The AAAS web site has a wonderful profile of Hana and Francisco Ayala, along with an interview with both on video. Dr. Francisco Ayala states that ID is not science, but it is also very bad theology. He calls evolution the unifying principle of biology, and calls intelligent design “blasphemy.”
This is worthwhile listening for anyone who is really interested in this issue. I strongly recommend listening to it. There is a written summary here.
There’s a new post on The Daily Kos, Know Your Creationists: Bill Dembski, that readers may find interesting. It provides some background, and there are some links to some work on the math in the comments.
I appreciate those mathematicians who have deconstructed Dembski’s math. When I first read something by him, it occurred to me that there was a major problem, in that the whole thing really depended on the probability of a process occurring when he really did not know what that process was. What is the probability of the bacterial flagellum being produced by natural processes? Unless we know the processes or we can truly eliminate all possible processes, there’s really no way to know. It could be absolutely impossible, or it could be quite a simple variation. I didn’t bother to plow through the math as I’m certainly not qualified to comment on it. There’s a simple principle however, applicable to any algorithm, that garbage in will produce garbage out. I simply (and perhaps lazily) assumed that if garbage was going out, it didn’t matter how many pages it took to describe the math, garbage was coming out.
An excellent place to start on critiques of Dembski is the work of Howard van Till. His article E. Coli at the No Free Lunchroom: Bacterial Flagella and Dembskis Case for Intelligent Design is excellent. You can read it as a PDF as well, which would be my own preference, and you can follow more of the exchange starting with the following links on the AAAS web site: Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion: Perspectives.
I have frequently commented that intelligent design (ID) is bad theology. Equally often, I am challenged by someone who will point out that ID may be bad theology from my point of view, while it might be good theology from someone else’s point of view. This is a very valid objection to what I have said, though I will defend the basic point. ID could be more correctly termed “theology done badly” than “bad theology.”
Nonetheless, since ID is being supported primarily by Christians, and evangelical Christians at that, it can be quite properly called “bad theology” as well, because it is bad theology within what is supposed to be the theological framework of most of its supporters. If you are wondering why there is a split amongst conservative Christians over ID, it is simply that many conservative Christians are saying either that this does not prove or that it is not even trying to prove anything that actually works within their theology.
In talking to Christian groups, I frequently find people who are shocked that I don’t support ID. “How can you not believe the universe is designed?” they ask. My answer is that I don’t accept ID precisely because I believe that the universe is designed. However it is disguised, however many chapters of mathematical formulas are provided, however many pious statements are made (whenever someone is not trying to pretend this is not theology), ID does not prove, and is not attempting to prove that the universe is designed. It is, in fact, attempting to prove that some elements are more designed than others, i.e. when we deal with specified complexity as a test of design, it means that we distinguish things that could happen randomly, and things that happen by design. Right or wrong, evangelical Christians are generally very uncomfortable with things that happen randomly. They are not looking for Paley’s watch on the seashore to prove that the watch is designed, but rather to prove that everything is designed.
Incidentally, that remains a failing of Paley’s proof for the existence of God. In traditional Christian theology the sea, the seashore, and each grain of sand is a design, and not just the watch, so again we’re distinguishing design from design. Theologians grab hold of such arguments largely because in a scientific age in which objective knowledge is king, they want to have just such scientific facts in hand. They want to replace faith with fact, but do so without giving up theology. The ID theorists envy the scientists their objective data, and their theories that explain major categories of evidence in an elegant way. They want that for themselves, but they don’t want to give up theology and go pursue science in order to do it.
Scientists wonder why ID proponents are so slow to get down to actual research and publication related to their material if they really want ID to be accepted as scientific. Michael Behe has even suggested research, questionable as it may be, that could be done, but nobody is doing it. Why? Because these people are essentially following the processes of theology. They are rearranging the existing ideas and historical data, and constantly wondering why it is that it doesn’t become acceptable science. They can maintain this search despite scientific training because they have become theologically convinced that theological proposals must be able to be as true as, and as demonstrably true as the results of the hard sciences.
