Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • The Fear of Being Wrong

    If you do anything at all you’re going to be wrong at one time or another. You can be as careful as you want, and still sometime, somewhere, you’ll be wrong. Doubtless I’ll be wrong somewhere in this blog post. It could be a misspelling, a missed word, a badly chose word, or it might even be something more important. If I knew, I could avoid it. Maybe I shouldn’t even write it! Now there’s a thought!

    [Update 11/23/07–note in the preceding paragraph the phrase “badly chose word” for “badly chosen word.” I noticed that one while I was checking through comments. I knew it! Failure!]

    I’ve encountered this recently in questions of who should preach or teach in church. Someone might teach something wrong, and then what will we do? We will have been responsible for misinforming people. Not only that, but when we do this in church, their eternal souls might be in jeopardy! Eek! We’d better be very, very careful. Let’s use only curriculum approved by our denomination, and teachers certified for their theological correctness–whatever our version of that happens to be. Then we’ll surely be safe.

    Well, no, not really! Human beings are imperfect. I’m imperfect. You’re imperfect. Somebody’s going to make a mistake. Somebody’s going to misunderstand. It doesn’t matter just how, but folks will inevitably get misinformed. I have personally been amazed at reports of things I’ve said in various classes. Without a tape recorder, I can’t be sure whether I’ve misspoken, or whether what I said has just been twisted hopelessly out of shape through repetition.

    Over the last few days there has been a similar drama (albeit a minor one) unfolding in the blogosphere. Peter Kirk has been reporting on it. Adrian Warnock has now cut off comments on his blog. I’ll admit that I didn’t follow Peter’s request not to read Adrian’s blog, at least long enough to read Adrian’s rationale. He’s been spending time agonizing over blog comments. That’s fear of being wrong, even a fear of letting someone else be wrong in your corner of the blogosphere!

    That sort of fear can be paralyzing and mind-closing. In the church we have used the accusation of heresy to increase the fear of being wrong, or more precisely to increase the fear of going against the community. Recently, when we held a panel discussion on reasons people do not study the Bible for themselves, one of our speakers mentioned the fear of getting it wrong. The audience response was 100% positive. A number commented that they had just that fear. Why take the risk of being wrong? Just go to the experts!

    The problem with that, of course, is that the experts don’t agree, and so you still have the strong possibility of being wrong. In science, researchers have to learn to overcome a fear of being wrong, because they will doubtless be wrong many times. They can hope that they catch their own errors, but they’re going to have to be willing to play with hypotheses and test them, finding out that your hunch is wrong is often as valuable as finding out it’s right. In religion, it’s a bit harder, because the bounds of right and wrong are not so well established.

    The answer, I believe, is to simply realize that we’ll all be wrong. We don’t have to be horribly embarrassed by it. We can simply acknowledge that we were wrong and make the correction. The only thing to truly be ashamed of is if we refuse to acknowledge and correct errors. That’s the further problem with the fear of being wrong–the fear of being known to be wrong. But if you think you’re perfect, I’m willing to bet you’re the only one who thinks you are. Everyone else already knows you can make mistakes. Go ahead and admit it.

    One recent error that has really stuck with me is the position I took initially on the Duke rape case involving Lacrosse players. I immediately jumped to the “spoiled rich kids beat up on poor innocent woman” stereotype. I was glad that the prosecutor was going after them. Imagine my chagrin when I found that things were not nearly so clear, and then that the evidence against the young men was nearly non-existent. Embarrassing? Yes, but it’s part of learning. Hopefully if you’re a person who jumps to conclusions, you’ll be willing to learn a lesson from my experience–it doesn’t hurt to reserve judgment. I should note, however, that I’m more commonly accused of the opposite fault, of refusing to take a stand until the evidence is stacked high on all sides.

    But don’t be afraid of speaking, of engaging in dialogue, and of questioning just because you might be wrong. In blogging, don’t be afraid to post, just because someone might catch your errors. And other than comments that are illegal, in what way do questionable comments do you harm? Having been wrong pretty frequently in half a century of life, I am still doing OK, still enjoying life, and there are still people who listen to me teach and read what I write.

    Being wrong isn’t all that bad, unless you’re afraid of it.

  • A Note on Evolution, ID, and Ethical Behavior

    No, this isn’t going to be an extended discussion of the ethics of intelligent design advocates, though one of their number does come into it.

