theology

Aug 4, 2014 ∞

Kirk: The Missional Diagnostic Question

“Missional” is a word that has been used so much in the evangelical church-planting movement over the past decade that it’s almost losing meaning. (See also: “Gospel-centered”.) But Fuller seminary professor J. R. Daniel Kirk proposes a ‘missional diagnostic question’ today that makes a lot of sense to me.

The question is this: “If this church disappeared, would our community miss it?” That’s it. If we are on mission in such a way that we are loving our neighbors and seeking their good rather than our own, it will be a cause of grief for our community if our church shuts its doors. If we’re living to build the place, pack in as many as we can, then they won’t care.

This rings true to me, and it’s a question I’d love to see our churches and ministries that talk about being “missional” ask of themselves. It might just be a useful evaluation.

Jun 24, 2014 ∞

Mere Fidelity Podcast on NT Wright

I’ve recently started listening to the Mere Fidelity podcast, a theological conversation between Americans Derek Rishmawy and Matthew Lee Anderson, and Brits Alistair Roberts and Andrew Wilson. On a recent episode they took up the topic of Anglican theologian NT Wright.

Now it’s no secret to any readers of this blog that I’m a huge NT Wright fan; I have given away more copies of Surprised By Hope to friends than any other volume, heard him in person once, and in general point to him as one of the most influential authors in my theological development over the past decade. I’ve read most of his recent popular-level books, and the first three of his Christian Origins series. (His two-volume fourth part of that series is sitting in my to-read pile.)

All the participants on the podcast expressed a great deal of admiration and appreciation for Wright before launching into their criticisms, but it was the criticisms that had me wanting to shout “but… but…” at my phone as I listened. I think much of my disagreement with them may be explained by my American layman’s perspective, and indeed they may have provided enough caveats through the podcast that we’re likely not in great disagreement, but I want to trace their thoughts and my responses here if only to benefit my own thinking.

Wright’s Characterization (Caricature?) of Evangelicalism

This is where I’m going to bang heads with the MF guys (and probably mostly Anderson) the most. At one point he says this:

[…in Surprised by hope] he [Wright] has a narrative about evangelicalism that’s largely de-historicized. That rips even hymn verses out of their context and uses them to show all of these problems within the evangelical milieu. And he says lots of true things in doing so, but he creates such a caricature of the mentality that he’s disagreeing with along the way that I think it’s really unfortunate. [at 13:20 or so in the podcast]

And later on:

The only reason anyone should ever by ‘surprised by hope’ in this world is if they ignored Augustine, ignored Calvin, ignored Aquinas, ignored Luther, ignored everyone who has been saying ‘new creation’ and ‘resurrected bodies’ for the past two thousand years. [at 20:45]

Here, I suppose, the evangelical academic’s caricature is the layman’s sense of reality. I would respond to Anderson here that for every historic evangelical who would largely align with Wright, thus making Wright’s claims a caricature, that there is likely a current evangelical who would not, or at least who knows little on the subject, thus making the “caricature” something much closer to reality.

At the sampling of evangelical churches I’ve belonged to in my 37 years (including Baptist, Bible, Christian & Missionary Alliance, and Evangelical Free), never once have I heard a full-bodied story of resurrection taught in the way Wright proclaims it. Most often the eschatology isn’t taught at all, or it’s lightly glossed over - certainly never brought in a way that emphasizes (as Wright does) how that understanding of the Kingdom impacts how we live in the here and now. My conversations with fellow church members anecdotally indicate that the Left Behind series continues to more significantly influence the common evangelical layman’s view of end times than anything else. (Maybe the upcoming Nic Cage remake of the Left Behind movie will change that? Nah.)

As to the specific point about ripping lines of hymns out of context, I’ll say just two things. First: that the hymns he calls out are some which I have grown up loving dearly, which makes Wright’s criticism a bit painful; second: That this bit of the book will fall flat with American evangelicals within the next 10 years or so since most of us are singing only modern praise songs now, the content of which typically struggles to be correct theologically about even the basics of the faith, and which almost never addresses eschatology.

Anderson doesn’t let it go, though. Later on he argued that Billy Graham’s view of resurrection and heaven isn’t really that different from Wright’s, if you know the code words:

For all the good that he [Wright] is doing, the straw man has brought an unnecessary antithesis and hostility towards the older ways of framing things that doesn’t realize that evangelicals have shorthand, and a whole cluster of concepts behind that shorthand, and it’s not all as bad as NT Wright presents it as being in his lay-level work. [at 22:50]

A couple of thoughts here: first, I wouldn’t assume that Wright “doesn’t realize” that evangelicals have this shorthand. I would assume it is familiar to him and most all scholars who have even a passing familiarity with the history of evangelical thought. However, Surprised By Hope is a popular work, and at the popular level I think there are many, many evangelicals who aren’t familiar with this shorthand.

Fortunately, Rishmawy chimed in on this point:

You and I know that’s shorthand… [but] I think there are times when the shorthand has gotten lost in pop evangelicalism or pop fundamentalism or whatever, where people hear this and are, like, ‘this is totally new’ and you’re right, my pastor has kind of sounded like that. The best of the tradition has never lost sight of this. [at 23:20]

I’m not sure what bits of evangelical tradition Derek deems “the best”, but his comments about that shorthand being lost in pop evangelicalism are, in my experience, right on. When I heard Wright speak in Nashville a couple years ago he noted that, as a surprise to him, he’d developed ‘something of a side ministry’ helping American evangelicals find their way out of the Left Behind sort of theological mess. I’m one of those, and grateful for it.