This comes simply from a different approach. Most commonly theology, especially Christian theology, focuses on coherence rather than correspondence. (I’m bracing myself for the accusations that I am oversimplifying here. I am. I confess it. But I think that the generalization is adequately valid for my purposes and I don’t want to dig that far into epistemology.) The scientific method, on the other hand, focuses on correspondence. If a theologian finds a misbehaving fact, one that won’t fit into the system, he is first going to look for a way to tuck it into the system. A scientist in the same circumstances will try to adjust the theory, and if that fails, will hope to propose a new one and become famous. This is what the general public seems to miss about science and scientists. Discovering revolutionary new things is something scientists dream of. You don’t get famous by producing more data to support an existing theory; you have to produce something new. Theologians do try to produce something new as well, but most commonly that is a new way of arranging or looking at old data. An entirely new theology can be built without a single piece of hard data being introduced. And need I mention inventing data, something that gets scientists get caught at and get drummed out of the profession, but makes theologians founders of new religions. 🙂
A theologian doesn’t worry about new discoveries destroying his systematic theology. He is concerned instead with people who take apart the logic, or reinterpret some foundational text, and then follow some new path through the data. Rarely, however, does such a reinterpretation result in the original author recanting his view. It will probably just start a new school of theology, or a new sub-school, or perhaps a new sub-sub school. That’s because one theologian can’t tell another one that he is unable to replicate his data, and thus the theologian’s theology must be false.
Let me detour for a moment to comment that when a theologian deals with a field that does have objective data there will be a difference, and that theologians can make statements that can be objectively disproven. For example, a preacher approached my son when he was ill with cancer, and said that God had told him that anyone he laid hands on and prayed for would be healed of cancer. He laid hands on my son and prayed. My son later died of that cancer. Claim falsified. Fortunately, my son was smarter than the preacher, and didn’t let those words ruin such time as he had left at that point. But even in these cases, the theologian’s approach is not generally to alter the theory, but to explain the data within the prior theory. The recipient didn’t have enough faith (whether that was specificed in advance or not), the historical data that seems to contradict the inerrancy of the Bible can be explained in some other way, or will soon enough be contradicted by other data and God (or rather the theologian) will be vindicated.
If I can illustrate from something closer to my own field of Biblical studies, let’s say new evidence is discovered about the destruction of Jericho, as has happened several times. The objective archeologist takes the new data and adjusts his historical charts for the city of Jericho, looking at all available evidence. The theologian, in this case a defender of the Bible, looks at that data to see how it can be handled to support the Biblical story of the destruction of Jericho by Joshua and the Israelites. Some skeptics, taking an equally theological approach look at the same data to see how well it can be used to oppose the Biblical story. Only the view that attempts to formulate the best understanding taking into account all of the data (and that admits where data is absent) is an attitude compatible with a scientific approach. (I’m avoiding here differences between historical study and hard science. My observation is that the data comes down on the side of the defenders sometimes and of the skeptics sometimes, which suggests to me that the Bible is neither 100% historical when talking about history, nor is it totally in error. Of course, any amount of error means not inerrant.)
This takes me to the current mini-flap about an article Rumors of Angels: Using ID to Detect Malevolent Spiritual Agents. Scientists quite properly laugh this out of scientific court. But why would ID advocates avoid it? The intelligent designer is not specified. ID is not supposed to be a religious concept. So what difference does it make if the designer is an alien, and unknown intelligence from the stars, an angel, a demon, or God Almighty?
But that article has underlined the problem, because we clearly see that ID cannot distinguish between these various possibilities of a designer, because it is trying to demonstrate design in those little places where some external intelligence (rodents of unusual size, perhaps?) might tinker with life in an experimental lab. It’s precisely because they are not looking for design in the traditional sense that most Christians accept theologically, that this kind of thing cannot be excluded. Evangelical theologians would not be proposing angels and demons as agents of creation. But ID doesn’t really have a defense against it.