    One of the frequent charges made against evolutionary theory is that it undermines the basis for morals. Various anti-evolutionists have blamed evolutionary theory for everything from the holocaust to bad behavior in schools. It’s interesting that the only people who are saying that if evolution is true there is no basis for morality are the anti-evolutionists themselves, and thus they would have only themselves to blame if some young people took it to heart.

    I saw this kind of argument again today when I read a portion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover transcript (HT: Austringer, who actually quotes two more examples than I do). I normally don’t have the patience to read trial transcripts, and so tend to read other people’s summaries. But this section isn’t all that long and I think it will help make a couple of points about how ethical behavior is driven.

    First, however, I must mention the interesting ethical question of continuing to claim that the Foundation for Thought and Ethics didn’t get its day in court. Given a substantial record indicating the contrary, one wonders if that can be regarded as either thoughtful or ethical. (Such appears to be the activities of the Discovery Institute blog.)

    The following is a quotation from the testimony of Jon Buell, president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. Eric Rothschild (Q) is cross-examining.

    Q And then if you go over to the next page, in the first paragraph, you blame — you blame the current deplorable condition of our schools resulting in large part in denying the dignity of man created in God’s image, correct?

    A Yes, correct.

    Q And the rest of the paragraph builds on that concept, right?

    A That’s right. Many teachers tell me they have difficulty with — in the classroom with student behavior because there is no — there’s no sense of respect or accountability to the teacher, to the school, or to authority.

    Q And effectively what you’re advocating in this fundraising letter is that the FTE’s publications are an antidote or a partial antidote to these problems of hostility to Christian views and the cultural decay in our schools, isn’t that right?

    A I would say that they’re not an antidote to the hostility to Christian views, but they are an antidote to the hostility toward positive character qualities and moral traits and a positive outlook and philosophy.

    Now what I see there is a claim that cultural decay results from the teaching of the things that the FTE opposes, particularly in Of Pandas and People, and that this creates hostility toward positive character qualities and moral traits, and even against a positive outlook and philosophy. The mere notion that human beings are descended from a common ancestor with apes is so powerful that it will accomplish all of that.

    Two things come to my mind in response.

    The first is the Christian doctrine of total depravity. In general, Christians have not taught that good people are produced by a proper understanding of the universe, but rather that this is accomplished by the grace of God. There are innumerable major and minor variations on this theme, but the doctrine of total depravity basically says that humankind is fallen, unable to do anything of and for themselves of a morally positive nature.

    So exactly how is total depravity worse than common descent in terms of producing a hopeless attitude? Common descent does not even suggest that we are morally hopeless, but rather than we come from a morally neutral background in which our ancestors behaved as beasts, presumably in the way proper to their species and situation. We come to the point of ethical decision making at the same time when we take on whatever distinctive characteristics make us moral creatures.

    Total depravity tells us that we are, in fact, worthless–on our own. Now of course the goal is to make us come to God and be redeemed. But that is precisely my point. Christianity doesn’t preach the redemption of the really good people who understand that they were designed for moral behavior, but rather for fallen people who are doomed to moral failure.

    Which of these views gives the higher place to humanity? Which is more likely to produce moral people? Actually I see little reason to believe either one has a major impact. But if one can argue that evolution has an impact (I do not), then one can also argue that the doctrine of total depravity would have such an impact.

    Christians, as believers in redemption, should have no difficulty working within a context in which redemption is necessary. It does not matter if one was previously dirt being formed by the hand of God into a shape, or if one was an ancestral form of animal behaving according to its character. What matter is what one is now.

    But that leads me to ask just what is the primary motivation to bad behavior? I think that is demonstrated within this transcript. As humans we choose to regulate our behavior as part of societies. But we all have things that we truly desire. The question is generally whether our ethics will regulate the way we behave in order to achieve our desires. Can we deny ourselves a desired goal because the process required to get it is wrong, however we come to the conclusion that it is wrong?

    Well, the same section of trial transcript suggests that belief in intelligent design does not preclude taking the less ethical pathway. The desire of the defendants, and of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics was to have intelligent design taught in schools. FTE produced a textbook for that purpose. The Dover Area School Board acted for that purpose. In order to accomplish that goal, intelligent design must not be seen as religious. If it was found to be a religious idea, it would be rejected.

    The only ethical way to get a religious idea into American public school classrooms would be to change the constitution. Not that I’m suggesting such a thing be done. But coming out openly and saying, “We want to promote Christianity in public schools. The establishment clause is in our way. Let’s get rid of the establishment clause,” would be ethical, however inadvisable. People could get a look at just what the ID advocates wanted. (Note that not all ID advocates want this. My comments here refer specifically to those trying to introduce ID into public school classrooms.)

