Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Do You Deserve a Light or a Heavy Beating?

    I’ve probably mentioned a few times that I studied under Dr. Alden Thompson at Walla Walla University (then WWC).  He’s the one who taught me Hebrew, though actually I joined his class in the second year, and also introduced me to Aramaic.  But more importantly, he introduced me to what I believe is a very constructive way of dealing with Bible difficulties.

    He’s just written a book, Beyond Common Ground: Why Liberals and Conservatives Need Each Other which pulls together many of the things I’ve heard him teach over the years.

    I’ll get around to referencing some of those on this blog as I have time, but today I just want to share a video put out by the publisher in which Alden discusses how he goes about understanding some passages from Luke. Now Alden is an Old Testament scholar (PhD, University of Edinburgh), but his passion is for Bible study amongst the laity.

    I’m delighted this little book has been published. My major regret is that it may be neglected because it is published by Pacific Press, a Seventh-day Adventist publisher. Though it was written to help address conflicts within that denomination, the ideas are applicable elsewhere as well. I’ve heard Alden teach some of this material to rooms filled with United Methodists, for example.

    Alden Thompson is also the author of Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? which my company publishes, besides being one of my teachers, so perhaps I am not fully free of bias.

    Nah. This book is good!

  • What Allegiance Comes First

    Dr. Bob Cornwall posts his sermon today, on Acts 5:27-32, dealing with an issue that is quite controversial in the American church, though I think it should not be: Where is my first allegiance as a Christian?

    He tells stories of early Christian martyrs and refers to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He concludes:

    Peter is asking us the question: To whom do you owe your allegiance? Can we say with Peter, and with all due respect to the laws of this country: “[I] must obey God rather than human authority.” Am I willing to count myself among those early Christians who left the council and “rejoiced that they were considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name?”

    It’s worth reading the whole thing.

    What is your first allegiance?

  • Adrian Warnock on the Doctrine of Scripture

    And as you might expect, I’m disagreeing with him. In introducing a post urging people to read Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (not a bad idea), he says:

    There is no more foundational subject than the doctrine of Scripture. All the current theological arguments that are causing such disruption in the Church today stem from a lack of confidence in the authority of Scripture. …

    Now the first part of that statement is pretty obvious and quite foundational. I don’t think we can be Christian and talk about being Christian without dealing with the doctrine of scripture. However far you may end up away from regarding scripture as foundational, you’re going to have to deal with this doctrine.

    As it happens, I believe that scripture is foundational, and whatever we believe must be rooted in it. Not only our doctrine of scripture, but also our hermeneutic that is derived from that basic doctrine is critical in how we will understand and live our faith. I would like to see us discuss this more.

    But the second sentence is quite problematic, and I think represents one of the greatest barriers to sound dialog within orthodox Christianity today. Let me quote it again:

    All the current theological arguments that are causing such disruption in the Church today stem from a lack of confidence in the authority of Scripture.

    Um, not so much. Now there are people who lack confidence in scripture, and this can lead them to many odd views, views which fall outside of reasonable definitions of the bounds of Christianity. There are also people who express (at least) great confidence in scripture but who show no great ability to actually discover what it’s saying.

    Yes, there are certain disputes which results from differences in various people’s confidence in scripture, but I don’t think they are the major ones, and I especially don’t think they are the bulk of those that are debated within orthodox Christianity.

    Let’s illustrate with a point I’ve debated (indirectly via blog post) with Adrian before, penal substitutionary atonement. For Adrian, nothing less than viewing penal substitution as the meaning of atonement is adequate.

    I believe that penal substitution does occur in scripture, but that it is one of a number of metaphors, all of which are required for an understanding of the atonement. I believe this, not because I lack confidence in scripture, but because I am confident that a full scriptural understanding of the atonement requires much more than penal substitution. Like every other finite description, using penal substitution exclusively or even to diminish other views, especially in my view christus victor, diminishes our understanding of the atonement.