And please, my fellow Christians, don’t laugh just because we’re talking angels and demons. If you believe in one invisible friend, who are you to laugh at more invisible friends and and some invisible enemies. I see nothing in Christian theology that suggests that we can’t have such agents involved. But again, the fact that ID can admit this shows that it is working much more like theology than science. It reminds me of a three year old foster child my parents took in when I was a teenager. Whenever something bad happened, she’d announce, “Somebody done it, but I didn’t done it!” ID has attained just that level of explanatory power. When all current explanations have failed, ID proposes that we announce: “Somebody done it!”
Personally I don’t see much theological light in seeing demons interfering with nature. I’d have a serious practical problem if someone started suggesting exorcism as the proper response to Ebola, but then DD (demonic design) doesn’t suggest that the demons are actually in the virus, but rather that they adjusted it. I don’t tend to see “spiritual beings” as existing, but rather as more of a metaphor allowing us to use concrete language about spiritual issues. But then that’s my theology. Others will be more receptive to spiritual entities, many will be less so. That’s theology for you!
And thus I see ID as badly done theology, because it does not fit itself into any theological system, including the one purportedly held by most of its advocates, and because it presents itself as though it was theologically demonstrating something it cannot. In my own Christian view of a creator God who is sovereign over all and designed everything, however small, including many processes that produce other things in predictable ways, it is also just plain bad theology. Your mileage may differ on how good the theology is, but it remains theology, nonetheless.
But something else that shows up here is that it is also politics, because it shows a different face to different people. Many Christians right now are deceived into thinking that somehow these scientists who advocate ID have “proven” the existence of God and the presence of the creator. Because they believe this has been scientifically proven, they cannot see why it should not be taught as science in the classroom. Finally, they think, the existence of God has been made as certain as the principles that allow an airplane to fly! But ID has acomplished no such thing, and I would suggest that Christians should not rejoice if it had. The ID movement is perpetrating this deception as a political strategy. This makes it badly done theology used as a political strategy. The jury is still out on whether it’s an effective political strategy.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1, NRSV). Let’s not confuse that with science. If that type of faith embarrasses you, perhaps you should reconsider your faith choice.
In several recent posts, especially dealing with issues of harsh passages in Hebrew scriptures (or the Old Testament), I have referred to a book, Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? by Dr. Alden Thompson. This book was critical as I developed my own view of scripture and especially as I dealt with some of the difficult passages. I generally find that Alden’s views are a bit more conservative than mine, and also that he is usually a bit more gentle in presenting them, which is not a bad thing.
I was Alden’s student at Walla Walla College in the years before he first published the book, but we dealt with a number of the same issues in his classes. The book is now in its 4th edition, and I’m now the publisher as the sole owner of the publishing company that now offers this little book. There have been few changes through the editions, except for some adjustments of style and language. I find that new readers find it as relevant today as its first readers did in the early 1980s. Christians have struggled with these types of issues for a long time, and many have either been told not to question or have been given pat answers. Sometimes these answers are given as “offers you can’t refuse.” The attitude is “who are you to question God?” and thus if you don’t accept the explanation your faith is weak, or you may even be an infidel.
Alden takes these issues head on, and finds grace in the Old Testament where others find anger. He doesn’t tell you that you shouldn’t ask such impious questions.
He starts by suggesting that we need to see the Old Testament for itself (Don’t let your New Testament get in the way of your Old Testament), then puts the entire discussion in a Biblical context through discussion of creation and the fall. This is a fairly traditional chapter, and evangelical Christians should find themselves quite comfortable with this outline. He points to the “very good” of Genesis 1 and the “totally evil” of Genesis 6 showing the deterioration of humanity, and then asking how God is to deal with this state of rebellion. He uses the “great controversy” or “cosmic conflict” theme as a background. Some will want to get right to chapter 3, “Whatever happened to Satan in the Old Testament?” and here there is a unique view of the role of Satan in scripture.
