I thought it was clever to release some short teasers in relation to the upcoming State of the Union address. The first is apparently a proposal to give two free years of community college to all Americans who are willing to work for it.
1. My first thought of course was, "Not going to happen." Even if they liked it, where would Congress find the money for a project like this one?
My second thought was, "Clever, knowing that Congress will never go for something like this. It sets up the next Democratic candidate for President as a potential selling or "get out the vote" point.
My third thought was, "It's probably a bad idea when you get into the implications."
2. For one thing, for something like this really to pay off, whoever the planners were (and that in itself is a major problem--no one, Republican or Democrat--ever agrees on what the outcomes of education are really supposed to be) would need to be very specific about what these two years of education were supposed to achieve. That is to say, what are the outcomes America is looking for with these two years.
A good basic education, with courses like writing and psychology, certainly adds value to any person. Basic math skills, a sense of history--all good stuff for anyone to have rattling around in their heads. Basically, we're looking to give the least educated segment of the American population what they should have received in high school but didn't because they dropped out. That would be a good thing, if they would go for it.
Of course many adjuncts at community colleges are not as high up on the academic totem pole as those who teach at a private or more public institution (you usually get what you pay for). So we're talking about adding value in some cases, rather than a state of the art education, IMO. Nevertheless, community colleges are a good thing and serve a wide range of people (of all capacities). And I want to be clear that I believe there are gems of teachers at community colleges who give more value than Harvard.
3. But, money changes things. If community colleges were suddenly where the money was, then the quality of teachers at community colleges would improve over time.
But more questionable is the fact that this would effectively kill large numbers of private colleges, unless they could get in on the dough as well. I can see "school voucher" programs develop so that private schools could get this money too.
Private colleges are already endangered because of community schools. I wouldn't be surprised if some schools in the near future go to a two-tier tuition rate, one of which applies to general education courses and another of which applies to major classes. So you would take psychology online for a price comparable to Ivy Tech but you would then pay a higher tuition (with smaller classes) to take a course like Anatomy and Physiology.
Bottom line: This proposal would create immense and I think ultimately very unhealthy upheaval in American higher education, with harmful unintended consequences.
4. What I would support are free vocational training and placement programs that could be associated with community colleges. In order to receive welfare, you would have to enroll in these programs, successfully graduate from them, and then take a placement in an appropriate workplace.
Indeed, I would be delighted to see grocery stores and work places develop, whose main source of income is money redirected from current welfare programs into a channel of help that requires training and work to receive.
Like Obama's proposal, I doubt this idea will ever see the light of day...
Friday, January 09, 2015
Friday Novel: The Dream
Thomas and Sophia went to bed like any night, Tom a little later than Sophie. It might not have been peculiar for one to have the other in a dream. Only when they awoke did they realize that they had both had the same dream--a tad bit more unusual.
Of course it did not seem like a dream at the time. Nor did it seem unusual in the dream to have a visit from an angel.
Or rather, they happened upon the angel. They were were exploring the platform of their church--something they had never actually done while awake. There they stumbled on a door, which of course did not really exist. Indeed, they did not usually even hang around each other at church. A fourteen year old girl and a fifteen year old boy usually have quite different sets of friends.
In the dream, there was no question that they would open the door and proceed up the obviously misplaced spiral staircase. Round and round it wound, far too long in truth. When it stopped, they emerged onto a floor of wooden blanks and walls made of medieval stone. They hardly noticed that, while it had just been midday, they had emerged to night at the top of a cathedral tower.
Indeed, it was the blackest night they had ever seen. If they had been awake, they might have found the formless dark in front of the tower terrifying. But in this dream, they were both drawn to it. They walked to the edge of the tower and looked out at a mysterious emptiness.
"What do you think it is?" Tom asked his sister.
"I don't know. I've never seen anything like it."
"It's the way things were before God created the heavens and the earth," a startling third voice emerged from above. They turned to look up, where they saw a quite massive figure sitting on the roof. It was a grey gargoyle of stone with wings.
"How do you know?" Sophie asked.
"Because I was there," he answered with a chuckle...
Of course it did not seem like a dream at the time. Nor did it seem unusual in the dream to have a visit from an angel.