At another point in the discussion, Roberts, in making an (apparently obligatory on Mere Fidelity) Oliver O’Donavan reference brought up a point that I very much appreciated - that American fanboys of Wright, in feeling that Wright is some sort of Pied Piper (no, not that Piper) leading them out of evangelicalism, would not be feeling their current disillusionment with Wright on social issues if they understood his theology more fully. To wit:

It was Oliver O’Donavan in a conference in dialog with NT Wright that I attended - he made the point that Wright always makes these hyperbolic statements that seem to be anti-traditionalist in order to cover up just how traditionalist he actually is, how conservative his position is, because otherwise people wouldn’t realize how firmly in continuity it is with Reformed evangelical tradition. [at 19:20]

This has actually led me to appreciate Wright even a bit more lately than I had before, because I find myself having pushed pretty hard against evangelicalism the past several years, only to consistently find that while I am often sympathetic with the plight of some of my more progressive brethren, I can’t fully get on board with them when it comes to much of their social progressivism. It’s encouraging to have someone like Wright seemingly closer to that middle ground where I often find myself.

To the esteemed gents on Mere Fidelity - first, thanks for the great conversation. Yours has quickly become a favorite podcast of mine. But I’d urge you, in the midst of your theological erudition, to not so quickly pooh-pooh Wright’s pop characterization of evangelicalism. By many accounts he is speaking evangelical truth at a level that is reaching many who may never delve into Augustine, Calvin, Aquinas, or Luther. And for that we should be thankful.

The Mere Fidelity guys are promising a second discussion on Wright to discuss the Reformed folks' issues with his theology. I’ll listen with interest but, not being Reformed myself, without much of a dog in the fight.

Jun 3, 2014 ∞

NT Wright on the intersection of the Bible, ethics, and doctrine

In a recent interview by Jonathan Merritt on Religion News Service, Anglican bishop NT Wright had this to say about the Bible and how we work out ethics and doctrine (emphasis mine):

…it’s important that we do not reduce the Bible to a collection of true doctrines and right ethics. There are plenty of true doctrines and right ethics there, of course, but they come within the larger thing, which is the story of how the Creator is rescuing and restoring the whole creation, with his rescue and restoration of humans at the heart of it. In other words, it isn’t about “do we allow this or that?” To ask the question that way is already to admit defeat, to think in terms of behavior as a set of quasi-arbitrary, and hence negotiable, rules. We must ask, with Paul, “This new creation God has launched in Jesus—what does it look like, and how can we live well as genuine humans, as both a sign and a means of that renewal?” We need to remind ourselves that the entire biblical sexual ethic is deeply counter-intuitive. All human beings some of the time, and some human beings most of the time, have deep heartfelt longings for kinds of sexual intimacy or gratification (multiple partners, pornography, whatever) which do not reflect the creator’s best intentions for his human creatures, intentions through which new wisdom and flourishing will come to birth. Sexual restraint is mandatory for all, difficult for most, extremely challenging for some. God is gracious and merciful but this never means “so his creational standards don’t really matter after all.”

Such good perspective. I didn’t realize until reading this interview that Wright has a new book out: Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues. Another one to add to my reading pile!

May 30, 2014 ∞

Gentleness and Respect for all - addressing 'the transgender issue'

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. -- 1 Pet 3:15-17, NIV

I promised myself and my readers not too long ago that my theo-rage-blogging days are over. Which means I’ve wrestled with myself now about whether or not to write this post. I’ve come down on the side, though, of writing it, because I think there’s something here to say that isn’t tied to any group or denomination or particular theological persuasion. So here goes.

This is the cover of the latest issue of Time magazine. It features Laverne Cox, a transgender actress best known for starring in the Netflix series “Orange is the New Black”.

“The Transgender Tipping Point”, it declares. “America’s next civil rights frontier.”

I’m not a subscriber to Time, and haven’t been past a newsstand lately, so my first awareness of this cover came from a (re)tweet by Russell Moore (@drmoore) that looked like this:

https://twitter.com/drmoore/status/472105205211750400

Dr. Moore is President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and a not-infrequent commentator on social and political topics. I don’t mean to call him out personally here; his attitude and commentary are likely no different than what I’d hear from many other corners of the evangelical church.

But I’m bothered by the approach. “Are you prepared for what’s next?” implies a significant level of us-against-them, fight-the-culture-war-to-win-it mentality that disrespects transgender people and doesn’t seem to recognize that they are cherished divine image-bearers just as much as we are.

I thought I was reading a little too much into it - afraid of my own biases, as it were - but then I read the stream of replies to Moore’s tweet. Those replies are even more disturbing. Referring to the actress as “it”, as a “fake ‘woman’”. Expressions of disgust ("…permanently lost my appetite.", “want to go into a bubble”). When one person refers to the actress as “her”, another one replies to ‘correct’ the first with “*his”.

To his credit, Dr. Moore’s follow-up tweet linked to a more nuanced position on ‘the transgender issue’, as he puts it, which includes the declaration that “As conservative Christians, we do not see transgendered persons as “freaks” to be despised or ridiculed.” Later on he says that “…this also means that we will love and be patient with those who feel alienated from their created identities.”

One hopes that, on reflection, Dr. Moore and the folks who replied to him might recognize that those tweets have every likelihood of being interpreted as alienating and despising rather than loving and patient.

As Christians, we must do better.

In the verse I quoted at the top of this post, the Apostle Peter says that our testimonies of faith must be given with “gentleness and respect”, so that any accusations of bad behavior will be undeserved and slanderous.

I will be the first to admit that I don’t have a fully-formed theological position when it comes to transgender issues. This is a topic that will no doubt soon get fuller treatment in the theological world much as homosexuality has over the past decade.

But I do know this: as Christians we should cultivate an approach and reaction to all people that starts with love, care, and concern, not one of disgust and alienation. If we can’t even respect a person enough to address them by their preferred gender, how can we ever hope that they’ll listen to us long enough that we can tell them about God’s love for them?

“But we’re going to lose the culture war!”

Yeah, we are. We probably already have. We’re not called to win it. We’re called to be faithful. The Apostle Peter wasn’t ‘winning the culture war’ in his day, either. Which might be why he followed up the call to gentleness and respect with these words: “For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.”

