“The history of Science is the history of bad ideas.”

This is a quote that I heard recently. I think that it is a rather tongue-in-cheek way of expressing our (post)modern culture’s current attitude with respect to the authority of science. During the modern period, science was king. The scientific revolution produced hopes of a Utopian society where virtually all problems would be solved due to human innovation, evolution, and advancement. But during the postmodern period, science has been humbled due to a realization that the process was not as clean as we thought. Human contamination, insufficient data, faulty presuppositions, and religiously and politically motivated studies have tainted our hopes that science is truly king.

Euclid said, “The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.” Such is true, but how do we know that we have properly interpreted the “mathematical thoughts of God”? I believe in the authority of nature and many of our (scientific) conclusions about such. Every Christian should. I have written about this in times past. Romans 1 says that creation itself leaves people without an epistemic excuse about God’s reality. This, among many other things, provides a firm biblical foundation for cosmology, biology, physics, and rationality in the Christian life. In this sense, the study of nature is mandated for the Christian.

However, we need to be timid about our conclusions that come from science, knowing the ways that it, like the Bible, can be manipulated. More important for what I am talking about now, we need to realize how dynamic the conclusions of science can be.

I was a fitness trainer through the nineties as well as working in the fields of sports medicine. I was very good at what I did and understood the issues (at least I thought). I focused on weight loss physiology. I wanted to provide people with the best—the most scientifically accurate—routine for weight loss. When it came to losing weight though, I would tell people to engage in a steady-state cardio routine. This is one in which you would keep your heart rate up consistently and moderately for above thirty-minutes. Then about fifteen minutes of resistance training. Without getting into all the details of why, suffice it to say that this was the most accepted scientific method for such goals. When it came to nutrition, I was not faddish at all. I repudiated the fads. I wanted to stick to that which was scientifically verifiable and accepted: the food pyramid. However both have changed since the nineties. Now, in order to lose weight, your cardio must include more of a circuit training where your heart rate gets up into its anaerobic state every so often. This is something that I used to teach against with (scientific) resolve. On top of this, the food pyramid has been turned upside down and subjectivized! Now, I am not saying what I did before did not work…it did. But it was not really right. There is a stability to say that exercise and proper nutrition are essential to weight loss. But I am no longer quite so committed to a particular type of exercise and nutrition. It is not so stable. Some of my theories have been literally turned upside down! That is just one example of the sort of things that can dissolution a person toward so-called scientific conclusions.

Here is a list of some other things that have changed over the years with regard to scientific ideas:

• Maternal impression (the mother’s thoughts can influence the child’s)
• Human cell (simplistic to complex)
• The status of Pluto (no longer a planet)
• Piltdown man (scientific hoax about a “missing link” in evolution)
• The food pyramid (turned upside down)
• Health benefits of alcohol (bad for you one day, good for you the next) Continue Reading »

No, not a biblical one. No, not a theological one. This is a very practical question of application. I want to see how your belief plays out in real life.

Here is my question(s):

• Is there any way for us to train boys to be “men”?
• Is there any way for us to train up girls to be “women”?

If so, what does that look like for each?

• What does it uniquely look like to be a “man”?
• What does it uniquely look like to be a “woman”?

Or, alternatively, you might suggest that we take a gender neutral stance on child rearing since there are no defining characteristic for each?

I know that there is some diversity out there and I don’t want to be accused of any reducio or slippery slope here. I am honestly interested in seeing the patterns and the spectrum of belief here. Continue Reading »

The most common understanding of both Complementarianism and Egalitarianism goes something like this:

Complementarians: Do not let women be pastors over men.

Egalitarians: Do let women be pastors over men.

or…

Complementarians: The husband is the leader of the family.

Egalitarians: The husband and wife co-lead the family, with no priority.

or…

Complementarians: Wives submit to your husbands.

Egalitarians: Husbands and wives are to practice mutual submission.

While I think that these are characteristics of both groups, they are not foundational characteristics that define each group. In other words, I don’t think that they are helpful in defining what it means to be a complementarian or egalitarian and they serve to cause a great deal of misunderstanding that leads to emotional bias that is very difficult to overcome once set.

In fact, I am going to say something very radical here and then explain. Here it goes:

It is possible to be a complementarian and believe that a women can serve in the position of head pastor over men.

Did you get that? Reread it. Reread it again…

Complementarianism is not first defined by it view of the roles of men and women in the church, family, or society.

Here is what Complementarianism is:

Complementarianism is the belief that men and women have God given differences that are essential to their person. Men and women are ontologically (in their essential nature) equal, but often, functionally, take subordinate roles (like the Trinity). These differences complete or “complement” each other. Due to these differences, there will be some things that women are predisposed and purposed to do more than men. As well, there will be some things that men are predisposed and purposed to do more than women. Therefore, there are ideal roles for both men and women that should be celebrated, exemplified, typified, and promoted in the church, family, and society. To deny these differences is to deny the design of God and thwart his purpose.