    From the evidence of reading Adrian’s blogging over several years, I’m certain that penal substitution is a “current theological argument” and is “causing disruption” and thus I must exclude it from any list of those based on a lack of confidence in scripture.

    I think I made my best statement on this in my post from last Easter, Atonement: The Error Adrian Warnock and Giles Fraser Share.

    I see a similar type of issue in the debates over creation and evolution and certain major figures in reformed Old Testament studies, such as Peter Enns, Bruce Waltke, and Tremper Longman. I think it would be ridiculous to assert that these three men lack confidence in scripture, yet they are in the middle of a theological controversy. The difference is not confidence but the way in which they understand scripture.

    In connection with this I appreciated Jeremy Pierce’s recent post, Arguments Against Old Earth, in which he reclaims the term “creationism” for any set of beliefs that God created the universe. I am a creationist, because I believe in God the creator. I do want to debate a bit about Jeremy’s categories, though they are really quite good. That’s for another post.

    In summary I would say that the problem in most theological debates within Christianity is not confidence but understanding. There is an element here where one’s hermeneutics make the decision, but in a number of cases, such as understanding 2 Corinthians 5 an imputed righteousness, I think often the hermeneutics are similar, but the application is different. Confidence, however, is not part of the problem.

    (Note: I have not yet read, but I do intend to read Adrian’s book Raised with Christ: How the Resurrection Changes Everything.)

  • Orbiting the Hairball

    United Methodist district superintendent (Grand Rapids District) Laurie Haller takes a cue from a book on surviving in a corporate environment to make some suggestions for United Methodist leadership in her post Orbiting the UMC Hairball 4-12-10.

    Amongst other things she notes:

    The whispered truth is that The United Methodist Church suppresses creativity and genius in favor of the status quo. We want to tame entrepreneurs because we don’t know what to make of them. When they do wildly successful ministry, we remain suspicious of anyone who doesn’t fit neatly into the “image” of a United Methodist. Even when such leaders bear luscious fruit, we’re still threatened because the fruit looks more like oranges than typical West Michigan United Methodist apples.

    I’d call it a focus on making United Methodists rather than Christians. I recall a meeting at which my wife was discussing materials. The book in front of her was produced by Baptists. A dedicated Methodist in the room was afraid that we shouldn’t put this in front of the members, saying, “This is a Methodist church, and as long as we have that cross and flame on the sign in front we should present Methodist curriculum.” Amongst the complaints about the book? It had too much Jesus. (No, I haven’t figured out precisely what that means!)

    Surely our Methodist congregations are secure enough in their faith that it won’t be threatened by a bit of Baptist curriculum!

    Rev. Haller suggests that we learn to orbit the UMC hairball rather than getting sucked into its growing gravity. She has a number of suggestions for how to do so. I think these suggestions are generally good, though rather incomplete.

    Somewhere in there we’re going to have to recover our passion for the gospel itself or any method we use will go nowhere. I’m not suspecting that Rev. Haller would deny that, but it’s something I like to emphasize. If we can once get people listening to the Holy Spirit, God can move things along. (Not to mention it’s God who will get them listening in the first place!)

  • Seventh-day Adventists and Women in Ministry

    Well, really only some Seventh-day Adventists, in particular, Pastor Doug Batchelor and the Amazing Facts ministry versus the Southeastern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. As a former SDA, I still keep track of SDA doings, in this case through the Spectrum blog, and what interested me was the role reversal.

    We frequently see more liberal members of a denomination trying to bring women into ministry, while the church structure stands opposed. In this case, we have a conservative member arguing against women in ministry, and eliciting a response from the official church, in this case the conference. I believe the issue would be more controversial at the general church levels.

    The arguments, however, are based on much the same material as they are elsewhere.