May that be the legacy of Christians in this place and time.

May 29, 2014 ∞

Real Transformation happens when?

In light of the whole Tullian Tchividjian / Gospel Coalition dust-up in recent days, Mark Galli has an interesting piece at Christianity Today online titled “Real Transformation Happens When?". Galli’s thesis will make you do a double-take:

I want to raise one sanctification issue that I don’t see discussed much. I do not doubt the biblical call to holy living (1 Pet. 1:15 being the quintessential text). But after living the Christian life for nearly a half century, I doubt the ability of Christians to make much progress in holiness.

What the what?

But don’t stop there, keep reading.

I look at my own life and marvel at the lack of real transformation after 50 years of effort. To be sure, outwardly I’m more patient, kind, gracious, and so forth. But even after half a century of transformation, my thoughts and motives are a cauldron of evil. Just one small example: When a friend fails to show up on time, I’m outwardly patient and kind, but inwardly I battle judgment and condemnation. Earlier in life, I would have lashed out at him for being tardy, as lack of respect for me among other things. Now I have some self-control as I smile and say, “Not a problem.”

Galli goes on to recognize that while he has undoubtedly improved in some areas, his motivations remain as torn as ever. He also sees patient, kind non-Christians and wonders whether his behavioral improvement is simply the result of maturity and not the Holy Spirit in his life.

Galli’s conclusion:

This is not to say that we are not “being transformed … from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor. 3:18, NRSV) even now. But it seems to me the greatest transformation is not necessarily in outward virtue, but in increasing levels of self-awareness — awareness of the depth of our sin — and consequently increasing repentance and humility. Not a humility that points to some virtue in our lives and says, “It wasn’t me, it was the Lord working through me,” but the deeper humility that sees the desperately wicked heart and desperately prays daily, “Lord, have mercy.”

There’s plenty worth reading and considering in Galli’s full post, which I highly recommend you go read.

There are a couple of things that seem like omissions - likely intentional on Galli’s part but that are worth mentioning: first, that he’s writing primarily from the perspective of one who has spent a long time in the faith. A more comprehensive look at the topic would surely recognize that the Holy Spirit can and does make dramatic changes toward holiness in the lives of believers, especially in the case of new believers who have long lived for self before coming to Christ.

The second thought is that Galli may be a bit hard on himself in this article. And yet, as he notes in the post, the Apostle Paul himself, near the end of his life, described himself as “the worst of sinners”, writing in Romans 7 that

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing…

I’m reminded of a conversation I had with a pastor one day on this topic where I quoted the first lines of Romans 6: “shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?”. I shook my head regretfully, knowing full well both Paul’s answer to his own rhetorical question, and the fact that I too often fail to measure up.

The pastor’s response was immediate, gracious, and breathtakingly honest: “well, I’ve generally found that to be my experience, yeah.”

I find myself once again incredibly thankful for God’s grace.

Mar 19, 2014 ∞

To be a Christian is to believe that all political ideologies are suspect.

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry nails it:

To be a Christian is to believe that all political ideologies are suspect. And wrong. It doesn’t mean that Christians should retreat from all political ideologies — as that would also be a political ideology, and also wrong. By all means, be a Christian liberal. Be a Christian conservative. But if you are a Christian liberal, if you are a Christian conservative, then by definition there will be tensions between your Christianity and your political ideology. It’s axiomatic. And if you are a Christian first and an ideologue second, you should confront those tensions instead of papering over them.

The whole post is worth a read.

Mar 14, 2014 ∞

The Importance of Accountability

Carl Trueman, writing today about Mark Driscoll’s problems, and our own:

Mark Driscoll is one person, a uniquely talented individual. Yet he is also a function of structural problems within the new Reformed movement itself. Despite its distinct and in many ways sophisticated theology, the “young, restless, and reformed” movement has always been in some respects simply the latest manifestation of the weakest aspects of American Evangelicalism. It was, and is, a movement built on the power of a self-selected band of dynamic personalities, wonderful communicators, and talented preachers who have been marketed in a very attractive manner. Those things can all be great goods but when there is no real accountability involved, when financial arrangements are opaque in the extreme, and when personalities start to supplant the message, serious problems are never far away.

Trueman makes several good points here. It’s worth reading the whole thing.

Feb 24, 2014 ∞

The Lost World of Genesis One

Last week I finally got the chance to read The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John H. Walton. Dr. Walton is a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College. His PhD is from the Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, which is, curiously enough (per Wikipedia), the primary seminary for training rabbis in Reform Judaism. All that to say the guy has a better-than-average understanding of the Old Testament, Jewish culture, and the Hebrew language.

Walton’s premise is one that, while previously unfamiliar to me, makes the most sense of how Genesis 1 - 2 should be understood as anything else I’ve read on the topic. The Lost World of Genesis One is structured around 20 premise statements, and in summary where he lands is this: we need to read and understand Genesis 1 in the same way the original audience read it. This turns out to be significantly different than we often hear it understood. As a very high-level summary, here’s what he says:

Ancient Cosmology is Functional

What does it mean for the universe to exist?, Walton asks. He proposes that people in the ancient world “believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system.” In such a view, he says, something could be manufactured physically but still not “exist” if it has not become functional.

Walton compares the creation stories of several different ancient cultures and notes that in each case, the creation story suggests not the creation of physical elements, but in the god ordering and purposing those elements into a functioning world. Certainly it’s not a stretch to think that the Israelites would’ve understood their creation story similarly.