    In cross-examination, again, Eric Rothschild brought up five sources that indicate that FTE had as its purpose the promotion of Christian thought. I’m just going to quote three of them:

    1. The from 990

      Q And the explanation that the Foundation provides to the IRS is that its primary exempt purpose is promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective, isn’t that right?

      A That’s what it says.

      Q Okay. And Pandas is one of those publications, isn’t it?

      A No, Pandas doesn’t fit this because this is not an accurate statement.
      [the quotation begins on page 84, line 12]

      So either the form 990 was falsified, or Of Pandas and People has a different purpose than the one stated.

    2. Then the corporate charter:

      Q If you go to the third page of the document, it identifies the purposes for the — for which the corporation1 was formed?

      A Right.

      Q And what it states is that the primary purpose is both religious and educational, and then it talks about making known the Christian gospel and understanding of the Bible?

      A Yes.

      Q Is it your testimony that that’s also an inaccurate submission?

      A It was boilerplate that the attorney that was helping us become established used. I felt that it was inappropriate. He said we need to be clear in identifying yourself as having a genuine nonprofit purpose, and so the language that originated with me is the phrase, “but is not limited to.”

      Q And everything else was the attorney’s?

      A Yes, most of it, I think nearly all of it, possibly all of it.
      [the quotation begins on page 85, line 24]

      In this case we appear to have a goal–formation of a non-profit–and it is therefore OK, even for an organization named “Foundation for Thought and Ethics” to just use the boilerplate. Apparently identifying their actual activities wouldn’t do.

      In fact, I have no doubt that the religious purpose was truthful, and it became inconvenient later. The problem is that either the document must be false, or the testimony about the document must be false. There’s some lying involved here somewhere.

      I am also fairly certain that nobody is so careless as to late a completely incorrect statement of purpose go through in a corporate charter. Normally you would get something you can live with. I may be optimistic about human nature, however.

    3. The organization’s web site:

      Q Mr. Buell, this document is something that was1 pulled off the Internet, but you recognize it as a purpose statement for the Foundation that used to be distributed?

      A Yes. I don’t actually — I don’t actually remember this statement, but it’s obviously an FTE statement.

      Q And in this statement it says, “The Foundation for Thought and Ethics has been established to introduce Biblical perspective into the mainstream of America’s humanistic society, confronting the secular thought of modern man with the truth of God’s word.”

      A Yes, that’s right.

      Q And then it talks about how there would be a public — a textbook published which will present the scientific evidence for creation side by side with evolution.

      A Yes, and this, by the way, was written before — I can just tell from the language, this was very early, before the National Academy defined the term creation science. So the terms of art that are in play today were not in existence at that time.

      Q This was just your use of the word creation?

      A Yes, right.

      Q And into the third paragraph it describes the Foundation as a Christian think tank, correct?

      A Yes. I would say in contrast to that, there’s what we’ve done for over 25 years, which is not to be a Christian think tank, but to actually engage in primary works of science.

      Q And that includes Pandas, correct?

      A It includes Pandas, yes.

      And there we have it. What they’ve announced that they have done for all those years is not what they have actually been doing. There is some extremely disingenuous work with the definition of creationism–the National Academy of Sciences doesn’t really have the power to control definitions–but that would require more writing.

    Conclusion: It is more important to accomplish the purpose–getting ID into public schools–than it is to be truthful about the purpose of one’s organization.

    This shows, I think what is the primary challenge to ethical behavior, and its not evolution. It is the attitude that says that if we have a goal we regard as desirable we can take any means necessary to accomplish that goal. In this case that manifests itself by the denial that an organization is actually pursuing Christian values.

    But it manifests itself also in the claim that evolution results in all kinds of behavioral and moral problems. This claim is made in opposition to evolutionary theory–we shouldn’t teach it because it causes deteriorating morals. But the effect of a fact does not impact the truth of that fact.

    To be quite honest I’d rather evolution weren’t true either. I like to preach about a loving God, and it would be much nicer to be able to show a really cuddly process of creation, a loving God carefully crafting creatures and not allowing them to fight it out. But my desire does not change the facts. And there are good points about the facts as well. A less hands-on, saccharine God, though perhaps not my first choice may be a better choice. But it still doesn’t matter. What is, is.

    By attempting to argue against evolution based on the way it makes people feel, anti-evolutionists fall directly into this same trap. That which they desire to be true, must be true. But of course reality rolls blithely on, unconcerned with their desires, and people of integrity want to know what actually is, not what they wish.