Here is what Egalitarianism is:

The belief that God has created men and women equal in all things. Men and women are ontologically and functionally equal. The way the sexes function in the church, society, and the family is determined by individual giftedness, not role distinctions according to the sexes. Therefore, each person should be judged individually when being placed in a particular position. We should exemplify this reality by overcoming the stereotypical placement that has traditionally been a part of societies in human history, thereby giving freedom to individuals to follow the path that God has uniquely created them for, whatever that may be. In doing so, we should no longer educate or indoctrinate according to any of the former stereotypes, including those of basic masculinity and femininity. Continue Reading »

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a debate about this issue. So don’t debate the issue (and I say that with all my masculine authority!) This post assumes the position that women cannot teach and seeks to give rationale as to why. Posts are already being deleted that are vehemently on the attack (and there are plenty).

I don’t know of many more controversial issues in the church than issues regarding women in ministry. It is not controversial whether or not women can do ministry or be effective in ministry, but whether or not they can teach and preside in positions of authority over men. The most controversial issue aspect of this issue, of course, is whether or not women can hold the position of head pastor or elder in a local church.

There are two primary positions in this debate; those who believe that women can teach men and hold positions of authority over men in the church and those that do not. Those that do, normally go by the name “Egalitarians.” Those that do not, go by the name “Complementarians.” I am a complementarian but I understand and appreciate the egalitarian position. In fact, the church I serve at most often is an egalitarian church. (However, I don’t want you to think that my complementarianism is not important to me. There is much more to complementarianism than whether or not a woman can preach!)

There are a lot of passages of Scripture which contribute to the debate, but one stands out more than all the others. 1 Tim. 2:11-15:

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

I don’t want to debate whether or not this passage teaches either position. I am simply going to assume the complementarian position and attempt to deal with the sting of “I don’t allow a woman to teach.” It does have quite a bit of sting.

I like to make the Scripture pragmatically understandable. In other words, I want to not only understand what it says, but to rationally understand why it says what it says. Why does God give this instruction or that? What practical rationale might be behind the instruction of God? I know that we cannot always find it and our obligation to obey transcends our understanding but, in my experience, more often than not, our understanding of the command can accompany our obedience so that we are not so blind.

“I do not allow a woman to teach.” We think of this as coming from God. God says, “I do not allow a woman to teach.” Teaching is something that requires _________ therefore, women are not qualified. You fill in the blank:

1. Intelligence

2. Wisdom

3. Love

4. Concern

5. Rational

6. Persuasiveness

While I think the sting of this passage assumes that Paul is speaking about one of these, I don’t choose any of them. I think Paul (and God) has something different in mind.

The other night, at 3am there was a sound in our living room. Kristie woke up, but I did not. She was looking out there and saw the lights go on. She got scared.

Pop quiz: What did she do next?

a. Got a bat and quietly tip toed out there to see who it was.

b. Got a gun and peeked around the corner.

c. Woke me up and had me go out there.

Those of you who choose “c” are both right and wise. You are right because that is what happened. (It was my 2 year old Zach who decided it was time to get up.) You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.

Now, let me give my short and sweet answer as to why Paul did not allow women to teach: Continue Reading »

On Tuesday, January 12, 2010, an earthquake that measured 7.0 on the Richter scale did unspeakable damage to Haiti, leaving at least one and a half million people homeless and tens of thousands dead. The total numbers at this writing are unknown.

On Wednesday, January 13, Pat Robertson declared that this devastating earthquake was God’s judgment on Haiti for being in league with Satan:

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and the people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French—uh, you know, Napoleon the Third or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, “We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.” True story. And so, the devil said, “OK, it’s a deal.” And so they kicked the French out of, you know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other. Desperately poor. The island of Hispanola is one island. It’s cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is…is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty—same island! Uh, they need to have (and we need to pray for them) a great turning to God.”

The media have jumped all over Robertson for this statement, calling it stupid and insensitive. Even if this were a ‘true story,’ as he claims, it would have been something that occurred two hundred years ago. Robertson didn’t explain either the who (all  Haitians?) or the why (some rationale for this alleged pact with the devil affecting several generations). Further, he didn’t check his facts; he simply pronounced ‘true story’ as though by fiat he could make it so. But when he said this rebellion occurred under “Napoleon the Third or whatever,” he was off by a mile. Napoleon the Third was born four years after Haiti gained its independence from France! What confidence should we have in this ‘true story’ if a part of it is demonstrably not true? And when the rest turns out to be merely rumor with no substance, Robertson’s credibility sinks to new lows. Continue Reading »

I have been asked this quite a few times over the years and the issue was brought up again recently. Can homosexuals be Christians? Or, better, is there such a thing as a “homosexual Christian.” Many would believe that someone who engages in a homosexual life style is necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God unless they repent. Repentance here would mean a change of thinking about and, shortly following, action to change this lifestyle. In other words, while some would be willing to say that a homosexual can be saved, their salvation guarantees their change of lifestyle within a short period of time.