Divine Rest is in a Temple

What’s up with God resting? Day seven, says Walton, is the climax of the story. Key, he says is

the piece of information that everyone knew in the ancient world and to which most modern readers are totally oblivious: Deity rests in a temple, and only in a temple. This is what temples were built for. We might even say that this is what a temple is— a place for divine rest. Perhaps even more significant, in some texts the construction of a temple is associated with cosmic creation…

…in the ancient world rest is what results when a crisis has been resolved or when stability has been achieved , when things have “settled down.” Consequently normal routines can be established and enjoyed. For deity this means that the normal operations of the cosmos can be undertaken. This is more a matter of engagement without obstacles rather than disengagement without responsibilities.

The Seven days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins

Says Walton:

If the seven days refer to the seven days of cosmic temple inauguration, days that concern origins of functions not material, then the seven days and Genesis 1 as a whole have nothing to contribute to the discussion of the age of the earth. This is not a conclusion designed to accommodate science —it was drawn from an analysis and interpretation of the biblical text of Genesis in its ancient environment. The point is not that the biblical text therefore supports an old earth, but simply that there is no biblical position on the age of the earth. If it were to turn out that the earth is young, so be it. But most people who seek to defend a young -earth view do so because they believe that the Bible obligates them to such a defense. I admire the fact that believers are willing to take unpopular positions and investigate all sorts of alternatives in an attempt to defend the reputation of the biblical text. But if the biblical text does not demand a young earth there would be little impetus or evidence to offer such a suggestion.

Empirical Science Cannot Speak to Purpose

“If public education is committed to the idea that science courses should reflect only empirical science, neither design nor metaphysical naturalism is acceptable because they both import conclusions about purpose into the discussion,” says Walton.

For those concerned with the purity of science, the focus on descriptive mechanisms in an empirical discipline will be welcomed, and considering legitimate weaknesses in the reigning paradigm should pose no problem since science always accepts critiques— that is how it develops and improves. For those concerned about the Bible and the integrity of their theology, the descriptive mechanisms that compose the evolutionary model need not be any more problematic for theology than the descriptive disciplines of meteorology or embryology. [This hearkens back to a point he made earlier in the book.] … If all parties were willing to agree to similar teleological neutrality in the classrooms dedicated to instruction in empirical science, the present conflict could move more easily toward resolution.

This is a conclusion that I find very liberating. It suggests that we can simultaneously affirm that God is the creator and origin of everything, and at the same time not be afraid of following science wherever it’s currently leading. Science can’t prove or disprove purpose or fundamental origins, and theology (in this view) need not lead us to dispute the current scientific understanding of origins.

The Lost World of Genesis One is a straightforward read, and I highly recommend it for any casual student of theology who wants a different perspective on understanding the creation account. The Kindle edition is currently less than six bucks, which is a pretty good deal.

Feb 7, 2014 ∞

In Appreciation of Both Sides of the Creation Debate

One of the beautiful things about being slow to respond to the internet topic du jour is that sometimes other people come along and say what you want to say, only better and more concisely. So it is with me on the creation debate topic this week.

Yesterday I had 1500 words written on the topic. Then today I found two posts that sum up my thoughts better than I was able to. (Brevity, Chris. Learn brevity.)

First up, let me point you to Richard Beck, writing today about Creation Wars in Church. After noting that he once was removed from consideration for a tenured post at a “flagship school” of evangelicalism because of his interest in evolutionary psychology, Beck says this: “I get it. This is still a big issue in many places. But here’s the thing I’ve been pondering: Is this an issue in the local church?”

I ask because creation vs. evolution just isn’t an issue in my church. I go to church with people who have PhDs in biology and people who teach creationism in their home-school curriculum. The people at my church are all over the map on this issue. Some were with Ken Ham Tuesday night. And some were with Bill Nye.

And we all go to the same church.

How’s that possible? I’m not sure, but my best guess is this. We just don’t think it matters. We just don’t talk about it. You are free to think however you want to think about this. We don’t make it a test of fellowship. We recognize the diversity in our midst and have sort of collectively agreed to not make it an issue.

This makes me happy, both for Dr. Beck and because I think the same is largely true in my own church body. We all have opinions, but we as a matter of practice don’t make it a divisive issue. There are bigger things to be concerned with.

Which brings me to Michael Brendan Dougherty’s In Defense of Creationists. He manages to be both annoyingly condescending toward but lovingly appreciative of devoted Christian creationists all at once. It’s worth reading the whole piece, but let me quote a few of the good bits here in a way that can perhaps ameliorate the condescension:

In most times and most places, I have a load of sympathy and even admiration for six-day creationists, “young Earthers,” and fundamentalists. As the debate between Ham and Nye unfolded, I found myself more and more disgusted with some of the self-styled “sophisticated” Christians performing their giggles at Ham for all the world to see.

There was something just a little ugly about all these Christians rushing up to their platforms, drawing attention to the sweat on their brow, putting a concerned look upon their faces, and proclaiming that fundamentalism is a “modern” error. And then when they were sure everyone was listening, lifted up their eyes heavenward to pray, “God, I thank you that I am not like this mouth-breather Ken Ham.” With a great urgency, but very little understanding of cosmology or the various theories of evolution, they recited their absolute fidelity to these theories. These anxious-to-please Christians were telling important truths, but in the spirit of a lie.

Yep. This is exactly the attitude that my friend (and scientiest) Richard Okimoto decried to me on Twitter yesterday. (Richard: I hope this post doesn’t make you sad.)

To submit to the authority of science does not mean to place one’s personal and irrevocable imprimatur on today’s most supported theories. It simply means accepting the rational process of investigating claims about nature through rigorous observation and experimentation….

On the other hand, I’ve always found those Christians who hold to six-day accounts of man’s origin difficult to refute and even more difficult to despise. There is a certain strength and flexibility to their tautology. Further, even though they’re wrong on the science, they are right about the things that really matter to the human heart and to human civilization.