Or rather, they happened upon the angel. They were were exploring the platform of their church--something they had never actually done while awake. There they stumbled on a door, which of course did not really exist. Indeed, they did not usually even hang around each other at church. A fourteen year old girl and a fifteen year old boy usually have quite different sets of friends.
In the dream, there was no question that they would open the door and proceed up the obviously misplaced spiral staircase. Round and round it wound, far too long in truth. When it stopped, they emerged onto a floor of wooden blanks and walls made of medieval stone. They hardly noticed that, while it had just been midday, they had emerged to night at the top of a cathedral tower.
Indeed, it was the blackest night they had ever seen. If they had been awake, they might have found the formless dark in front of the tower terrifying. But in this dream, they were both drawn to it. They walked to the edge of the tower and looked out at a mysterious emptiness.
"What do you think it is?" Tom asked his sister.
"I don't know. I've never seen anything like it."
"It's the way things were before God created the heavens and the earth," a startling third voice emerged from above. They turned to look up, where they saw a quite massive figure sitting on the roof. It was a grey gargoyle of stone with wings.
"How do you know?" Sophie asked.
"Because I was there," he answered with a chuckle...
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Where Jesus was sentenced to die...
Candida Moss has written an article about a new archaeological site now accessible for tourists, namely, the praetorium in the basement of Herod's palace. No doubt with a wry smile on her face, she mentions that this site has been known since 2001 but is now being publicized because it is now available for tourists. (See Jodi Magness on the archaeology).
This location in Herod's palace is now thought to be where Jesus was sentenced to die (not in the picture).
I'll defer to archaeological experts on this one. It is very frustrating, but I knew better when I was in Israel to think that the sites we saw were the actual sites of most things. We like certainty (indeed, it is almost an idol for many), but real historical study leaves us with more questions than definite answers.
So the current sense of things is that Jesus wasn't sentenced at the Antonia Fortress (to the left) and that the Via Dolorosa you visit today (from the 1700s) wasn't the original one.
I did have one question about the piece. I am pretty sure that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was actually outside the city walls of Jerusalem at the time of Christ.
 |
| Antonia Fortress, apparently NOT where Jesus was sentenced or where the Via Dolorosa began. |
I'll defer to archaeological experts on this one. It is very frustrating, but I knew better when I was in Israel to think that the sites we saw were the actual sites of most things. We like certainty (indeed, it is almost an idol for many), but real historical study leaves us with more questions than definite answers.
So the current sense of things is that Jesus wasn't sentenced at the Antonia Fortress (to the left) and that the Via Dolorosa you visit today (from the 1700s) wasn't the original one.
I did have one question about the piece. I am pretty sure that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was actually outside the city walls of Jerusalem at the time of Christ.
The Church in Mark's House
1. The New Testament church was like a Jewish denomination. They didn't think of themselves as a new religion. They were the Jews that had the proper understanding of Scripture. They were the Jews who understood who the Messiah truly was. They were the true heirs to the faith of Israel.
So the denominational HQ was in Jerusalem, and the General Superintendent was James, the brother of Jesus. There were mega-churches in Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome. Well, let's call them multi-venue churches, since few individual house churches would have held much more than 50. In fact, you could also think of them as collections of small churches by our standards.
2. I wonder if the house of Mary, mother of John Mark in Acts 12, was a house church. I wonder if it was the house church in Jerusalem where Peter primarily worshiped, since that's where he goes when God frees him from prison. Is this the house where they had the Last Supper, the so called "cenacle"?
Was this also the house where the 120 were gathered on the Day of Pentecost? Then John Mark's family would have to be rich. They do have a servant, Rhoda. If this house was connected in some way to the beloved disciple, a connection to the high priest would befit an aristocratic, priestly family. There is a tradition from the 500s that this was the "mother of all churches" (Theodosius).
James apparently did not live in this house, for he is not there when Peter escapes. But that does not mean that he did not worship there. There were other churches in Jerusalem. For example, the Greek-speaking Christian Jews presumably met somewhere else so that they could worship in Greek.
