… during the closing song at church today, Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee. Perhaps this explains it! Or perhaps not.
Category: Christianity
-
Biblical Studies Carnival and Biblioblogs Top 50
The Biblical Studies Carnival has been posted at Bulletin for the Study of Religion, and the Biblioblogs Top 50 is out. I’ve moved up in the world to #35, probably as the result of actually blogging (what a concept!).
-
Creationism vs Anti-evolutionism

- Image via Wikipedia
According to Todd Wood there’s a real difference, and I agree, although I think real creationists are a bit thin on the ground. He writes about this on the Center for Faith and Science International web site. One of the requirements, in my view, is the admission that the foundation of young age creationist thinking is accepting Genesis 1-11 as history and building from there. To claim that one accepts young age creationism based solely on current scientific evidence is simply no believable.
That is precisely where Todd Wood and Kurt Wise (author of Faith, Form, and Time–the one creationist book you should read if you want to understand it) are refreshingly honest. They admit they start with their conviction about what the Bible says and that there is much science to be done to back up such a view.
What caught my attention in this article is the reference to George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist who pioneered modern day creationism and flood geology. I got to Price’s writings by starting with Frank Lewis Marsh and his small book Evolution or Special Creation. Marsh was somewhat more accessible than Price.
Despite the fact that I believe that to read Genesis 1-11 as history is generally to misread it, I appreciate the faith stance of Todd Wood and Kurt Wise and their honesty in admitting their starting point in faith.
(I’m experimenting with Zemanta. I may have overdone the linking!)
-
Wesleyan-Arminian vs Calvinist Self-Identification
I found this interesting article at Baptist Press via the Methoblog’s Twitter feed. The article discusses an apparent divide between the Southern Baptist Convention and other denominations on how many pastors, particularly young pastors, are identifying themselves as Calvinists. One interesting note is that while identification as Calvinist outside the SBC is not increasing, identification as Wesleyan or Arminian is decreasing over this same time period.
Now I have to confess that my first question regarding such a report is just what the methodology was. Usually when you dig down to the actual questions, you find out that a survey doesn’t produce quite as much information, or at least the type of information that reports indicate.
In this case the human tendency is to say that this indicates there are more Calvinists and less Wesleyans or Arminians around today. And that may indeed be true, especially including all denominations. But it’s important to realize that this report didn’t define any of its terms; it simply asked about self-identification.
That’s important. I’m wondering how many of those questioned are knowledgeable enough to properly classify themselves. I’ve encountered a few United Methodist pastors who couldn’t identify all of the five points of Calvinism, and thus would have a hard time determining whether they were Calvinist or not. And considering that there are five points of Arminianism, which actually predate the five points of Calvinism (as a form of expression, not as theological beliefs), I have to wonder how many pastors (not to mention lay members) could actually tell an interviewer just what it means to be Arminian.
I have found even more in the charismatic and pentecostal streams who don’t acknowledge any connection to their Wesleyan roots, if they are actually aware of them. This results in some interesting theological mixes in charismatic and pentecostal thinking. One that I find most interesting is that eschatology derived from dispensationalism is quite popular, while other views associated with dispensational theology, such as cessationism, are excluded.
I’m not saying one cannot produce a similar eschatology without resort to dispensationalism, but I certainly have not seen it done very well in most Wesleyan, charismatic, or pentecostal writing or teaching. (Caveat: I have not done a thorough survey of the literature. That’s something I’d like to do at some point. This is anecdotal.) It is nonetheless interesting to watch people grab random pieces of Daniel, Isaiah, Joel, and other books, mix them with 1 Thessalonians, Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21, and mix them with Revelation, without any real framework for just how the text should be interpreted in its original context, and what is the proper framework to use in connecting them. While I do not accept classical dispensationalism (more modern progressive dispensationalism seems hard to reject outright–it says so little!) I must admit that it does provide a fairly stable framework on which to hang these various texts.
I recall one class I was teaching on Revelation, in which the students insisted I dedicate a class to teaching about the tribulation. While I do believe there will be troubled times before the end, I do not believe in a “Tribulation” in the sense of a seven year period. In any case, I made my best effort at bringing in the texts while not actually lying about what I thought of the relationship between them, and the class got pretty glassy eyed as we looked at each one. I would note that most of them still accepted the tribulation at the end. They were well steeped in the “Left Behind” series.