    Here’s the video (warning: this is a more than 1 hour video):

    (I note that the Amazing Facts web site does not make it terribly clear that it’s an SDA ministry. I regard Seventh-day Adventists as fellow Christians who differ on some points of doctrine, but remain within orthodoxy as I understand it. I deplore a tendency to try to preach without identifying oneself. If you’re not part of a denomination, you don’t need to so identify. If you are, however, it seems dishonest to me to obscure the fact. As an example, the introduction to the video says this is coming from “Sacramento Central Church,” but if you research further, that is Sacramento Central Seventh-day Adventist Church. I understand the prejudice that they are trying to avoid, but I nonetheless think it would be better to be open.)

    The response from the conference can be found here. You can find a summary on the Spectrum blog, but essentially they take issue with his presentation, his relationship to church authority, his biblical exegesis, and his logic.

    My reason for posting this here is simply to show how the controversies in some smaller denominations are very similar to the ones we face in some of our larger ones. Perhaps if shared agreements don’t lead to dialog, shared disagreements could.

  • Of Lists and Understanding

    A couple of days ago I linked to a post by J. K. Gayle which is in response to John Hobbins on the question of listing things one needs to read in order to understand the Bible.  I mentioned that I might sound more like J. K. Gayle than John Hobbins when I got around to writing.  John since drew blood (only in the very best sense!) when he drew attention in a comment to the list that is shown in my own masthead.

    And indeed my masthead (or header) is a list, and perhaps a more specialized list than either Hobbins or Gayle were discussing.  I produced the header by cropping a section from a picture of my “ready reading” bookcase, the one that sits on my desk and provides my “at arm’s reach” reference and reading.  Those are books I either use regularly in study or that I’m reading or planning to read soon.  There are two more shelves in that bookcase, but those shelves wouldn’t change the composition.  The books would still generally be written by “privileged white males” and the range of subjects would remain largely the same.

    But that list also has a context.  It’s the one on my desk.  In my office there is also a computer table, at which I sit more often than I sit at my desk.  There are also eight additional bookcases around the walls, generally much larger than the one that actually sits on my desk.  On these shelves you will find books that vary from mystery and science fiction to literary classics.  You’ll find books in a number of languages.  One of those bookcases is given over to various Bible translations and editions that have interested me over the years.

    There are books that reflect my theological history, such as a substantial selection of the books of Ellen G. White, early leader and prophetess of the Seventh-day Adventist church and the full set of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and associated reference series, with my uncle Don F. Neufeld as associate editor of earlier volumes and finally editor of the later ones, such as the Bible Dictionary.  There are books reflecting my search through various traditions and through skepticism, and there are others that reflect my examination of the United Methodist Church.

    Finally, I can point to the list of books my company publishes.  We’re about to release our 28th title, The Character of Our Discontent by Dr. Allan R. Bevere.  One might make a similar criticism of that list, which is that it is largely written by white males of privilege, though the list does include some women as writers, one of whom is my wife and partner in this business, Jody.

    But as I noted in the previous post I have made many lists myself.  When I teach classes, even Sunday School classes, I make suggested reading lists.  I have suggested reading lists in my own books, trying to tell learners where more can be found.  So it is not so much the idea of lists in itself that I find objectionable, though I approach them with mixed emotions.  It’s particularly the idea of lists that try to specify what one must read in order to be regarded as literate, or, for that matter, in order to understand the Bible or some other piece of literature.

    And even there I must try to nuance my point.  It’s not that lists of suggested reading that will help one understand a particular text are not of value, or even necessary.  The problem is that they are, I believe, at one and the same time both incomplete and too overbearing.  A few times over the years I’ve heard two list builders get into debates about their particular lists, claiming that you really didn’t know ____ unless you had read ______, but the lists didn’t coincide.  Then come the accusations that one or the other person hasn’t done his or her homework because of the missing reading.  It’s especially humorous if the accusations can go both ways–and they usually can.

    But here’s what set me off about John’s post in the first place:

    Frye taught me, in my own words, that you cannot understand the Bible unless you’ve read Ovid, Milton, and Blake first. Who do you think one must read first in order to understand the Bible?