Then he gets down to the meat of the problem, successively dealing with the apparently strange laws (Strange people need strange laws), relationships between Israel and the Canaanites (Could you invite a Canaanite home to lunch?), and then the worst story in the Old Testament, Judges 19-21. I’m not sure this is the worst story, but it is certainly an excellent example. Alden applies his approach to questions of why such a story is included in the Bible, why God would allow such things to take place among His people, and what it is that we are to learn from the story. If you haven’t read it, do so now, possibly even starting with Judges 17 (Micah’s Images). If you find it difficult to see God’s grace in action in those chapters, you might find it valuable to read Alden’s discussion–it might transform your view of Old Testament history.
From there Alden turns to “The best story in the Old Testament: The Messiah.” Here he discusses the Messianic prophecies and their application to the ministry of Jesus. Both conservatives and liberals will find some things to question here, because he neither affirms every Old Testament prophecy in the way that many conservative Christians would prefer, nor does he discard the notion of fulfilled prophecy. This chapter in itself is a worthwhile study for anyone who plans to discuss these Old Testament prophecies and their application.
Finally, he deals with the prayers in the Psalms. We tend to read the Psalms a bit selectively, sticking with thoroughly comforting passages. But what about Psalm 137:8-9? How comforting is that? Is such vengefulness Christian? He titles the chapter, “What kind of prayers would you publish if you were God?”
A common theme throughout the book, though it is not addressed head-on, is Biblical inspiration. Why are there things that are this difficult in the Bible if God is trying to communicate with us? How can we be sure of getting truth from the Bible. Alden doesn’t address Biblical inerrancy by that title, but he does look at the process of inspiration and how it works, and helps us find an anchor in the two laws (love God, love neighbor) as presented by Jesus to help us work our way through passages that are difficult to interpret.
I have thoroughly appreciated this book from the time I first read it. I have taught a number of classes using it. I have found that it consistenly is a faith building book. At the same time it is honest, and allows the reader to question and feel confident in doing so. I would especially recommend this to Christians who have never been able to enjoy reading the Hebrew scriptures. It will help you get comfortable reading those passages and letting them speak for themselves.
(Note: In case you missed it at the start, I own Energion Publications, which now publishes this book, so I have a commercial interest in it. As publisher, however, I’m pleased to have it in our line.)
Three posts today called my attention to the problem of uncritical thinking amongst Christians. This is a topic I bring up frequently. It’s not that I believe those who think critically will automatically agree with me. I’ve had to revise some of my own opinions after thinking critically about them at a later date. But some people seem to be sailing through the intellectual seas without any rudder at all.
How long, gullible people, will you love being gullible?
You scorners delight in scorn?
And fools hate knowledge? — Proverbs 1:22Test everything!
Hold onto what is good.
Keep away from every form of evil. — 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22
(Translation by the author)
It seems that many Christians change this latter verse into “Accept everything, as long as the authors make sufficiently pious pronouncements.” This morning the gullible seem to be out in force. Actually, they probably always are, but this morning they caught my attention, which gave me a chance to blog about two of my favorite Bible verses (the two I quoted above, in case you missed it).
The first item I found via Dispatches from the Culture Wars via the post Catholic Art is Satanic. Ed Brayton’s post refers to an article over at WorldNetDaily titled ‘Satanic’ art in Catholic Church exposed: Documentary links clergy sex abuse with occult imagery. Sometimes “testing” doesn’t take very long. This one doesn’t pass the “snork test,” i.e. can you read it while drinking coffee and not have to clean your keyboard and monitor afterward. On the other hand, it illustrates a willingness amongst Christians to believe anything nasty about “those Catholics.” And just be aware that I did read the part about the authors being Catholic themselves, which is a good indication that often Catholics can be their own worst enemies. I bet this will be spread far and wide by non-Catholics looking for reasons why Catholics must not be real Christians.