But I must reign myself in and return to topic, or at least somewhere in the vicinity of the topic. I’m wondering what others have experienced. Is self-identification accurate in terms of Calvinism and Arminianism? How many people who identify themselves as “neither” might simply not know enough about the roots of their current theology? How many are identifying with more modern movements derived from one or the other? (I think this latter idea would be more likely for Wesleyan-Arminians than for Calvinists.)
Finally, how many think they have transcended this debate in some way? I’d be interested in comments or links to blog posts on the subject.
-
Gordon Fee and Pentecostal Scholarship
Charisma magazine has a great article on Gordon Fee (HT: sunestauromai).
I particularly was struck by these two paragraphs:
For the most part, though, Pentecostals remain resistant to—or indifferent toward—theology and scholarship. After all, modern Pentecostalism was birthed in spiritual experience, not intellectualism. As the movement spread, Pentecostals simply didn’t see a need for theological pursuits. “We don’t need scholars; we just need the Holy Spirit!” has been the mainstream Pentecostal cry for the last 100 years.
Among evangelicals, few have looked to Pentecostals for in-depth biblical teaching. A commonly held view has been: “Pentecostal theology? What’s that?”
I encountered the first attitude in an introductory class I taught on studying the Bible. One young lady quit the class, saying that though I was teaching good things she didn’t need any of it, because she had the Holy Spirit. I can testify that she displayed very great need of learning to study the Bible more diligently!
I have exemplified the second attitude. When a friend of my daughter came home from ministry school with a book on Pentecostal theology. I remember remarking that I didn’t know there was such a thing! Of course today that’s exaggerating things somewhat. In my own publishing efforts I hope to bring together the work of conservative, liberal, and charismatic scholars to the benefit of all.
Gordon Fee has made a wonderful contribution over the years. I regard his commentary on 1 Corinthians in the NICOT series
to be one of the best commentaries on any Bible book I have ever read, and for its size and audience probably the best. (Of course, one must consider that I haven’t had time to read that large a number of commentaries!) I’m looking forward to reading his new commentary on Revelation.
In any case, check out the article, and especially the comments on prosperity theology. It is no wonder that a serious student of Paul would be very critical of modern prosperity or “health and wealth” theology.
-
Christ the King Sunday
I sometimes complain about the way lectionary passages are cut off before difficult passages, so I thought it might be nice to mention the truly wonderful selection of the gospel for Christ the King Sunday today. The gospel passage is Luke 23:33-43. At our “Lectionary at Lunch” gathering, led by Geoffrey Lentz, a number of folks were questioning this passage choice.
The key, of course is in verse 38, with the inscription placed above Jesus’ head: This is the king of the Jews. It’s placed as an insult, but is wonderfully and ironically completely true! This follows the record of how the crowd is mocking Jesus, and then it’s followed by the conversation with the two malefactors crucified on either side. Then Jesus behaves as a king–a king in the style of his kingdom.
It’s such a good example of the difference between God’s kingdom and our various kingdoms. We encounter the king on a cross. It reminds me of Revelation 5:1-6. There nobody is found worthy to open the scroll. The angel tells John to stop weeping, because the lion of the tribe of Judah is worthy. But when he turns to look, there’s a lamb that looks like it has been slain.
God just doesn’t do things our way!
-
Responding to the New Atheism
Laura at Pursuing Holiness has a good post on a Christian response to the New Atheism. I agree largely with Laura, though I would comment on a couple of details.
First, a common objection I hear to the new atheists is that they are too vocal and forceful. I think this criticism is not well directed. There is no reason to expect atheists to be quiet about what they believe. As Christians we do not want to be muzzled. What purpose is there in trying to do the same to others.
Second, my Christian friends, there are real atheists out there. There are some people who call themselves athesists who really are just backslidden Christians or often people have been so offended by other Christians that they can’t stand Christianity as a religion. But there are others who are philosophically convinced that there is no god of any variety.
Neither of these points is actually in response to Laura, but rather to comments made to me or read elsewhere.
Christian apologetics is important, but its role is different than many people seem to think. Few people are argued into the kingdom, if any. What apologetics (done right) can accomplish is to clear the ground, deal with particular objections, and help Christians better understand their own theology and its impact on other areas of their lives.