  • Review of The Language of God

    No, not here, and not by me, but my Marc Wagner on the Spectrum Magazine web site. Spectrum Magazine is the journal of the Association of Adventist Forums.

    The reason I want to call special attention to this review is that it reflects some of my own background. I grew up as an SDA and young earth creationist. It was not in studying skulls, but rather in studying the history of the Biblical text that I began to see some other options.

  • Who Cares about the Present, We have the Future!

    A few years ago I was discussing the behavior of a televangelist (who and the particular behavior is unimportant), when she said, “You know, if I believed in God, I’d be afraid to do that.”

    Now there are certain assumptions in that statement. The God in question must be one who rewards and punishes in the afterlife, and who cares how we behave in this life. But that’s not so far off as reasonably Biblical description of God.

    Thus I was interested to find the following quote in Judgment Day, the NOVA documentary on the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. Lauri Lebo, a journalist, is commenting on her father’s view and that of other Christians in the area.

    If you believe in heaven and hell and you believe you have to be saved. Nothing else could possibly matter. Not the first amendment, not science, not rational debate. Er, all that matters is that you’re going to be rejoined with the people you love most on this Earth. (Source: Transcript part 9

    Now this statement struck me, and reminded me of my particular conversation. Though I obviously have a “side” in this case–I’m very much pro-evolution–I’m not primarily interested here in the constant battles over who is more truth-challenged in these debates. I think that the school board in this case came out pretty bad from the point of view of integrity, but that’s not my major point.

    My concern here is simply for the attitudes and practices that are appropriate for Christians who believe in eternal life. Is it proper to let the belief in eternal life overcome your scruples about everything else?

    Lectionary texts for the last week have dealt quite a bit with the question of waiting for the coming of Jesus and what we are to do in that case. I know that many people wonder why God would not tell us precisely when Jesus was scheduled to return. I could give many answers to that, but one would have to be this: We can’t afford to know when such a thing will happen. Every time someone has convinced a large group of people that the end of the world was coming on a particular date, they lose all interest in behaving themselves in this one.

    People spend a great deal of time in Revelation and related apocalyptic passages, but I would suggest we spend a little bit more time with Mark 13/Matthew 24/Luke 21, which can be summarized as saying to relax and keep right on going until it’s right there. In 2 Thessalonians 3:13, Paul gets in on the act as well, telling people not to tire of doing good.

    That one line is probably the best advice to Christians in anticipating the end of the world. Just keep on behaving like you’re going to be living out your life right here. Keep on doing good!

    I have encountered this attitude in academic disciplines. Why bother with scholarship, or why bother with extremely careful scholarship? The key thing is that you bring in souls. I have encountered this in daily life. Why should I put out my best effort at work? The ministry is more important. Why should I be careful with financial accountability? I’m doing God’s work.

    In connection with neglecting one’s secular work, I can’t resist a story. More than 30 years ago my father was medical director of a health conditioning center. They were building a new hospital facility, a good portion of it self-help. My dad was pretty handy, and as he was able, he was out getting his hands dirty, and especially working on the electrical installation.

    The facility was Christian, and there was a young man there who was supposed to be working, but who would bring his Bible, and would stop working and share things from it with other workers. Not only was he not working himself, he was disrupting everyone else. But what do you do? It’s a Christian facility, and look how holy he is! Well, my dad banned him from bringing his Bible to the site. It was quite a scandal for a few days. How could a Christian physician order a subordinate not to bring his Bible to work? But my dad stuck to his decision.

    I would suggest that the right attitude is to be doubly accountable–here and for the next world. Live like you don’t get to hide anything. Be as honest as you possibly can. Carry out your work as conscientiously as you possibly can.

    It isn’t a matter of putting eternity on the back burner. The Bible repeatedly commands faithfulness here. I think that means faithfulness in work, research, publication, and one’s political activities, as well as in one’s church activities. Lying, even if motivated by kingdom concerns, is not an option.

    Who cares about the present? We all should.

  • MBWR #137 + My Highlights

    MBWR #135 has been posted.

    As I’ve been trying to do more frequently, I’m giving a few highlights from each of the carnivals and roundups I read. There is so much good in these, and of course the person who does the complete roundup can’t really rank them all that much, so I think it’s nice to link to posts that really catch my attention.

    So here are my personal highlights from this week’s MBWR.