While I agree with those who say that homosexuality is a terrible sin (Lev. 18:22, 20:13 Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:6; 1 Tim. 1:10), I do not believe it is one that is outside the realm of a believer’s carnality. Neither do I believe that if one practices in homosexuality their entire life that they are necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God. I hope that people do not misunderstand my purpose here. I, in no way endorse homosexual behavior or seek to relativise its abominable standing before the Lord. But I do think that we who are not tempted in such a way often fail to see the seriousness of the struggle that people go through who engage in this sin.

Sexual sin and temptation is part of everyone’s life. We are born with a drive toward fulfillment of this God-given part of our humanity. Some will deny this drive because of God’s calling in their lives (e.g. singleness). Yet sin has corrupted this drive and we are all born infected with sin. Because of upbringing, genetics, cultural influences, and other factors, people will experience this corruption to greater and lesser degrees. I personally have never felt any inclination toward expressing my sexual corruption in a way that was focused on the same sex. Why? Not necessarily because of good choices I have made, but because the genetics, upbringing, and influences were not there. I have just never had that sinful bent within me that compels me to lust after someone of the same sex. Don’t get me wrong. I have a sinful sexual bent, but it is of the more natural kind. This does not justify it or make me more innately righteous than the homosexual, it is just a fact that this is not a sin that I have ever had to deal with. Continue Reading »

Andy Schlafly is political conservative advocate Phyllis Schlafly’s son. He’s a graduate of Princeton University (major in electrical engineering), and Harvard Law School. Schlafly is founder of the website Conservapedia.com, which boast more than 100 million page views, offers a full-blown conservative viewpoint on politics. Conservapedia.com is sponsoring a new Bible translation called the Conservative Bible Project. The project involves open-source editing, which has been an open source of woe or comic relief, depending on your perspective. The Tennesean.com reports that Gen 1.1 was changed by fans of Stephen Colbert as follows: “In the beginning, Stephen Colbert created the heavens and the earth”! The text was later fixed. Al Gore may have invented the Internet, but Colbert did not create the universe. Elsewhere, someone changed ‘Pharisee’ to ‘liberal’ to show that liberals were responsible for Jesus’ death. Schlafly changed it back to Pharisee but admitted to the Tennesean.com, “The possibility that Pharisees, which is a term that’s not familiar to most of us, could be better translated as liberal is intriguing. But we haven’t gone with that yet.”

Apart from using the best currently available Greek text which tags the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery (Mark 16.9–20 and John 7.53–8.11) as inauthentic, there is very little to commend in this translation. But even in following the critical Nestle-Aland text, the editors often argue that the changes to the text were made with liberal motives.

What is most remarkable about this new translation is not that it lacks almost total credibility (which is true), but that political ideology is so strong that it overrides everything else. New Testament professor Douglas Moo, Wheaton Graduate School, and chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation which oversees the NIV and TNIV, did not mince words about the Conservative Bible Project. “Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it,” Moo told the Tennesean.com. Schlafly responded by saying that the TNIV was motivated by a liberal agenda, especially with regard to gender inclusiveness. This, frankly, is an uninformed argument. Moo wrote the first full-blown exegesis of 1 Tim 2.11–15, published originally in Trinity Journal, taking a conservative position on the role of women in the church. Moo also was for some time a member of the conservative Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. And Zondervan, the publisher of the NIV/TNIV, is one of the more conservative Christian publishers out there.

From all that I can tell, Schlafly is mixing theological ‘liberal’ with political ‘liberal’ in his understanding. His ten rules for a conservative Bible translation show this clearly. But this reveals that he has no clue what a theological liberal is if he’s going to place anyone on the TNIV translation team under the rubric ‘liberal.’

My friend and former intern, Brittany Burnette, pointed out how they translated Mark 2.22: “And no man puts fresh grape juice into old bottles. The fresh juice will burst the bottles, spilling the juice and damaging the bottles. Fresh juice must be put into new bottles.” But without fermentation how could grape juice burst the bottles? The Conservative Bible Project notes that “the Greek word oinos…actually meant ‘fruit of the vine’ and was not fermented.” Although there are some conservative Christians who take this view, it is rather indefensible. See my essay “The Bible and Alcohol” for a discussion.

The agenda of this translation boggles the mind, and gives conservatives (both political and theological) a bad name.