And then he brings it home:

So I do not think that Ken Ham-style creationists should get to rewrite biology textbooks according to their very peculiar reading of Scripture. But I admire their bullheadedness. They … [are] trying to protect the big truths of Christianity: that God created the world, that we are dependent on him, that we owe him everything, and that he loves us even though we are sinful. In the world most of us inhabit, day to day, the world of lovers, wriggling kids, disease, war, and death, the sureness of God’s love is relevant in a way that the details of early hominid fossils never will be, glorious as they are. Have some perspective, people.

In protecting that big truth of creation — that we are all made in God’s image and all endowed with supreme dignity — fundamentalists zealously guard things that follow logically from that. Things like the commandment “Thou shall not murder.” … If Ken Ham is getting rich telling things he knows to be false, he’s a shameless fraud. But the bulk of creation’s fundamentalists are deeply sincere. And, better than that, they are willing to be, in St. Paul’s words “fools for Christ’s sake.” They do not live for the world’s esteem. And so when the world next discovers a sophisticated ideology to get around “Thou shall not murder,” I’d rather have one cussed fundie next to me than the whole army of eye-rolling Christians lining up to denounce him.

Amen and amen.

Is this fair? Honest? Kind and not patronizing? I hope so. If you’re reading this as a young-earth creationist and you’re miffed at what I’ve quoted, please accept my apologies. I don’t want to swipe, or sneer, or condescend. The nut that I get from both these posts is that, as Christians, we can agree to disagree on the age of the universe, and that there is noble, earnest desire to serve God and to love the truth of Scripture on both sides of the debate.

I want to be as passionate for the truth and unconcerned about what everyone else thinks as the YECs are, even if we disagree about the age of the rocks.

Feb 5, 2014 ∞

Notes from the Creation Debate

There was a well-publicized debate last night on this question: “is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era”? On the pro side was Ken Ham, the head of Answers in Genesis; on the con side was Bill Nye, popular TV ‘science guy’. Hosted at Ham’s Creation Museum in Kentucky, the two men debated for two-and-a-half hours in front of a large audience, with a CNN reporter serving as moderator.

The debate format included short opening statements, 30 minute presentations from each man, a series of short rebuttals, and then questions from the audience. For those of you who can’t or don’t want to watch the whole thing, I’ll summarize the debate briefly and then share some thoughts.

Overview

Ham’s Initial Presentation

Ham, of course, espouses the Young Earth Creation (YEC) view. He explained that, in his view, the earth was created in six 24-hour days, and that the Biblical book of Genesis presents a historical record from the diving being who was present at creation. Ham distinguishes between “observational science”, which he defines as conclusions that we can derive using the scientific method of experimentation, from “historical science”, which he defines as drawing “scientific” conclusions about the past without having been there to observe it.

Ham claims that secular scientists, by using the same word for both “observational” and “historical” science, are muddying the waters; that they arbitrarily outlaw the supernatural, and as such are imposing a “religion of naturalism/atheism” on students.

Ham went to great lengths to show that Christians can be (and have been) good scientists, but that their science relates only to the “observational”, not the “historical” science.

Nye’s Initial Presentation

Nye framed the debate question a bit differently, making it about “Ken Ham’s creation model” rather than addressing the formal question. (Was it a carefully-calculated strategy? Maybe. More on that in my commentary later.)

Nye made several points about the scientific evidence he sees for evolution and for an old universe, and noted several places where a literal reading of the Genesis creation and flood accounts is, in his opinion, highly unreasonable based on what we have observed about the universe.

As one example, Nye noted that Ham asserts that there were only about 7000 “kinds” of creatures taken on the ark, but more than 15 million species identified today. If, per Ham’s model, those 7000 “kinds” developed (via micro-evolution, cross-breeding, etc) into the 15 million species over a period of only 4000 years, Nye said we’d expect to see 11 new species *every day* since then.

Points from Ham’s rebuttals

Ham was steadfast that reasoning backwards based on what we see now isn’t “science”.
He provided quick anecdotal evidence about conflicting radio-carbon dates.
He said that the only infallible dating method is “from someone who was there, who told us” that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Points from Nye’s rebuttals

Nye suggests that perhaps rock and tree layers slid to create odd dating stratum.
Says that it is troubling that Ham relies on the Bible, translated into English as the top authority on the natural laws.
If death was caused by sin, he asks, are fish sinners? If not, why do they die?
All we can do is look at the past. All study of astronomy is looking at the past.
He said there is no suggestion in the universe that natural laws have changed.
He asked why the Bible’s text should be more respected than what we see in the natural world?

Q&A From the Audience

Nye notes that “what was before the Big Bang?” is a great mystery
Ham says there’s a book that tells us. God created it.
Q to Ham: What evidence other than the Bible would point to creation? A: One human race, various “kinds” of animals.
Q: what, if anything, would ever change your mind? Ham: “I’m a Christian.” Starts from the premise that the Bible is God’s word, and that you can check its veracity. No one will ever convince me that the Bible isn’t true. Nye: scientific evidence would change my mind.
Q to Ham: if evidence did exist that the earth was older than 10k years, would you still believe in God, historical Jesus, Jesus Son of God? Ham: well, you can’t prove that. it’s an invalid hypothetical. If Christians believe in an old earth, they have a problem with the Bible. Nye: it’s Ham’s interpretation of the Bible vs. all scientific observation.
Q to Ham: can the Bible all be taken literally? Ham: what does ‘literally’ mean? Take it ‘naturally’, based on genre. He then defined all of Genesis as history. “If it’s really the word of God, there won’t be any contradictions.”

Thoughts on the debate

OK, so that was a long summary. Sorry. Now a few thoughts.

First on the debate itself: it was refreshing to see a debate that was even-handed and cordial. Compared to what we see most of the time in political debates today, this was a breath of fresh air.

Second: I wish they would’ve spent some time focusing on how they chose to define “science”. Ham’s view apparently refuses to make observations about the present and apply them to the past in ways that would contradict the YEC position. Nye pointed out in one rebuttal that Ham didn’t have an answer for polar ice that scientists interpret as being 680,000 years old, but Ham didn’t address the point at all.