Then I browsed over to The Panda’s Thumb where Nick Matzke pointed to another really interesting case. Here Robert C. Newman, in an article titled Rumors of Angels: Using ID to Detect Malevolent Spiritual Agents has now proposed a way to discover the activities not just of angels, but also of demonic agents in the world. What he seems to have failed to accomplish is to find any way to define just what it is that these agents do, or how one would scientifically determine the difference between a world in which angels and demons repeatedly made adjustments to creatures, and a world in which random mutations were selected for naturally. I do think that the folks in the intelligent design movement shouldn’t laugh at Newman’s work, however, since he has as much of a solid basis for it as they do for an “intelligent” design agent of undefined capabilities.
Finally, thanks to Nick Matzke’s entry, I followed a trackback to Uncommon Descent (Dr. Bill Dembski’s blog), where DaveScot demonstrates elitism for us. His original comment suggested that Nick Matzke had finally found an opponent that would make him look well-versed in science. That was a cheap, and inaccruate shot in itself. But then he tries the “we’re more elite than you” form of argument by posting an update to add that Newman has a PhD from “(Ivy League) Cornell” and thus he offers his ” . . . abject apologies to Dr. Newman for the comparison.” Yes, he really did add “(Ivy League)” in parentheses before the word “Cornell” for those of us to ignorant to understand the true importance of someone with a PhD from an Ivy League school. Hmmm . . . let’s see. While he was at it, he referred to Nick Matzke’s school as “unremarkable” and to his field of geography as much more lightweight than that of chemistry or biology.
I would suggest that it’s pretty silly for the person in the minority to try to make an argument based on the weight of degrees and on elitism. I find that generally a sign of intellectual vacuity in any case, and when one knows that one’s opponents are more numerous, with more prestigious degrees, and a much more substantial research and publication record, then it’s vacuity compounded by stupidity. Of course, he would like to think he’s merely attacking Nick Matzke, and perhaps is enjoying his cheap shot when he thinks he can get by with it. I would suggest instead working on some of that scientific research. Perhaps he can show us sometime how any amount of mathematical formulas will make garbage-in not result in garbage out.
I would not claim the prestigious degrees of the majority as proof that they are right. I know that minorities can become majorities if they have a good case.
(Oh, by the way, let me save you some time. I’m not a mathematician. My degrees are not in the natural sciences, not even in “lightweight” geography. I have not attained a PhD. My schools were not Ivy League, nor are they spoken of together with the University of Chicago. But my nonsense detector is in good shape.)
My ChristianityToday.com “Connection” e-mail brought me a link yesterday to their blog Out of Ur. The specific entry was an excerpt from an article by John Suk from an essay in Perspectives, A Personal Relationship with Jesus?. The Christianity Today discussion is at Your Own Personal Jesus: Is the language of “a personal relationship” biblical?, and the topic has generated some substantial discussion.
I found myself quite annoyed while reading this article, and it took me a few minutes to understand why. After all, I prefer to read material with which I disagree, so I spend many unannoyed hours every day reading things that express a completely different viewpoint from mine. Here, however, I think the problem is simply the tone. This article carries exactly the tone of the older church member who comes to me to bemoan the deterioration of the modern church, and to inform me of how much more holy and righteous everyone was when he or she was young. But it also has another overtone: The expert whose views and processes have been bypassed by upstarts who just haven’t paid their dues. In the middle of all this, however, the author expresses a couple of quite appropriate theological and especially pastoral concerns.
The elements of this condescending tone are illustrated by the following:
Ultimately, the phrase “a personal relationship with Jesus,” is not found in the Bible. Thus, there is no sustained systematic theological reflection on what the phrase must or most likely means. In fact, people experience the personal presence of God–if that is what they are really experiencing–in a wide variety of idiosyncratic and highly personal ways.