These believers would ideally have seen whole synagogues believe in Jesus. A synagogue was a gathering at this time, not necessarily a free standing building (thus we can never assume when we read of a synagogue in the NT that we are reading about a building. The synagogue in Capernaum or Nazareth at this time, for example, may simply have been a gathering at a particular public spot, maybe even out in the open somewhere). We definitely cannot assume that the buildings where they take you on tour in Israel are in any way like what was there in Jesus' day.
I imagine that there were some places where entire synagogues believed. In most instances, however, Christian Jews became a para-synagogue movement. They would worship in the synagogue then also gather at other times to eat together (how they did communion) or to pray (e.g., some at dawn, especially on the "Lord's Day," Sunday, to remember the resurrection).
3. I doubt there were any Gentiles in this church. It was an Aramaic-speaking Jewish church. They did not have a rule book on membership but there were assumed membership commitments, namely, keeping the Jewish Law. Let's just say they never had pork for communion. Every male had to be circumcised. The women no doubt did not come to worship when they were menstruating because they would be unclean according to Leviticus.
Someone who did not keep these "membership commitments" would not have been welcome.
They would not have been welcoming to Gentiles in this church. Would Greek-speaking Jews have felt welcomed? I'd like to think they could have attended but I bet they would not have felt particularly warm and fuzzy there.
A group that probably was welcome were ultra-conservative believers, Pharisees who believed Jesus was the Messiah but who still believed in ultra-strict Law-observance (see Acts 15:5).
4. We can understand why John Mark might have had some initial tension with Paul. Mark came from a somewhat conservative background, compared to where Paul was leading the mission. We can also imagine that he spread bad rumors about Paul among the leadership after he left the first missionary journey. We can understand James having some caution about Paul since he had only heard one side for a year or more before Paul was actually able to give his side.
Mark would, of course, come around.
So the denominational HQ was in Jerusalem, and the General Superintendent was James, the brother of Jesus. There were mega-churches in Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome. Well, let's call them multi-venue churches, since few individual house churches would have held much more than 50. In fact, you could also think of them as collections of small churches by our standards.
2. I wonder if the house of Mary, mother of John Mark in Acts 12, was a house church. I wonder if it was the house church in Jerusalem where Peter primarily worshiped, since that's where he goes when God frees him from prison. Is this the house where they had the Last Supper, the so called "cenacle"?
Was this also the house where the 120 were gathered on the Day of Pentecost? Then John Mark's family would have to be rich. They do have a servant, Rhoda. If this house was connected in some way to the beloved disciple, a connection to the high priest would befit an aristocratic, priestly family. There is a tradition from the 500s that this was the "mother of all churches" (Theodosius).
James apparently did not live in this house, for he is not there when Peter escapes. But that does not mean that he did not worship there. There were other churches in Jerusalem. For example, the Greek-speaking Christian Jews presumably met somewhere else so that they could worship in Greek.
These believers would ideally have seen whole synagogues believe in Jesus. A synagogue was a gathering at this time, not necessarily a free standing building (thus we can never assume when we read of a synagogue in the NT that we are reading about a building. The synagogue in Capernaum or Nazareth at this time, for example, may simply have been a gathering at a particular public spot, maybe even out in the open somewhere). We definitely cannot assume that the buildings where they take you on tour in Israel are in any way like what was there in Jesus' day.
I imagine that there were some places where entire synagogues believed. In most instances, however, Christian Jews became a para-synagogue movement. They would worship in the synagogue then also gather at other times to eat together (how they did communion) or to pray (e.g., some at dawn, especially on the "Lord's Day," Sunday, to remember the resurrection).
3. I doubt there were any Gentiles in this church. It was an Aramaic-speaking Jewish church. They did not have a rule book on membership but there were assumed membership commitments, namely, keeping the Jewish Law. Let's just say they never had pork for communion. Every male had to be circumcised. The women no doubt did not come to worship when they were menstruating because they would be unclean according to Leviticus.
Someone who did not keep these "membership commitments" would not have been welcome.
They would not have been welcoming to Gentiles in this church. Would Greek-speaking Jews have felt welcomed? I'd like to think they could have attended but I bet they would not have felt particularly warm and fuzzy there.