    Really?  I cannot understand the Bible unless I’ve read those particular people?  I just don’t see it.  They’re all pretty good reading recommendations, and I think it would be interesting to take a class discussing reading through that particular set of lenses, but I see no reason whatsoever to privilege that set of lenses over another.

    There are many possibilities for how I might be reading and studying the Bible.  I would place considerable emphasis, for example, on finding the historical meaning.  That quest is being ridiculed now in many quarters, but I’m not in agreement.  I think there’s a point to being chastened in our assurance that we actually can get to the precise historical meaning, but I don’t agree that there’s little point in trying.

    Studying through reception is itself an interesting and valuable quest, but it is not the only one.  It seems that this particular quest shares a failing that I see through the entire history of modern Biblical studies and even leading into postmodern–the notion that one’s particular approach to the Bible is the whole story.  Form critics tend to see everything as orally transmitted even when it isn’t, and once form criticism is done, one “understands” the text.  Redaction and source critics think that once they’ve untangled the threads (or think they have) and described how they were woven together, they understand the text.  Canonical critics, in turn, think that everything about the text when they understand it in its canonical setting.  (This is the form of the error to which I believe I am personally most susceptible.) When we move to reader-response, suddenly the historical writer gets lost and it’s all about readers and how they feel about the text.

    Now doubtless I have oversimplified the picture here and aficionados of various of these methodologies will likely point out to me where they do not entirely ignore any valid data from the other disciplines, but it is a rare book that really pays tribute to the various approaches, and I suspect it’s unfair to ask that.

    But what I would ask is that when providing lists, one might nuance them by saying something like, “You need to read ______ in order to study the text in the way that I prefer.”

    My training emphasized languages and ancient near eastern literature.  That’s the way I wanted to study the Bible, particularly the Hebrew scriptures–as a piece of ancient near eastern literature.  Now a number of other approaches have become part of my arsenal, precisely because I ended up both teaching in the church, largely teaching people who will never see a seminary, and they need to hear the Bible as something other than a merely historical text.  That doesn’t mean I abandoned history.  It does mean that I picked up some of these additional tools.  But I find Milton and Blake distinctly unhelpful in the historical part of my studies.  (I can’t say the same for Ovid, but that would be another topic.)

    If I might now turn to J. K. Gayle’s response, I was planning to write something which would doubtless have occupied may words, but Bob MacDonald already said it, and did so much more efficiently than I would have in this comment.  I would copy it here, but I think that would blunt the point.  You really should read J. K. Gayle’s post first (and preferable go back from there to John’s post) before you’ll hear it.  Then Bob applied a few more good words to the topic in his post a good argument for wider reading.

    Just so, Bob.  Just so!

  • Link to Roundup on Bruce Waltke

    Brian LePort has a good roundup of commentary on this issue which also mentions Tremper Longman. (HT: sunestauromai)

  • Of ID, Evolution, Christianity, and Blasphemy

    There’s quite a bit of discussion amongst the blogs that cover creation and evolution regarding the claim that ID is blasphemy. I got started on this with Jason Rosenhouse on the Evolution Blog, but he got started with an article in the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy by Peter M. J. Hess of the National Center for Science Education.

    There are quite a few topics in the article and in the responses, but I want to address just one issue. First, however, I want to note that while Hess calls the idea that early opposition to evolution was essentially religious the “warfare myth”:

    Since the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859,11 in which Darwin laid out a meticulously substantiated case for his theory of evolution, the debate about design has taken some fascinating turns. The reception of On the Origin of Species was not as the “warfare myth” portrayed it, with godless volutionary scientists ranged against biblical literalist theologians and bishops. Darwin‘s theory met a mixed reception, with some theologians enthusiastically endorsing it as compatible with religious belief, and some scientists vigorously opposing it on scientific grounds.12 Darwin himself gradually abandoned Christianity as he found its teleological presuppositions to be incompatible with empirical evidence supporting natural selection, although John Brooke has inferred that Darwin‘s loss of traditional faith had more to do with his emotional response to the tragic death of his daughter Annie.13 Although the theory of
    evolution was in some respects consonant with Darwin‘s agnosticism, it was not necessarily the cause of Darwin‘s beliefs.