Heaven help us if we come close to God without “sustained systematic theological reflection!” The fact is that most people who do have a relationship with God are going to live their lives without what the average evangelical theologian would call “sustained systematic theological reflection.” I’m not really against such reflection, but as a criticism it reflects more elitism than either a Biblical sense of conversion and putting one’s trust in Jesus, or of serious discipleship. Some of the strongest statements of commitment and discipleship I have ever heard have come from children who have spent little or no time in reflection about God, and certainly done nothing that could be regarded as “systematic theological reflection.”
I have never managed to improve on the statement of God’s grace and the call to discipleship that I made to my mother when I was eight years old. My mother tells the story in her book Directed Paths (one risks such stories when encouraging one’s mother to write!):
At the time, Henry was only eight but he begged for permission to go help. I knew he could be useful in helping to carry food, water and run errands, but he had never had the measles.
He kept saying, Mama, please let me go. Patty is helping and I want to help, too.
I’ve used the term phrase “divine-human combination” or something quite close to it several times over the last few days. It’s easy to make it appear that this concept of inspiration, sometimes called “incarnational” is largely a tool to deal with the difficult parts of scripture. When I read “love your neighbor as yourself” I don’t have to apply such an interpretation, but when I read “go kill all the ____” then I must resort to a special understanding of inspiration. The feeling might be that Biblical inerrancy is fine, except for a few annoying passages. But this is not my approach.
An incarnational understanding of scripture places the burden on the community and on the individual, who make decisions in their faith, practice, and in their daily lives. There is a certain truth to the accusation that this more liberal approach to scripture is more people-centered than God-centered. This should be seen as a good thing. I take some of my warrant for this view from 1 John 4:20, which reads: “If anyone says ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar. For how can one who doesn’t love his brother, whom he has seen, love God, whom he has not seen?” The focus of our actions is to be people, even though those people-oriented actions are accepted by God as service to him.
This is not, however, solely a characteristic of the incarnational model. It’s openly acknowledged and celebrated by those who use an incaranational model of inspiration, but for everyone, the word of God as it comes to your own mind, is mixed with the human element. Even if you believe that the Bible in its current written form is perfect, your understanding of that word will always be imperfect. There is simply no way to get perfect knowledge into an imperfect mind. In this sense, the incarnational model puts more of the emphasis on God, because God is seen as active throughout the process. The Holy Spirit is present inspiring the prophets and remains active inspiring listeners, writers, copyists, and finally even modern exegetes, of Bible students known by less pretentious titles.
The question becomes simply “How does God’s message get to me?” or “How does God’s message get to my community?” In answer to these questions we have a model in scripture as we have it in canonical form.
I think we lose part of that pattern with the more modern understanding of special and general revelation. Those categories are not without some merit, but I think they lose some of the “many portions and many ways” (Hebrews 1:1) in which God has spoken and continues to speak. In modern times I would add simply that God speaks through the natural world. I think this is simply an extension of point #1, God speaking through is action in history.
What this means in my daily life, however, is that I must make decisions. I bring all these elements to bear on the issue. I ask what is the appropriate principle to apply, and then in the end I take responsibility for what I have done. And this applies whether you are a charismatic believer receiving a “word from the Lord” via a modern day prophet, or someone searching the Bible for wisdom. You have to ask what all of these elements of God’s revelation are telling you, and then you combine them using your human reasoning, enlightend by the Spirit of Truth.
No, it’s not “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” You don’t have that one-to-one correspondence, but then you never did. Everyone has a scheme for determining what part of the Bible applies. The question is really not whether you are responsible for making the decision. It is whether you will acknowledge your responsibility and exercise it appropriately.
Some may be aware that I’m a publisher as well as a writer, and so every so often I want to talk about one of the books I publish. My intention in starting a publishing company in the first place was simple: I wanted to produce materials for which I saw an unfilled need in religious education. In general, these materials address what I call the broad Christian center, mainline Christians, moderates, and liberals who are not well represented in the available literature. In addition, I wanted to keep these in conversation with more conservative Christians who were nonetheless willing to be part of, and in dialogue with, that broader stream. The key element is positive presentation of a viewpoint and inclusion, rather than exclusion. Please note that this is not a review of the book. As editor and publisher I am in no sense qualified to present a review. I’m just presenting the reasons why I chose this book to publish and also the role I see it filling.