    Mitch Lewis is posting on The Wrath of God in Romans 12-13. As I was blogging earlier on why I’m not a pacifist I thought I might invoke Romans 13, but never got there. Mitch has done a much more thorough job than I was planning to do. He also commented briefly on my post, though it took me until today to check out his. It’s worth checking out.

    William Chaney is wondering about the accountability of prosperity preachers. I’m a pretty big fan of accountability myself. Good question!

    Allan called this one from the Questing Parson “best of the Methodist blogosphere” and I agree. And the adults shouldn’t just tolerate laughing, they should tolerate a bit of running around too! So there!

    Here’s a cause to get involved in. Or not.

    Well, that’s enough fun for this time!

  • PSA: An Unbalanced and Ineffective View of the Atonement

    I want to warn those who expect a certain amount of conciliatory tone in my posts on doctrinal issues that I intend to speak more harshly in this post. If that offends you, try reading a different one. I don’t mean to dismiss you, but I feel the need to make some points very strongly so as not to be misunderstood. Also, for those who may not be aware, PSA stands for “penal substitutionary atonement.” I will also be speaking very much of a debate within Christianity, and I will make many assumptions that will generally be shared only by Christians.

    As has happened very often recently, this post starts from a comment made or quoted by Adrian Warnock. In his recent post Mark Driscoll Preaches on the Atonement in Edinburgh, Scotland, Adrian provided a video of Mark Driscoll preaching on the atonement. Peter Kirk has responded to Mark Driscoll’s comments, and I am in agreement with what he has said about those.

    I, however, am responding only to one line in Adrian’s summary of Driscoll’s comments:

    1. The Central Theme—Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)

    This is the reason I have spoken out against PSA so frequently, not that PSA has no basis whatsoever in scripture (though as I study the new perspectives on Paul that basis gets smaller and smaller), but that its centrality has no basis in scripture, and in fact, does great harm to large portions of salvation history. I like Tillich’s definition of idolatry, paraphrases as “having as your ultimate concern something that is not ultimate.” I apply that doctrinally to state that making something central that is not, in fact, central will have the same effect, and will lead to idolatry.

    Now before I go on, let me answer a question. Just what do I regard as central to the gospel?

    I can answer that in two parts. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (John 3:16, NRSV). The first central point is God’s love. God gave his son so that, if we believe (or put our trust) in him, we could live with him eternally. That’s one statement of the gospel in a nutshell. Now note that it doesn’t mention a courtroom. It doesn’t mention God’s wrath. It doesn’t mention punishment. It does not call for belief in a set of doctrines, but rather in a person. It operates from a foundation of love that results in giving–giving of the Son, and giving of eternal life.

    I can inversely state this with the two laws, love for God and love for one’s neighbor (Matt. 22:34-40). The starting point for this command is loving God with the whole heart, mind, and soul. I cite the Matthean version because Matthew explicitly records Jesus as saying that the law and the prophets “hang” on these two commands, thus giving them a certain centrality. I think they are central as the opposite side of the same coin with John 3:16. “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). While the two commands are central, they attach to the even more central idea that love in general starts with God. If God did not “so love,” then we would not love God, and if those two events did not happen, the full measure of love for one’s neighbor would never become a reality.

    Note here that I’m not claiming that only Christians can love. God’s love is there because God is love (1 John 4:7-8). I actually think I should be able to stop there, because I think it is so abundantly clear that God’s love is more central than any theory of it, and that’s God’s love is the central point of the atonement. God loved; God gave. The courtroom is simply one way in which people have tried to express how God can carry out his love in practice and how we can understand it. But the metaphor, the attempt to understand, cannot take over the center from the reality.

    How would PSA suggest we express the first commandment? Well, we have at the foundation of PSA God’s essential revulsion at human sin, and even his inability to look at it. In order for God to accept us he must look at Jesus, who is the only righteous one. Rather than God’s love, we have God’s loathing placed into focus. Even if one says he’s doing it all ultimately because he loves us, PSA puts the focus on the negative, on the complete depravity of humans and God’s inability to forgive them without killing somebody.

    So how does this evoke my love for God? I am to love God with my whole heart, mind, and soul, even while he loathes me, a sinner, with everything in his being. To look at me, he has to play pretend, and look at Jesus instead.

    How would this work in real life? Supposing that I inform my wife that I loathe her, that I cannot stand to look at her body, and that in order to make love to her, I must imagine her to be someone else. Would this tend to improve or to destroy our relationship? Would she enter into passion with her whole heart, knowing that I must imagine another in order to find her presence acceptable in our bed?