Third: This debate would’ve been much more interesting and valuable for Christians if, instead of Mr. Nye, the Ham’s opponent had been, say, Francis Collins (head of the National Institutes of Health, a Christian who believes in an old earth and evolutionary processes). That would’ve framed the debate around young-earth vs. old-earth creation and the definition and use of science. By inviting Nye instead, Ham manages to frame the debate as a part of a greater Christianity vs. Atheism conflict, which I can only assume he hopes will rally the Christian troops and help bring more visitors to his financially-struggling Creation Museum.

Fourth: I doubt anybody really had their opinion changed by the debate. Your opinion of who “won” and “lost” is probably dependent on who you supported going in. Neither debater wanted to allow for any middle ground. As Jonathan Ryan pointed out over on Patheos both of them were determined to parrot their own position regardless of any “debate”. Frustrating.

Finally

I have some thoughts on the creation/evolution topic more generally, but seeing as I’m already past 1100 words I think I’ll save that for another post.

Jan 21, 2014 ∞

Where Are The Christian Daddy Blogs?

I had a passing thought in the midst of a blog post a few weeks ago that I want to explore a little more on its own. While writing about my podcast listening, I wondered this:

As an aside: it’s curious to me that while you’d find this kind of parenting discussion going on in the Christian blogosphere on mom blogs, you have to go to the secular arena to hear the dad’s perspective. What’s up with that?

I was sort of hoping that readers (of which I have at least a few) would chime in to let me know that I was just missing the Christian dad podcasts and blogs, but no. The only thing I heard in that regard was a note from my friend Mike noting that he’d been considering starting up that sort of podcast himself.

I did a little bit of Googling today for Christian dad blogs, and didn’t find too many. I came across one post from six months ago where someone on DaddyBlogger.com made a “definitive guide of Christian Dad Bloggers”, but if you follow the links,(and there are only about 20 listed) the blogs are for the most part either very sports oriented or seem to be basic guy blogs rather than focusing on parenting in any substantive way.

Sure, there are lots of podcasts and blogs out there targeted at men and fathers, but for the most part they’re focused around things like leadership, or legacy, or work/life balance.

Now yeah, it’s important for men to set a good example for their children, and to take responsibility for their spiritual development, and so on. Absolutely.

But why don’t we see blog posts for dads about other aspects of parenting? Is a dad’s realm of activity and advice limited to “make sure the kids develop a correct theology” and “make sure you’re around enough to go to their sports events” and “take your daughters on dates”?

Where are the Christian dad blogs talking about effective bedtime strategies for preschoolers, or how to handle discipline in public situations (or private ones!), or dealing with toddlers who don’t want to eat anything but hot dogs for weeks at a time, or how to not go insane when your four-year-old asks you to read the same My Little Pony book for bedtime for the seven-hundredth day in a row?

Or about encouraging healthy eating and physical activity, and about teaching kids how to enjoy entertainment in appropriate avenues and quantities? About how to make sure your kid doesn’t grow up with his nose glued to an electronic device for 25 hours a day even when your inclination is to jump for the iPhone in your pocket every time it beeps?

How about practical advice for using time-outs and other ways of defusing situations where kids have just lost it and need time to reset attitudes rather than just escalating a battle of wills forever?

OK, I don’t need to go on for another three paragraphs. And I’m sure that somewhere along the way somebody has written a dad-related blog post on most of these subjects. But what I’m asking today is why we don’t see posts focused that way on a more regular basis?

I’ve got three daughters and have been a dad for almost 10 years now, and I can say with assurance that there should be a lot more to being a dad than just family devotions and soccer games. Just because some of the more home-related topics tend to the focus of moms rather than dads doesn’t mean that they always should be.

So, my readers, any thoughts on why this disparity exists? Am I asking a question with such an obvious answer that I’m stupid for asking? Is the disparity simply a product of the fact that moms spend more time with the kids than dads do?

If you read this and know of good Christian dad blogs or podcasts, leave a comment and let me know. I’d love to find out that there are a bunch of them floating around that I just haven’t located.

Jan 17, 2014 ∞

"I am utterly unworthy to offer any critique of these mysteries"

I love this confession from Catholic blogger Andrew Sullivan today:

If by doctrine, you mean the core tenets of the Creed I recite at Mass by heart… then I do not favor any changes in doctrine. I believe in what I say. Sometimes, of course, it is hard to believe something that is beyond my real understanding. I’ve thought about, meditated on, puzzled over and marveled at the doctrine of the Incarnation, for example – for me, the most radical of all Christianity’s improbable claims. I believe in it until I can’t, at which point, I embrace a mystery – what Pascal called “the use and submission of reason.” But I am utterly unworthy – morally and intellectually – to offer any real critique of these mysteries; and because I feel and know the living presence of Jesus in my own life, because that presence seems to me both human and divine, and because Jesus has rescued me so many times from myself and from the world, I accept what I cannot understand.

Sullivan is such a conundrum to me. British transplant to the States, gay Catholic, politically moderate, fairly serious about his theology, running a prolific blog that is equally delightful and at times infuriating. He went to a reader-supported format on his blog last year, and after a year of continuing to read it via the RSS feed and feeling like a moocher, I ponied up for a subscription this year.

Support the authors and creatives you appreciate, folks. Whether they’re musicians, writers, designers, whatever. There are great folks out there creating great stuff, and our support goes a long way towards keeping them around.

Jan 16, 2014 ∞

Ben Myers' Canon Fodder

Australian theology professor Ben Myers (@FaithTheology) has been tweeting a fantastic series of 140-character commentaries on each book of the Bible, one tweet per book, delightfully tagged “Canon Fodder”.

While it may initially seem dismissive to describe each book of the Bible as a one-liner, on the contrary Myers' tweets are insightful, pithy summaries that provoke thought and also draw some smiles.