    I don’t know the history well enough to comment on this in detail, but I think it is clear that modern opposition to evolution comes primarily from a religious foundation, as Dr. Michael Zimmerman (of the Clergy Letter project) notes in a recent blog post. It’s valuable to break down early opposition to evolution so that we can see that not all theologians were opposed at the time, but then again, not all theologians are opposed now.

    There is a particular set of religious beliefs, however, that must be in opposition to evolution, and that is a belief that the Bible in its early chapters provides a form of narrative history. In addition, even those who take some of that text figuratively may see certain aspects, such as a literal first Adam and a literal fall based on the sin of the first couple, as necessarily literally true. In turn, a number of other theological points regarding soteriology hang on those elements.

    We’ve seen the importance of these points to some in the evangelical community with the resignation of Dr. Bruce Waltke from RTS Orlando (regarding which I blogged on Friday), and of Dr. Tremper Longman from his reformed seminary (via Michael F. Bird). I must note that while I admire both these men tremendously, I do understand how folks in their theological stream can have a problem with their beliefs. Agreement is not necessary to understanding, in my view.

    Which leads me back to the issue of ID and blasphemy. Quoting again from Dr. Hess:

    What are the central theological failings of intelligent design? First, it is blasphemous. Intelligent design constrains God to work within the limits of what its adherents can understand about nature. In so doing, it reduces God from the status of creator to that of mere designer, and a not very competent one at that, … [text continues with a quotation-HN]

    I have previously called intelligent design (ID) bad theology. But I need to clarify what I mean by bad theology. Most often when used in conversation, “bad theology” simply refers to “theology with which the speaker disagrees,” and thus is just another way of saying “I disagree.” I think there is are only a very few ways in which one can apply the label “bad theology” with any objectivity. First one can apply it to a self-contradictory theology, with the caveat that some theology embraces contradiction. Second, one can apply it to theology that is not precisely what it claims to be.

    I think ID suffers from its roots as more of a political strategy than an attempt to be either pure science or pure theology. It’s part of a distinctly American attempt to get creationist ideas past the wall of separation of church and state as understood by American courts. So it has ideas that sound like theology, some that sound like philosophy, and some that at least attempt to sound like science. I don’t see ID as being good science, but that’s not my point here.

    Where I encounter ID in person is from lay people in the church who have read one or another of the books or articles on the subject. Without exception, those I have talked to believe, after reading such material, that science has proven that God exists and that God created. Most ID advocates would not claim explicitly that they have done any such thing, and many would go out of their way to deny it. To me that is a sign of bad theology–it seems to do one thing, yet it does another.

    The problem with tying this sort of thing down comes from the hybrid nature of ID. I believe in intelligent design myself, not ID the theory, but intelligent design, the classical theology. God is the designer, and the entire universe is designed. One basis on which I would reject ID the theory is simply that I don’t believe that one part of creation is more or less designed than another–God is ultimately the cause of all things, whether he moved directly or indirectly. But that is a theological view, not a scientific one. So I can call ID bad theology from my perspective, but only in the sense that I disagree.

    I do indeed believe it is God of the gaps theology, in which things not scientifically explained are claimed as proofs of the activity of some intelligent designer. Once this gets into church, as I’ve noted, the designer is automatically assumed to be God. I think it is quite proper for folks in church to assume the designer is God. Any blame I would place on those who try to present intelligent design with some other designer. I really think very few take that seriously except as a political side-step. So if your theology opposes God of the gaps, then I think you should oppose intelligent design (ID the theory).

    In one sense, ID says too much, but in another too little. God’s creative activity is, in my view, all encompassing. I believe that is in accord with the biblical view as well. God is also infinite, and thus doesn’t have to pay less attention to one thing than another. Such prioritization is the result of limitation. Because I am finite, I cannot pay full attention to all of my grandchildren at one time. God could create a mechanism that produces a mechanism that produces a mechanism, for any length of chain he desires, and still have his full attention available to every part of the process.