    Yet this is essentially the “love” with which we are presented in PSA. Is it any wonder that advocates search for texts about God hating his enemies, and find the language of hatred, disgust, and loathing more appropriate than any normal language of love? We are constantly reminded that various excessive expressions are just individual views, and may be hyperbole taken out of context. But should I constantly tame the rhetoric of actual advocates of PSA in order to match up with an ideal view that is rarely expressed?

    Now in a few paragraphs I’m going to spend a few moments on PSA as a metaphor, taken out of the center, but nonetheless seen as expressive of the atonement. But first, let me look at the human centered nature of PSA.

    Human centered? The constant refrain is that those of us to don’t accept PSA as central are the ones who are taking God out of the center. But consider just what the most important issue in PSA is for the believer.

    Let me take this through a metaphor. When I was a boy I would occasionally get in trouble, shocking as that may seem. I would be confronted by one of my parents. Now think of me as a boy standing before mother or father after I have committed some significant infraction. What is my major concern? Well, as I remember it, my major hope was to avoid punishment. Reform, relationship building, the peace of the family as a whole, and ultimate justice in the universe were nowhere in my thinking. I wanted to avoid punishment.

    That is precisely the focus of PSA. With all the emphasis on human depravity, on God’s sovereignty, on universal justice, and other such concepts, at the bottom line PSA tells me that I get to avoid punishment. If PSA is the central understanding of the atonement, then that implies that the primary problem following the fall was not the damage caused by evil actions, or the devastation caused by people separation from and rebellion against God. The central problem that God faced, in this scenario, was that he just has to punish someone.

    On the one hand we have helpless humans. Having committed one sin, they have become totally incapable of doing anything good, totally depraved. They are helpless. But on the other hand, we have a God who is so hopelessly out of control and helpless that he cannot manage to handle this in any way but to strike out and punish someone, anyone. So this helpless God arranges some sleight of hand, and strikes out at his son instead, so he doesn’t have to punish those helpless depraved humans.

    The only thing that is solved in this view of PSA is that the people don’t have to be punished. I don’t have to be punished. Now that’s some pretty good news right there, but it is a very narcissistic set of good news. I’m filled with joy that I dodged the bullet. There is no purpose, however, other than this satisfaction of an oddly medieval sense of justice. So the problem of punishment is solved, but the nasty behavior continues, and is essentially doomed to continue.

    It has always seemed odd to me that so many people of my acquaintance can find such joy in predestination, when the opposite side of that coin is that some are predestined to hell, or if we state it in a less extreme form, some simply fail of being predestined to heaven and thus default into hell. I’m sure that while burning in the fire, this doctrinal nuance will be of great comfort to them. But supposing I believe that I am predestined to heaven. What if my wife is not? You say, “Is she not a Christian?” Well, according to some Calvinists I have encountered, should she backslide, one might conclude that she never really was. Or perhaps I will backslide. Great comfort there! But for some reason nobody who currently professes belief assumes that he or she is headed for the wrong place. That seems a bit narcissistic to me, and so does PSA if made central.

    Now how can PSA be read when not central? Well, first, we do not have to make it walk on all four. If it’s central, then somehow each element must fit around the core, and thus we get imbalances such as God’s loathing for sinners.

    Second, we no longer have to assume that the problem referenced and solved by PSA is the central problem of the fall. Certainly, we would all see avoiding punishment as a very important point, but if that was the most important point, then surely a most powerful God could figure out a way to solve it. But there is a more central problem of sin–the damage that it does to the creatures God loves. I think the atonement addresses this problem as well, and I think that the problem of sin and its damage is more important in God’s eyes than the problem of the consequences I face for being a rebel.

    Third, I am more free to bring the trinity into the equation. In some ways, PSA starts to make less sense, when we bring trinitarian theology to bear. God killing himself? God taking the penalty on himself? In other ways it begins to make more sense. One way for God to demonstrate to us both that sin is horrible, but that he is willing to forgive and redeem is to himself take on those consequences.

    And those are not the only items. What I want to bring out here is that there are many theological themes that tend to blunt the nastier aspects of PSA, but those themes also tend to move PSA out of the center. As the central doctrine of the atonement I think PSA will always become a stumbling block and result in the language of pure wrath, loathing, and of a God who is truth challenged, limited, and has to pretend in order to accomplish his will.

    I am not a pastor, though I took my MA in Religion (concentrating in Biblical and cognate languages) at a seminary. But for me the key issue here is first pastoral–how do I reach people. I believe Jesus gives me every license by his words and deeds to place that first. Second, the issue is Biblical, and only third do I see it as theological. (The theologically trained may blame that on the lack of theological training in my Biblical studies programs.)