A group that probably was welcome were ultra-conservative believers, Pharisees who believed Jesus was the Messiah but who still believed in ultra-strict Law-observance (see Acts 15:5).
4. We can understand why John Mark might have had some initial tension with Paul. Mark came from a somewhat conservative background, compared to where Paul was leading the mission. We can also imagine that he spread bad rumors about Paul among the leadership after he left the first missionary journey. We can understand James having some caution about Paul since he had only heard one side for a year or more before Paul was actually able to give his side.
Mark would, of course, come around.
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
Pete Enns' sense of the Newsweek article
Here is Pete Enns' sense of the Newsweek article to which I responded on Monday. His take-away is that, amid all the inflammatory rhetoric and mistaken details, there is some truth in the article.
Which Bible?
A thought to ponder today:
1. Because the Bible is made up of diverse books written for diverse situations...
2. Because the cultural contexts of the Bible were different than ours today...
... different groups inevitably hear different "take-aways" from the Bible.
One group says the Bible is clearly against abortion. Another says there isn't any material that even addresses the question in the Bible. One group says the Bible is clearly against homosexuality. Another says the Bible was talking about something different in those passages. One group says the Bible teaches you don't have to sin by the Spirit's power. Another says it's inevitable.
(Let me clarify, I'm not wanting to debate any of these issues. I'm making a hermeneutical point, not a point about these issues.)
Here's the thought to ponder today. Tradition--namely the Christian culture we are part of--always always plays a role in what we think the Bible says and thus in what we think God's expectations are. If we don't make these traditions explicit, then we mindlessly follow whatever interpretations are the most popular.
These unvoiced assumptions and expectations were there in the early church too. We have no evidence that any Gentiles were saved on the Day of Pentecost, for example. The cultural assumptions of the exclusive collection of Jews present wouldn't even have thought of this possibility. They would have simply assumed that the Bible teaches that salvation is a Jewish thing. If you had asked the unthought of question, "Can Gentiles be part of this?" They would have had to think about it and initially said, "Sure, they can convert and become Jews."
So the assumption of the Day of Pentecost would have been that new converts could not eat pork to be in the church. They would have assumed that new converts could not work on Saturday and be part of the church. They did not articulate these requirements because they were unexamined traditional assumptions.
So if you want, meditate today on the fact that traditional interpretations are always involved in the identities of a community. The only time we are lulled into thinking there aren't is when everyone with us just happens to already think the same thing. This is true, for example, of gray evangelicalism today. This is true of most large churches today, which tend to look similar in general beliefs and practices. Most churches in this group have similar beliefs and practices, so you can say "We have no creed but the Bible" because everyone in the group thinks the Bible teaches more or less the same thing.
But this is a set up for mindless drift. Just because everyone is saying the same thing doesn't at all mean there is no room for debate as far as what the Bible says. Indeed, it is exactly when everyone assumes the meaning of the Bible is obvious to everyone that they are most likely not to know what the Bible really says.
P.S. In the arguments between Pharisees and Sadducees, the Sadducees said, "You Pharisees have all these oral traditions. We just follow what the Law actually says." But they were wrong. The Sadducees also had traditions about how to interpret the Law. They just weren't self-aware enough to know it.
1. Because the Bible is made up of diverse books written for diverse situations...
2. Because the cultural contexts of the Bible were different than ours today...
... different groups inevitably hear different "take-aways" from the Bible.
One group says the Bible is clearly against abortion. Another says there isn't any material that even addresses the question in the Bible. One group says the Bible is clearly against homosexuality. Another says the Bible was talking about something different in those passages. One group says the Bible teaches you don't have to sin by the Spirit's power. Another says it's inevitable.
(Let me clarify, I'm not wanting to debate any of these issues. I'm making a hermeneutical point, not a point about these issues.)
Here's the thought to ponder today. Tradition--namely the Christian culture we are part of--always always plays a role in what we think the Bible says and thus in what we think God's expectations are. If we don't make these traditions explicit, then we mindlessly follow whatever interpretations are the most popular.