In presenting this book, which has actually been in our Energion Publications catalog since November 2005, I want to give some background.
In 1995 I was a member of Pine Forest United Methodist Church in Pensacola, Florida when the Brownsville Revival, also known as the Pensacola Outpouring broke out. People from all over the country came to Pensacola to experience what was going on at Brownsville Assembly of God. Many members of Pine Forest became involved as well, and Rev. Perry Dalton, the pastor, was involved in baptizing people on some occasions at Brownsville. There was considerable controversy at the church, and some members left over what they saw as “bringing Brownsville” back to “their” church. In 1999, Perry was moved to Springfield UMC near Panama City, Florida, and Dr. Bob McKibben became pastor at Pine Forest. One of his tasks was to deal with continued disunity in the church as the ministry moved forward. I have had the privelege of working with and providing support to both of these pastors in their ministry.
For some years during the Brownsville Revival groups of people from out of town would come, often by the bus load, and stay in the Family Life Center at the church, where they would sleep in sleeping bags on the floor. Many also spent time with folks from Pine Forest in discussions and times of prayer ministry in the sanctuary. I also met occasionally with groups as they returned from the revival. One key element of controversy in these meetings was the nature and importance of “manifestations of the Spirit” that occurred, such as being “slain in the Spirit,” shaking, or other physical signs. The prayer time at Brownsville could become quite confusing, with people on the floor as dead, shaking in the aisles, weeping, or merely crowding around speakers or prayer team members to receive prayer. Key questions that came up were simply whether any of this was of God, whether these manifestations were essential or even indicative of the Holy Spirit’s presence, and whether God’s presence might be manifested in different ways. Some groups who had experienced both Brownsville and the Toronto blessing commented on the organized, peaceful nature of the prayer time at Toronto, as opposed to the chaotic, crowded, and noisy prayer time at Brownsville. In addition there were questions about the repentance emphasis of Brownsville as opposed to the emphasis at Toronto on receiving blessing. (Note that I have never been to the Toronto Airport Vineyard, and am only reporting here what I was told. On the other hand, I have been to Brownsville Assembly of God on more than one occasion.)
I felt that in dealing with this issue both at Pine Forest UMC, and also amongst groups that came from out of town, the major problem was that people did not understand the work of the Holy Spirit, and thus had no basis for making a decision for themselves. Because of this, when Bob McKibben mentioned that he had a manuscript on the subject, I was very interested in seeing it published, and eventually this desire to see it made available led to my editing and publishing it.
Bob takes a much more pastoral approach than I would, which reflects our respective calling. He’s a pastor (and teacher); I’m a teacher. I tend to be very glad to let pastors deal with the practical details! In fact, he subtitled the book “A Pastoral Letter to the Church.” He is very concerned about the potential for injuring new Christians and those who might come into the church through intemperate physical displays. At the same time, he is also concerned that we will shut out the Holy Spirit for various reasons, including a fear of dealing with the topic. Thus he invites you to study with him and think these things through from a Biblical perspective, and carries through in each case to practical application.
This results in a logical progression of topics:
Chapter 1: Let Me Introduce You
Chapter 2: Who Is the Holy Spirit
Chapter 3: Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Chapter 4: Grace and the Holy Spirit
Chapter 5: Fire Power
Chapter 6: Manifestations
Chapter 7: Testing the Spirits
Chapter 8: On Fire Without Getting Burned
Each chapter includes some study exercises and some thought questions for you to discuss. Those who have read my own approach to Biblical interpretation will find Bob’s a bit more conservative. You will also find a conservative and cautious approach to the activities that may take place in a congregation. He’s most concerned with God’s gracious gift of salvation and with the fruit of the Spirit than he is with the gifts, though he is very anxious that we all understand that as Christians we are gifted. He’s more interested in all of those than in physical manifestations.