    My focus is illustrated by a gentleman who came to my office, referred to me by a pastor. He believed he was oppressed by the devil and by demons and I began to ask him about his relationship with Jesus and his personal trust in Him for salvation. He could recite doctrines. He was a sinner, and knew it. He knew the offer for his salvation. He could recite John 3:16. But he could not honestly say, he told me, that God so loved him.

    He was a transient, and he left the area before our second appointment, so I do not know how well the seed I tried to sow grew, or if it grew at all. But for me the bottom line on a view of the good news and the atonement is this: How well does it help you look someone in the eye and say, “God loves you!”

    In that task, I believe, PSA repeatedly fails.

  • Christian Carnival #198

    has been posted at The Minor Prophet.

    In this week’s carnival Josiah Concept Ministries both tipped me off to, and responded to, an atheist, VJACK, who is reading the Bible through and commenting. Both posts make good reading.

    But the final comment in VJACK’s post is pretty interesting:

    Don’t get me wrong – I’m glad that today’s Christians ignore nearly all of the laws their biblical god hands down in these three books. And yet, I remain puzzled that anyone claiming to be a Christian can ignore all of this, selectively choosing the couple parts that make them feel good while neglecting the bulk of what is actually there. This is the sort of god who is unlikely to react favorably to such neglect. If I believed in such a god, I don’t think I’d go near anything containing yeast!

    It’s important to look at when, where, and how particular laws apply. That’s why I like to remind people that nobody actually keeps all the laws in scripture, nor are they supposed to. There seems to be an assumption both amongst many Christians and amongst those who are not but yet study the Bible that it must be taken as a list of commands to be obeyed. But it is embedded in both a mythology and a history, and you have to ask where in this process each thing fits.

    Further, you won’t all agree even then, and that’s not necessarily bad. There are more sources of information than the Bible, as I must so often remind my fellow Christians.

    Barbara at Tidbits and Treasures discusses the efficacy of official days of prayer. I would say that personally I pray about just about everything, and yet I have a hard time seeing the value of a governor calling for prayer. But Barbara makes some interesting points.

  • Christian Carnival #198

    . . . has been posted at The Minor Prophet.

    A couple of posts are of particular interest in Biblical studies. First, from dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos we have Words of Amos, which is a response to comments on an earlier post on the possible Samaritan background of Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. I find the discussion interesting, though I have definitely not studied this area enough to have an intelligent comment!

    Jeremy Pierce writes on dating Deuteronomy 32:26-27, asking just how well this passage fits into the normal late 7th century dating for the D source. Commenters pointed out that this is an archaic poem, probably written much earlier than the remainder of the book, and might have been well known, and thus very difficult to change. I would add that while I support the source theory for the Pentateuch, I think D needs to be dated a bit earlier than that in order to work well historically, but that’s a large topic in itself.

    There’s lots of other good stuff there, but those were the major points of interest in Biblical studies–that I saw, at least.

  • Keeping up with the Justification Debate

    I am doing some reading before I respond to a couple of posts, but I did want to link to some interesting stuff.

    Both Mark Olson (Pseudo-polymath) and Anne (Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength) have written posts discussing justification from a perspective other than the judicial/penal substitution approach. Their posts simply confirm to me that there are many, many valid ways to talk about the sacrifice that Jesus made on our behalf, and that penal substitution is just one of those. Unlike some, I do not wish to discard it, but I also will not make it the one and only metaphor.

    Adrian Warnock has posted twice, first Legalism, Racism, and the First Century Jew, to which I will respond later at some length. I find much to object to in that short post, but I’m also working through Piper’s comments in their context before I blow off steam.

    The second one is 2 Corinthians 5 and Romans 5 – Two Critical Passages on Justification in which he links an article that I had linked earlier, and says:

    If you are interested in seeing an example of this, there is an article by Wright on 2 Corinthians 5:21 [PDF-HN] that I must say I found wholly unconvincing.

    I see a great deal of “finding unconvincing” but I see remarkably little actual exegetical argument. The primary form of argument appears to be theological. If the question is whether the new perspectives on Paul differ from prior theological statements, then we can cheerfully answer yes, and go on. But for me the question is whether the new perspective gets us closer to correctly understanding Paul and what he has to say.