These unvoiced assumptions and expectations were there in the early church too. We have no evidence that any Gentiles were saved on the Day of Pentecost, for example. The cultural assumptions of the exclusive collection of Jews present wouldn't even have thought of this possibility. They would have simply assumed that the Bible teaches that salvation is a Jewish thing. If you had asked the unthought of question, "Can Gentiles be part of this?" They would have had to think about it and initially said, "Sure, they can convert and become Jews."
So the assumption of the Day of Pentecost would have been that new converts could not eat pork to be in the church. They would have assumed that new converts could not work on Saturday and be part of the church. They did not articulate these requirements because they were unexamined traditional assumptions.
So if you want, meditate today on the fact that traditional interpretations are always involved in the identities of a community. The only time we are lulled into thinking there aren't is when everyone with us just happens to already think the same thing. This is true, for example, of gray evangelicalism today. This is true of most large churches today, which tend to look similar in general beliefs and practices. Most churches in this group have similar beliefs and practices, so you can say "We have no creed but the Bible" because everyone in the group thinks the Bible teaches more or less the same thing.
But this is a set up for mindless drift. Just because everyone is saying the same thing doesn't at all mean there is no room for debate as far as what the Bible says. Indeed, it is exactly when everyone assumes the meaning of the Bible is obvious to everyone that they are most likely not to know what the Bible really says.
P.S. In the arguments between Pharisees and Sadducees, the Sadducees said, "You Pharisees have all these oral traditions. We just follow what the Law actually says." But they were wrong. The Sadducees also had traditions about how to interpret the Law. They just weren't self-aware enough to know it.
Tuesday, January 06, 2015
How to be a writer...
Hat tip to James McGrath for a link to this great article on being a writer. I have found a good deal of this article to be true for me. Here are the points where I "amen-ed."
- I have written some fifteen books in the last four years, in large part by blogging every morning before work as a discipline. I have not managed to do this with academic books, however, and have struggled even to get one book finished.
- I resonated with the sense that Deans and administrators had better write before they go to work. No matter what time I think I'll have during the day, whack-a-mole inevitably takes over.
- I agreed with the four hour hangover. I have attempted my fair share of "all day" writing ventures, including over Christmas break. But I only really have about four good writing hours a day, no matter how much coffee I drink.
Monday, January 05, 2015
Tuition and Fees at IWU
President David Wright writes on the affordability of getting your undergraduate degree at Indiana Wesleyan. $24,102 is very affordable up against other institutions, with average financial aid over $17,000 a student.
The Gentile audience of Hebrews
From the book I'm finishing, A New Perspective on Hebrews: Ways That Never Parted. This paragraph relates to Hebrews 6:1-2.
"... It is at this point that we see the great difficulty of supposing a strictly Jewish audience for Hebrews. A Jew would not learn of the need to repent for sins when they began to learn about the Messiah. For a Jew, such teaching would not be part of 'the beginning word about the Christ' but a matter of teaching from childhood. Repentance was similarly a fundamental category within Judaism. The need for “faith upon God” was an overwhelmingly basic Jewish category irrespective of basic teaching about the Christ. We can make the same observation with regard to the presence of resurrection and judgment on the list. It is of course possible that a group of Diaspora Jews might have had divergent beliefs on such things, for such beliefs were not uniform among Jews. Nevertheless, these were basic Jewish beliefs, not distinctively Christian ones.
Before the revisions of the seventies, it was easy to miss how strange a list Hebrews 6:1-2 would be if it were directed toward a Jewish audience. Now, after the new perspective, it is difficult to imagine them directed toward a Jewish audience at all. Only Gentiles would have experienced conversion to Christian Judaism as a change of religion. Faith in God, repentance of sins, belief in resurrection and judgment simply would not have been part of some 'beginning word of Christ' for a Jewish believer! On the other hand, they would be very appropriate for a Gentile convert to the God of Israel."
"... It is at this point that we see the great difficulty of supposing a strictly Jewish audience for Hebrews. A Jew would not learn of the need to repent for sins when they began to learn about the Messiah. For a Jew, such teaching would not be part of 'the beginning word about the Christ' but a matter of teaching from childhood. Repentance was similarly a fundamental category within Judaism. The need for “faith upon God” was an overwhelmingly basic Jewish category irrespective of basic teaching about the Christ. We can make the same observation with regard to the presence of resurrection and judgment on the list. It is of course possible that a group of Diaspora Jews might have had divergent beliefs on such things, for such beliefs were not uniform among Jews. Nevertheless, these were basic Jewish beliefs, not distinctively Christian ones.