Charismatic and Pentecostal believers will probably want to criticize some of the material, especially in chapter 6, Manifestations. At the same time some of our more conservative brethren will be concerned with his openness to the possibility of physical manifestations. Some may also be concerned with his acknowledge of the operation of all of the gifts of the Spirit. These chapters present a challenge to all of these different streams to carefully think through their position and to make sure that what they are doing is building the body and not simply operating according to their own whims or their fears. Carefully examining our position on these issues is critical if we are to effectively live out the power of the Spirit in the church today. One weakness in many churches is a resistance to thinking.
Whether you agree or not, this book is going to get you thinking and studying. In fact, I could give no better recommendation for this book than the one I’ve heard my wife, Jody, give repeatedly when we are showing this book to someone. Someone asks, “Is this a good book?” She replies: “Yes. It will challenge you to think through what you believe about the Holy Spirit.”
Today we see much less activity around Brownsville Assembly of God. The team that led the Brownsville revival is scattered to many other places. I would suggest it is likely that if more people had thought through what they believed about the Holy Spirit, and had shifted their emphasis from the obvious physical manifestations to sanctification, discipleship, and mission, we would have seen much more good fruit from the revival. Too many people were not challenged to think through what they believed. I don’t particularly blame Brownsville for this, though there were many things they might have done. I blame us all, myself included, for not studying, thinking, and teaching enough on the Holy Spirit, and leaving church members unable to “. . . test the Spirits, hold fast what is good, and keep away from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22).
I’d like to condense the major arguments with regard to the Bible and slavery, as it appears that at least a couple of people have missed the point at which I’m hooking into this debate. (Please resist the idea that because I use lists when summarizing that I’m actually trying to reduce this to formal logic.)
First, the starting point argument could be summarized as follows:
I originally entered this debate after reading posts and comments on Ed Brayton’s site. His Slavery and the Bible – Take 2, was particularly clear. I want to reference Mark Olson as well, whose Slavery and the Word of God illustrates some of the approaches I’m discussing here.
Now one can attack the position expressed in my little list at several points. For example, one might believe that slavery is not immoral. One might believe that God’s word does not condone slavery. We have seen the following:
My approach allows me to take several options with some of the nasty points in the Bible. I used the example of the commanded genocide of the Midianites in Numbers 31, and I’m going to continue to use that.
Since I said “condensed” let me just say one thing in response to Mark Olson (post linked above). I do believe that one can find good in the Bible, and that one can even find the ideal to pursue. I believe, however, that in order to find that ideal one does have to recognize the human-divine combination in scripture which means that not everything can be fitted into the divine ideal. Paul certainly embraces the equality of slave and free (Galatians 3:28) but he doesn’t do anything public about it. Rather, he gives instructions for slaves to be subject to their masters. I think he’s walking a very difficult line here with the Roman Empire, and Romans 13 is part of that. I cannot, however, see where Romans 13 is simply a softening of the rest of the letter, but then I often find that N. T. Wright presents arguments that are thoroughly researched and brilliantly argued, but that I think are wrong. In this case, I will certainly make the effort to acquire Wright’s comments on this text and see if he can change my mind.
[Note: In the interests of full disclosure, let me note that I am the publisher of Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?.]
Good news! The case against Abdul Rahman has been dismissed, according to a news story on MSNBC,
Afghan Christian converts case to be reviewed. If this is true, this is wonderful news.
The downside may be the reaction of conservatives in Afghanistan where the new government of Hamid Karzai may find itself under increasing pressure from some in its own ranks. This is a chance for moderate Muslims to show their true intentions to be peaceful, to break the stranglehold of Islamic fundamentalism on their faith and country, and take a giant step forward. Doubtless this will be a difficult thing, especially in Afghanistan, but it is a necessary thing.
As Christians, we also need to watch carefully for those who would use force for spiritual goals. We need to be open and ready for dialogue with our neighbors. In other words, we need to make sure that we exemplify the kind of behavior we are asking for from others.