Some examples:

1 Kings: So, you really want a monarchy huh? Don’t say I didn’t warn you. 2 Kings: I told you so.

Psalms: The invention of antiphony: when my heart broke in two, I taught both parts to sing. Zephaniah: Cry out with horror, for I will sweep you from the earth. Cry out with joy, for I will sweep you into my arms. Acts: Proof of the resurrection: the powers of this world submit to a handkerchief on which an apostle has blown his nose.

And probably my favorite:

Romans: Adam lost it, Christ found it, the Spirit gives it, faith holds it, creation yearns for it, death yields to it.

Go read the whole list.

Nov 26, 2013 ∞

The Joy of the Gospel

Pope Francis published a new “Apostolic Exhortation” today titled “EVANGELII GAUDIUM”, which translated means “The Joy of the Gospel”. It’s a long read - more a book than a web page, about 50,000 words - and I only got about 10% of the way through it at lunch today. However, there is a ton of good stuff even in that first 10%. A few striking quotes (emphasis mine):

How good it feels to come back to him whenever we are lost! Let me say this once more: God never tires of forgiving us; we are the ones who tire of seeking his mercy. Christ, who told us to forgive one another “seventy times seven” (Mt 18:22) has given us his example: he has forgiven us seventy times seven. Time and time again he bears us on his shoulders. No one can strip us of the dignity bestowed upon us by this boundless and unfailing love. With a tenderness which never disappoints, but is always capable of restoring our joy, he makes it possible for us to lift up our heads and to start anew.

That’s a great reminder. Then there’s this:

There are Christians whose lives seem like Lent without Easter. I realize of course that joy is not expressed the same way at all times in life, especially at moments of great difficulty. Joy adapts and changes, but it always endures, even as a flicker of light born of our personal certainty that, when everything is said and done, we are infinitely loved.

“When everything is said and done, we are infinitely loved.” I need that reminder. Regularly.

In every activity of evangelization, the primacy always belongs to God, who has called us to cooperate with him and who leads us on by by the power of his Spirit… The life of the Church should always reveal clearly that God takes the initiative, that “he has loved us first” (1 Jn 4:19) and that he alone “gives the growth” (1 Cor 3:7). This conviction enables us to maintain a spirit of joy in the midst of a task so demanding and challenging that it engages our entire life. God asks everything of us, yet at the same time he offers everything to us.

God takes the initiative, God gives the growth, God asks everything of us and at the same time offers everything to us. Wow.

And one last one:

God’s word is unpredictable in its power. The Gospel speaks of a seed which, once sown, grows by itself, even as the farmer sleeps (Mk 4:26-29). The Church has to accept this unruly freedom of the word, which accomplishes what it wills in ways that surpass our calculations and ways of thinking.

It’s gonna take me a while to get through the whole thing, but I’d say it’s definitely worth a read.

Nov 25, 2013 ∞

Jim Belcher, "In Search of Deep Faith"

I first became acquainted with author Jim Belcher back in 2009 when I read Deep Church. It appears I didn’t review it here on the blog, but my Goodreads review gave it four stars: solid but not revolutionary. Now Belcher is back, with In Search of Deep Faith.

I feel like I’ve seen bits and pieces of this book already, having followed Belcher on Twitter for the past few years. In Search of Deep Faith reads like a travel journal crossed with Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, as Belcher recounts his family’s adventures through several months of “pilgrimage” in Europe. Belcher, his wife and four pre-teen children spent several months in Oxford, England, where he was a visiting scholar at the university there. They then spent time exploring European sites that were notable because of the saints who had lived there.

Belcher’s chapters bounce back and forth as he shares his family’s adventures in finding and exploring the locations - from Corrie Ten Boom’s house in Holland, to C. S. Lewis' home in Oxford, to a fruitless search for the location of Bonhoeffer’s hidden seminary - and then interspersing the stories of these saints, with an emphasis on how their deep faith led them to be devoted even during times of crisis and under threat of death.

Belcher’s concern in this memoir seems not primarily for his own spiritual health, but for that of his young children. He reminds us (several times) of studies telling us that children with shallow faith roots will abandon their faith in adulthood. How, Belcher wonders, can he inspire the faith and spiritual understanding that will allow his children to remain firm in their faith throughout their lives?

In Search of Deep Faith is an entertaining read. Most readers will find at least one of the historical faith stories to be new to them - the full story of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was particularly interesting to me - and Belcher drives the reader to reflection on the health of one’s own faith.

[caption width=“640” align=“aligncenter”] Cranmer burned at the stake[/caption]

My one big gripe with the book is Belcher’s style of driving his argument via what I’m assuming must be invented dialogue. Sure, some of the conversations on his trip probably happened as they are written, but even though page after page of his book is filled with quoted dialog ("‘why do you think he did that?’, my wife asked."), either he provided a script for his family to read their questions from, or he’s putting words in their mouths later as a device to move his arguments along. And while literature has been using the forced question-and-answer format at least since Plato did it in The Republic, after too many chapters of it from Belcher it just feels contrived.

In spite of that gripe I’d still recommend reading this one if you think you’re at all interested. Style aside, it’s an encouraging and educational read.

Disclosure: InterVarsity Press provided me a free ebook copy of In Search of Deep Faith in return for posting a review here and at Amazon.com. The contents of the review are mine alone.

Nov 25, 2013 ∞

The command to love my neighbour as myself still retains its claim upon me

I don’t always find myself warmed by the writings of Charles Spurgeon, but my friend Michael Terry sent me this bit yesterday, to which I can only give a hearty Amen!

We have seen such a one limping about with a long doctrinal leg, but a very short emotional leg. It is a horrible thing for a man to be so doctrinal that he can speak coolly of the doom of the wicked, so that, if he does not actually praise God for it, it costs him no anguish of heart to think of the ruin of millions of our race. This is horrible!