In the substance of her post I think Laura is right on. The best defense we can possibly give to Christianity is to be Christian disciples. I don’t know where some of the commenters on Laura’s post go to church, but what I hear about social justice in church is not soft or easy. There is a view of social justice which calls for Christians to automatically support government programs that claim to help the poor because that is social justice. Biblical social justice calls on me to give of myself. It’s not a political manifesto; it’s a call to me personally and as part of a church community to carry out sacrificial ministry.
I am perfectly comfortable with having Christians arguing from all portions of the political spectrum as to what government’s role should be. A Christian’s duty is not fulfilled by advocacy for government action, nor are Christians derelict in their duty if they believe such social action is not an appropriate sphere of government action.
But both groups (and folks like me in the middle) are derelict in their Christian duty if they are not serving others by giving of themselves.
The church has, in fact, failed in its duty to challenge the culture and to be God’s kingdom in the world. Our first loyalty has to be to the Kingdom of God and not the nations of the world. We need to get our primary loyalty straightened out so that people can tell we’re Christians and that this makes a difference.
And while we are about this type of social justice we need to remember that the core of any social justice we pursue must be the gospel message. My impression based on our actions is that we do not generally believe, on the left or the right, that the gospel message really can change lives. If we believed it our answer to many issues would be simple: the gospel of Jesus Christ.
This is not, as Laura put it, merely a form of fire insurance. It is a message that is transforming and demanding, two characteristics missing from too many of our churches. (Of course it is God who transforms, but he has chosen to do so through the proclamation of the gospel.)
I’d like to commend two books that I publish on this topic, and a third that is forthcoming. Christian Archy (David Alan Black) talks about our first loyalty to God’s kingdom. We will be releasing another volume, The Politics of Witness (Allan R. Bevere) in the same series that discusses why the church cannot speak truth to power today. On the matter of Christian discipleship we have The Jesus Paradigm (David Alan Black).
-
Biblioblog Top 50 Posted
… and I have clawed my way back onto the list, at a miserable #43. Ah well, it helps if one actually blogs!
-
Common Ground on Genesis
On the Spectrum blog there’s quite a lot of discussion of the age of the earth and a search for common ground. The problem with the phrase “common ground” is that it can mean many different things. Two recent articles on the age of the earth had quotes that caught my attention. As far as I can tell (my specialty is Biblical languages, not any of the various sciences involved), the discussion of the various dating methods is quite good.
This material comes from members of the Seventh-day Adventist church, my former denomination, and one that is pretty firm on the young age of the universe and a literal seven day creation week. Watching this discussion unfold amongst SDAs is something I find fascinating.
The first article, Genesis Literalism and the Temple of Doom – I, after summarizing some of the methods, concludes:
Even if the message is not one we want to hear, recognizing the validity of these tools of science should be the basis for common ground.
Sounds good thus far. Then we continue with the second article, creatively titled Genesis Literalism and the Temple of Doom – II, and after some more dating methods are summarized we have another conclusion:
The obvious question, then, is, “how should the Church respond to this evidence?” As suggested previously, perhaps the best way to deal with this evidence, given a predisposition in favor of YEC, is simply to say nothing about age. Taking this approach would act as a hedge against further compelling scientific confirmation of a very old age. To proceed in this way would preserve the Church’s credibility, and would seem to be the only approach to common ground.
This one doesn’t strike me right at all. Essentially keeping silent about age when you’ve just admitted that the scientific evidence is entirely against young age seems very odd, and doesn’t seem any basis for common ground at all. Common ground between what groups or positions? In essence, by its silence, the church would say “We were wrong, but we don’t want to admit it, so now we’re going quiet.” Or so it seems to me …
I see two options for someone convinced that the earth is old, yet who espouses some form of biblically based Christianity: 1) Take a new look at the biblical evidence or role in the discussion or 2) Admit science is against you, but uphold what you believe the Bible teaches. The first approach is mine, looking both at how we understand certain passages of scripture and also looking at the role God intended scripture to play in scientific discussions. I’ve written on that before. Dr. Kurt Wise and Dr. Todd Wood are examples of folks who take the second approach.
I don’t think silence is going to work long term. I hope I will see in future installments that I have misunderstood the intent of the writer. I will certainly continue to read the series.



