, when nature speaks clearly about something can we say that this represents the voice of God to the same degree as Scripture?

Natural revelation is God’s communication through creation. It is seen in the vast expanse of the universe and in the minute details of the human cell. It is found in the very consciousness of humanity and in our capacity for rational and analytic thought. Nature tells us much about the attributes and character of God. While, without the Scriptures we would lack an understanding of God’s ultimate plan of redemption and Christian living, we would still have quite a bit of theological understanding.

Paul tells the Romans:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1: 18-20)

Notice a few things:

1. “Revealed from heaven . . . being understood through what has been made.” This is what can be know about God without the Scriptures. It is God’s revelation through creation.

2. Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. This tells us that natural revelation is evident to all. This is sometimes referred to as “general revelation” because it has a general audience that is not limited to a particular people, nation, or time.

3. God has shown it to them. This tells us it is from God. God is the author of this revelation.

4. Invisible attributes . . . eternal power and divine nature. This lets us know that we can understand many of the characteristics of God through natural revelation. His “eternal power” (aidios autou dunamis) has to do with not only ultimate power and ability, but the necessity of its eternality. His divine nature (theiotes) speaks of his divinity, or the nature that divinity necessary must encompass, including attributes and characteristics.

5. They have been clearly seen. The word for “clearly” (kathoratai) is in the present indicative telling us that this is an ongoing occurrence. The word carries the idea of inward perception coming from our reasoning, not simply seeing with the eye. BADG suggests this translation:”God’s invisible attributes are perceived with the eye of reason in the things that have been made.” In other words, natural revelation is evidently evident!

6. They are without excuse. This is very important to understand. The word here for “without excuse” (anapologetous) has a judicial feel to it. Josephus uses the word in the sense of being “without a defense.” Dio Chrysostom uses this to describe Alexander’s aid to Homer saying that he will not let Homer go “undefended.” This verse is telling us that these characteristics of God are so clear that people are left without a defense of any sort for unbelief.

About natural revelation’s voice, the Psalmist writes:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)

In other words, both these passages teach that we are held accountable for hearing through creation the authoritative voice of God. So much so that we will be without excuse if we ignore what it has to say.

Now, we are evangelicals and biblicists, so we have to make Scripture more authoritative than creation, right? But the problem is How can God’s word (Scripture) be more authoritative than God’s word (creation)? If they are both God’s word speaking with His voice, then they both have the same authority, right?

Some may say, “Yes, but what about Sola Scriptura?” Don’t we believe that the Scriptures are the final and only infallible norm in matters of faith and practice? But this assumes that we have interpreted the Scripture correctly, which is, many times, a rather large assumption. However, creation is the same isn’t it? If we interpret its voice correctly, doesn’t it carry the same authority? This is the key question that I think we need to wrestle with.

Here are some implications:

The acknowledgment of the validity of Natural theology. Natural theology (the theology derived from natural revelation) becomes a primary source of study in which Christians need to engage more often. While natural theology is not emphasized in many of the more fundementalistic Protestant circles, this has not always been the case. Great philosophers and theologians of the past have seen the importance letting God’s voice come through creation. Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover,” Justin Martyrs “God of the Philosophers,” Anselm’s “Necessary Being,” Aquinas’ “Five Proofs,” and John Calvin’s “sensus divinitatis“ all evidence an understanding of the authority of creation’s voice. We need acknowledge and engage in the study of God’s voice through creation with more confidence.

Issues of faith and science become less dichotomized. Once we recognize that science is simply the interpretation of God’s “book of nature,” it will no longer be seen as a threat. The scientist can give valuable information to the theologian in the same way the exegete does. Seeming conflict will no longer present the dilemma of having to choose which source is more authoritative, but which source speaks to the issue more clearly. Rhetoric between the ones who study human origins from God’s word in Scripture and those who study God’s word in creation will tamed. Both sides will see that we are ultimately on the same team, even if we may sometimes interpret each source of God’s voice differently.

Current issues about the nature of God will be put into perspective. Open theists who claim that the Bible never speaks about certain attributes of God held to by traditional theists such as asiety, immutability, and necessary eternality can recognize that even if Scripture did not speak of such things (which I do not concede), nature does have an authoritative voice to contribute. This means that philosophy and science do matter. This means that the old adage “If it is not in the Bible, I don’t believe it” is not only irresponsible, but unbiblical! If nature says that God must be an Unmoved Mover, the Necessary Being, the Uncaused Cause, or the creator of time, then we must incorporate this into our theology, even if the Bible did not speak on it.

What I am not saying (just so I don’t have to deal with misconceptions)

• I am not saying that natural revelation is sufficient for salvation. I don’t believe it is. Natural revelation does not present the Gospel.
• I am not saying that Scripture is not as important as we once thought. Without the Scriptures we would not know about God’s plan of redemption. As well, Scripture speaks much more clearly in most areas of faith and practice. Its interpretation is not as difficult and, because of this, its message is more exhaustive and louder.
• I am not saying that Sola Scritura is not correct. Sola Scriptura has to do with special revelation, God’s mediating voice through human agencies, not natural revelation. Otherwise, what do we do with Romans 1 and Psalm 19? How would we say that God’s word is more authoritative than God’s word? Scripture is the final and only infallible authority in the sense that no human institution or authority can rise to its level.

In the end, I propose that natural revelation is just as much God’s word as Scripture (AHhhh!). Both have to be interpreted and both speak to different areas. Most importantly, both are authoritative and should be taken seriously. We will be without excuse if we close our ears to the voice of either.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!