I hate to hear the terrors of the Lord proclaimed by men whose hard visages, harsh tones, and unfeeling spirit betray a sort of doctrinal desiccation: all the milk of human kindness is dried out of them. Having no feeling himself, such a preacher creates none, and the people sit and listen while he keeps to dry, lifeless statements, until they come to value him for being “sound”, and they themselves come to be sound, too; and I need not add, sound asleep also, or what life they have is spent in sniffing out heresy, and making earnest men offenders for a word. Into this spirit may we never be baptized!

Whatever I believe, or do not believe, the command to love my neighbour as myself still retains its claim upon me, and God forbid that any views or opinions should so contract my soul, and harden my heart as to make me forget this law of love! The love of God is first, but this by no means lessens the obligation of love to man; in fact, the first command includes the second. We are to seek our neighbour’s conversion because we love him, and we are to speak to him in loving terms God’s loving gospel, because our heart desires his eternal good.

This comes from Spurgeon’s book The Soul Winner. I love both the spirit and the sense of humor displayed here. Good stuff.

Nov 6, 2013 ∞

The proper evangelical attitude toward sinful behavior outside the church

Here’s one for ya this morning:

The proper evangelical attitude toward sinful behavior outside the church should be one of wise resignation and acceptance. There’s no gospel call to change the world into the church by law. In fact, it cannot be done.

Roger Olson, from How to be Evangelical Without Being Conservative.

I find this thought compelling. It seems so backwards to the evangelical ear, and definitely runs afoul of Dominion Theology, but I think Olson is right.

Nov 1, 2013 ∞

A Calvinist at the Pearly Gates

Trevin Wax today reviews Michael Bird’s new book Evangelical Theology. Outside of the book and review, this humorous aside from Bird’s book inspired a chortle, which is why I pass it along. Enjoy!

A Calvinist arrives at St. Peter’s gates and sees that there are two queues going in. One is marked “predestined,” and the other is marked “free will.” Being the card-carrying Calvinist that he is, he strolls on over to the predestined queue. After several moments an angel asks him, “Why are you in this line?” He replies, “Because I chose it.” The angel looks surprised, “Well, if you ‘chose’ it, then you should be in the free will line.” So our Calvinist, now slightly miffed, obediently wanders over to the free will line. Again, after a few minutes, another angel asks him, “Why are you in this line?” He sullenly replies, “Someone made me come here.”

Aug 23, 2013 ∞

A few thoughts on the "yuck factor" discussion

In case you’re not already caught up: the discussion started with Thabiti Anyabwile’s post on TGC, “The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and “Gay Marriage”". One-line summary: “Return the [gay marriage] discussion to sexual behavior in all its yuckiest gag-inducing truth.”

Then yesterday Richard Beck posted a response: On Love and the Yuck Factor. Two-line summary: (1) “I don’t think it’s healthy to use disgust to regulate moral behavior.” (2) “When disgust is involved any purported distinction being made between persons and behavior is… a verbal obfuscation of the underlying psychology.”

There have been a bunch of other thoughtful responses (to both men), including a long comment on Beck’s piece from “dmr5090” (sheesh, people, can’t you use real names at least?). Key points in those rebuttals to Beck have often been along the lines of (1) Shouldn’t sin gross us out?, (2) “Aren’t you just trying to argue that ‘homosexuality isn’t a sin’ without admitting it?” and (3) “The words ‘gag reflex’ and ‘yuck factor’ aren’t Anyabwile’s - he’s just quoting a gay journalist.”

To be fair, I have grossly simplified, hopefully not unfairly, all the posts I’ve linked so far. If you want to dig into this argument, go read them all.

So here’s the thing: I know there’s a battle raging among various flavors of Protestants and even evangelicals over homosexuality. But I can believe on one hand that homosexual acts are sinful, and on the other hand still respond with revulsion to Anyabwile’s post. Here’s why:

1. Inconsistent application of the tactic. Why do we not hear preachers like Anyabwile use this “gag reflex” topic when addressing other, more “acceptable” sins? Let’s hear a few sermons on gluttony that try to gross me out with discussions of sweaty mounds of obese flesh before you try to claim that the “gross out” strategy is really one you think should be used across the board.

2. The encouragement to revulsion at the act quickly leads to revulsion of the person. Yes, sin is revolting. All sin should be revolting to us. But to encourage a “gag reflex” response to homosexuality will very quickly lead a person to have that “gag reflex” toward the homosexual person. And that’s the furthest thing from what Christ calls us to. I know that Anyabwile says in his post that we “should not be mean and bigoted”. But I don’t understand how you can encourage a gag reflex when you hear “homosexual” and not end up that way. (Beck made this point in his post far better than I’m saying it here.)

(Observation: while writing this I was about to say that Anyabwile said we should still love the sinners, but he never actually says that in his piece. All he says is that we should not be mean and bigoted, and that we should ‘speak the truth in love’. And the truth, he says, is that homosexual relationships cannot properly be called ‘love’. Not sure it’s fair to draw a conclusion from that, but it’s bothersome.)

3. This is the old “culture warrior” position again. Have we not learned yet that sin is not going to be defeated by us making the right arguments to those in privileged positions in the halls of power? Anyabwile seems to think that if he’d just managed to gross out the right people in powerful positions, we wouldn’t have legalized gay marriage. I say that’s baloney. We’ve had the evangelical attempts at political power for at least 30 years. Buchanan, Falwell, Dobson… How’s that worked out for us?

4. The Gospel is not “sin is icky”. The Gospel message is that we are all sinful, all equally in need of Christ’s grace and forgiveness. That God is in the process of making all things new, of drawing people to himself. That’s the message we need to be spending our time on.

Aug 19, 2013 ∞

Does your church have room for me?

What if I don’t have 100% agreement with your doctrinal statement, but still want to be a part of your church?