[N.B. - For a more in-depth treatment of Dr Wallace's views on this subject, see "The Righteousness of God and N.T. Wright."]

N. T. Wright has written another important book, this time on justification in Paul. The book, Justification: Gods Plan and Paul’s Vision, was co-published earlier this year by SPCK in London and InterVarsity Press in Downers Grove, Illinois. It is both a response to John Piper’s The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007)—which itself was a response to Wright’s treatment on justification that he had articulated over the years—and an epistle-by-epistle definition of his view of the matter. Wright is one of the leading NT scholars to have embraced the New Perspective on Paul, a view that got its major impetus from E. P. Sanders’s Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

I picked up Wright’s latest offering just before I left for Germany last May, the month it came out. I originally wanted to write a review of the whole book, but since I am, once again, teaching Romans at Dallas Seminary this year, I thought I would start with a review of Wright’s treatment of ‘the righteousness of God’ in Romans. But that paper ended up being nearly 10,000 words long—in itself too long even for a standard theological journal submission (they usually limit manuscripts to 8500 words). I dreaded how long a piece on all that Wright had to say in his book would be! So, I had to leave it at this one exceedingly important and programmatic phrase.

I have posted the review article at bible.org; the exact link is here. It was too long for a blog post at Parchment & Pen, but the articles at bible.org don’t have the format for comments there. So, I’m doing a rather unconventional thing of asking you to read the article there and comment on it here.

Not too long ago, I was diagnosed with a certain type of depression. I will come back to that . . .

Until two years ago, I felt as if I was a slight bit taller than others. I could not explain it, but sadness and depression were always those things that other people had. I was quite immune. Probably because they were not as strong as me. Probably because they were not as focused. Maybe even because they did not trust the Lord like me. Whatever the case, I did not “get” depression. Imagine me as a pastoral counselor. I would stoically look at people wondering why they weren’t just following what the sermon said. “What about Chuck’s sermon, did you not understand?” I would think to myself (knowing this was not a good pattern of thought). As well, at this time, I had made it through my sister’s death and my mother’s stroke as I attempted to hold the rest of the family up. I was a rock.

However, two years ago things changed. One week, I just fell apart. I cannot tell you why, but there was a definite change in my psyche and personality. I just was not the same man (or so it seemed to me). It was not about being happy or having a smile on my face, it was about being me. “I” was gone and I did not know how to find myself. I cannot tell you how frustrating (and how enlightening) this was. The “cloud” that drove Angie (my sister) to her death had now settled over my head. I finally understood her language. No matter how much I tried, I could not talk or think myself out of it. This affected all of my relationships. Even with my kids, I just did not care about how school was, what their grades were or whether I was being a good dad. The outlook was grim as depression—real depression—had hit me for the first time.

Back to my diagnosis.

I never went to a doctor for this. Taking medication was not even on my table. Why? When my sister went in for a routine check-up when she was going through her divorce, the doctor gave her Zoloft to help her “get through the rough time.” She did not ask for it, but it was prescribed nonetheless. Four days later, after never having experienced depression, she took a bottle of sleeping pills to end her life. She said she “snapped.” While it did not work that time, she was then placed on anti-depressant after anti-depressant until, due to the exhaustion of finding no answers, she successfully ended her life. Therefore, I have steered clear of any consideration of anti-depressants for myself.

This is not to say that I don’t think that there are times when they are the only and best alternative. I do—very rarely as a last resort. Continue Reading »

Anti-depressants are now the most commonly prescribed drug in America. They are prescribed more than drugs to treat high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, or headaches. Between 1998 and 2002, the use of antidepressants had risen 48%, and this trend has continued at an astounding rate. And this does not even include other similar forms of medicine that ward off anxiety, anger, and compulsive “disorders.”

Pretty soon, we are going to have a pill that will take care of every disorder and sin. Think about it. This is the way medicine is heading. And to be truthful, there is nothing more that I would like than a pill that would make me a better person. A better father, husband, and friend. Maybe a generosity pill. Yeah, that is it. Wake up each morning, take the pill, and, as a result, I am more kind, forgiving, and selfless…besides the fact that I am not depressed! Or how about one that suppresses antagonism and disbelief. It relaxes the part of the mind that has a tendency to be circumspect and critical. “Here, I am going to give you the Four Spiritual Laws, but take this pill first.” We could call it the “Billy Graham Pill.”

Wow! Complete sanctification, from beginning to end, in a bottle . . . literally.

Oh, and fellas, if there are problems in the romantic area and fulfilling 1 Cor. 7:3-5 (my all time favorite passage btw), we have the “little blue pill.” (Sorry women, no quick cure for you yet . . . Blast it!)

Wait…I am way ahead of myself. Slow down. Continue Reading »