    One of the keys here is to understand the paradigm shift that several interpreters have taken. If you do not accept that paradigm shift, you are likely not to accept Wright’s specific exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:21. That is not surprising, since he is dealing with that verse in the context of that new paradigm. (I am not overly fond of “paradigm shift,” as a term, or at least I don’t think I am, but it seems to me that the new perspectives on Paul do justify that term.)

    Peter Kirk blogged on this same topic, and brings up a number of points. I have to say that anyone who implies that Augustine was a theological pygmy is likely to get my favorable attention! But more importantly, Peter points to one side issue, and that is the way in which (some?) reformed theology can make God look like he is a bit veracity-challenged, and can’t truly tell whether people are righteous or not.

    Meanwhile, the view that I am working towards is a rejection of the “Reformed” idea that Christians remain sinners in actual fact but are nevertheless, by a legal fiction, counted as righteous in Christ. Instead of this, the picture I have, based on various biblical passages such as Ephesians 4:22-24, is that the Christian consists of two separate persons or personalities: the “old self” (in some versions “old man”, but to be understood of course in a gender generic sense) born by natural birth who is a sinner, guilty, condemned to death and destined to die; and the “new self” born of the Spirit and into Christ, who is righteous, holy, free from condemnation, will not die, and indeed is already living eternal life in God’s kingdom. . . .

    Just so. Like Peter, I continue to be in flux on some of these issues. There are boundary lines that I’m fairly certain of, but others I’m studying a great deal, but Peter’s paragraph is one of those that strikes me as promising. When I read it, I feel that he is “with” Paul in a significant way. Perhaps he’ll have to adjust some, as he says, but he’s going the right direction.

    I will be blogging a bit more on 2 Corinthians 5 from an exegetical point of view, hopefully in the next few days.

  • Bringing Textual Variant Statistics Under Control

    Dan Wallace has started a series (actually he did so last week), on textual variants in the New Testament. His first article The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation deals with the definition of a textual variant and then with an estimate of the total number of textual variants in the New Testament text. The second deals with the nature of these variants.

    Information about textual variants is abused constantly in discussions both within and about Christianity. Dr. Wallace is setting about providing a basis for correcting some of these abuses. The number of variants is cited raw as evidence that one cannot trust the Bible. The number of manuscripts is cited as evidence of the historical reliability of the New Testament. Yet both of these uses miss the mark. The first fails to take into account the nature of the variants, which Dr. Wallace begins to do in his second article. (I will link to the next part when it appears). The second, is based on the false premise that one can demonstrate the veracity of a document based on the number of times it is copied.

    At the same time, the number of manuscripts and the number of variants can be used to demonstrate the likelihood that we do, in fact, have something close to the original text of the New Testament. Wallace contends that meaningful, viable variants constitute less than 1% of the total variants, and he may be generous in that estimate. The vast majority of the New Testament text is not even disputed.

    Note, of course, that neither the number of variants, nor the number of manuscripts, actually impacts the historicity of the autograph. These statistics form the basis for our best measure of how accurate our current copies are, information that we need in studying the now absent autographs.

    I use the fact that there are some substantial variants in my book When People Speak for God in discussing inerrancy. Modern proponents of inerrancy assert inerrancy of the autographs, and believe that inerrancy is a necessary characteristic if one is to assert any authority for scripture. I challenge this on the basis that we do not have the autographs, yet many of us do, in fact, accept the authority of the scripture as we have it.

    This relates to Wallace’s third category, which he describes thus:

    The third category are those variants that can affect the meaning in a significant way but have a very poor pedigree. A classic example is 1 John 5.7 in the King James Bible (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”). This reading is not found in any manuscripts prior to the 12th century, and even then it is found as a marginal reading written by a scribe several centuries later than the original scribe wrote. . . .

    The paragraph continues with the sparse representation of this reading. Certainly no modern textual critic would be likely to argue that 1 John 5:7-8 as read in the KJV is an original reading. Yet many people have used Bibles that contain that disputed passage, and seen them as authoritative. In other words, inerrancy is not needed for authority, and in fact, very, very few people have had an inerrant Bible, even if inerrancy of the autographs is essential.

    I believe the Bible is adequately preserved for it’s intended purpose, and that we do not need to possess an inerrant Bible for that purpose.

    Having digressed into my side interest, the value of Dr. Wallace’s work is that he is so thorough in his basic scholarship that you can often evaluate opponents’ work by reading his summary of their view. Thus while I will disagree with some conclusions, the basic work is exceptional. He is doing a great service in going over this basic information. Many church members are quite confused on the subject of textual criticism, and what it means or does not mean, for the reliability of the Bibles they hold in their hands.