    But again, that is comparing my theology to the theology of ID advocates, thus calling this bad theology is simply another way of saying that I disagree.

    I think that saying that ID is blasphemous is an instance of this latter usage of “bad theology.” It seems blasphemous under my theology to discover that God is more involved one place than another or that God is more the designer of life than another.

    The ID advocate, however, would likely simply claim that he is arguing that God’s design is more detectable in one place than another. While I would not think it correct, I would hardly call it blasphemous to assert that God chose to show his fingerprints more in some cases than others. I don’t think so, but I don’t think it’s blasphemy to suggest it.

    Any problems that are brought up by less than optimum design in nature, as cited by Hess, are problems for theistic evolutionists as much as for any ID advocate, I believe. In my view, that is none at all. I would suggest it is necessary to see God giving a certain freedom in nature to explain the process of creation in any case, whether or not God interferes in the process. I find it much more elegant to think that the form of creation comes through seamlessly, that God does not play with the rules along the way, but that is just my view, not an example of good theology vs. bad.

    I think it is valid to point out theological difficulties with ID in the first sense I have mentioned. Do people really understand the implications? What does it say about God? Is it, in fact, theology at all? Those are valid points of discussion. But in all such discussions we need to acknowledge that theology is not a body of knowledge with a single standard for what is right and wrong, and what is good and bad. We need to ask “Bad in what way? Why? In reference to what theological system?”

    One last note on compatibilism. Is evolution compatible with Christian theology? Again, one has to definte that theology. Not only is such compatibility dependent on a certain understanding of texts in Genesis (or perhaps not holding a certain understanding), but it does depend on certain concepts in soteriology. I think the two can be compatible, but I do not think the issue is trivial.

  • Bruce Waltke Resigns from RTS

    Reformed Theological Seminary has announced that Dr. Bruce Waltke has resigned his position as professor of Old Testament at their Orlando campus. The blogosphere is pretty active on this story, including a story at Inside Higher Ed and a note on the BioLogos blog.

    The apparent starting point for this was a video of Dr. Waltke endorsing evolutionary theory in a conference sponsored by BioLogos. (Please note that the RTS statement does not mention this reason.) The video has since been removed. As noted again on the BioLogos site, Dr. Waltke stands by what he said, but was concerned about the way in which he expressed it.

    I want to note here that RTS is a confessional seminary, and I believe they have a right to hire seminary professors who will teach in accord with their confession. Others, of course, have the right to judge the education provided based on that criterion as well, and for those who support RTS, that sort of doctrinal protection is expected.

    I personally find it unfortunate, as I would like to see Christians agree to disagree agreeably on the issues of creation and evolution. Within the church we should, I believe, have some freedom to discuss this sort of issue. Since Dr. Waltke is by just about any measure someone more conservative than I am, I have to feel some concern about this kind of issue. (Note that I am self-employed, so nobody is going to ask for my resignation, and I’m a member of the United Methodist Church, which has many ministers who make me look very conservative.)

    In 2008 I reviewed, or more accurately wrote a few notes on Dr. Waltke’s An Old Testament Theology. My view was not entirely favorable, including some of his comments on naturalism and evolution. It appears that I may have been a bit more critical than I should have. I would note, as I did there, that it is perhaps a bit arrogant of me to be so critical of someone with Dr. Waltke’s stature. I keep his An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax within arm’s reach when I’m studying, and his scholarship is outstanding.

    I guess what I’m saying here is that if Dr. Waltke can’t be part of the conversation in evangelical Christianity, then we’re in some trouble. I certainly hope he continues to write and speak. I would like to continue to be challenged by his scholarship, and I’m sure there are many, many others.

  • Bruce Waltke Resigns

    I’ve written a note on his resignation from RTS on my Threads blog.