Before the revisions of the seventies, it was easy to miss how strange a list Hebrews 6:1-2 would be if it were directed toward a Jewish audience. Now, after the new perspective, it is difficult to imagine them directed toward a Jewish audience at all. Only Gentiles would have experienced conversion to Christian Judaism as a change of religion. Faith in God, repentance of sins, belief in resurrection and judgment simply would not have been part of some 'beginning word of Christ' for a Jewish believer! On the other hand, they would be very appropriate for a Gentile convert to the God of Israel."
Newsweek Overreach
I was disappointed to read the December 23 cover article for Newsweek, "The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin." The words of Rodney King came to mind: "Can't we all just get along?"
I don't want to react in kind. You know, perpetuate a situation where people like Eichenwald pop up their head and take a shot. Then I pop up my head and take a shot. Nevertheless, it seemed worth a response.
Introduction
A little over the top, it seems to me. Who are the "they" he is talking about? Even more ironic when he ends the article by telling "them" not to judge. Sure sounds like a whole lot of judging going on in this introduction!
Are all people who love the Bible like the people he describes? I think there are actually some people who both love the Bible and truly love people. And not everyone who loves the Bible is entangled in civil religion. Jim Wallis came to mind as someone who loves the Bible and doesn't look at all like this description.
I understand the temptation to lambaste people you think are hateful hypocrites. But probably more appropriate for a blog than the cover story of Newsweek. :-)
Missing Originals
I know there are still some King James only people out there, but this section is pretty boring for the vast majority of us who love the Bible. If you use the NIV or any other recent translation, there's nothing in this section that is new. It's REALLY old news.
I don't think many people in my circles are troubled by the question of whether Mark 16:9-20 was in the original copy of Mark or not. Even if the relatively small number of debated verses in the Bible were not original, every single Christian belief would still be there.
This does give me a chance to plug something. When we sing, "The Bible tells me so," we're talking about the whole Bible, the Bible in its total picture rather than focusing on trump or "clobber" verses. It is the individual verse that we are most likely to misunderstand, not the big themes. Indeed, it is the individual verse that is most likely to be context-specific to the original audience.
As a note to my Wesleyan family, it was those who opposed abolition in the 1800s who used individual clobber verses against us, just as they do today on the subject of women in ministry. Inerrancy, for the Wesleyan tradition, surely is a matter of the whole Bible's message, not the little piddly issues this Newsweek guy seems preoccupied with.
Translations
Again, this section is half boredom, half confusion. What are you after here? The King James again? That's old news. Perhaps you're trying to critique the NIV for wearing its theology on its sleeve?
OK, there are plenty of us who love the Bible who noticed that the NIV1984 wore the evangelical theology of its translators on its sleeves in various places. The NIV2011 is a significant improvement. But most of those in my circles don't really care what version you use--NRSV, CEB, NEB. It's all good.
This section seems to blur into the question of Jesus' divinity, which is a different question from mere translation. Basically, it looks like he has been reading some Bart Ehrman.
Constantine
This section seemed the worst factually to me of the whole piece and reminded me of some papers I've read that ramble on and on, with the student writing down whatever pops into his or her head next. What is he talking about? Constantine had nothing to do with which books are in the New Testament. That wasn't decided at Nicaea, despite how many internet pages might think so.
Constantine didn't put people to death for not believing in the Trinity. Good grief. He didn't even make worship of the Roman gods illegal! Even a brief stop at Wikipedia would have helped on this one. BTW, "Holy" Roman Empire... REALLY? Did he really confuse the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire??!! Sheeez!
And of course there are plenty of Bible-loving Christians who aren't too keen on Constantine anyway, Anabaptists especially.
Bible Contradictions
Ho-hum. Is it difficult to fit together the Christmas and Easter accounts together... never heard that one before... NOT. I wonder if this guy is an ex-fundamentalist, someone who used to major on these details. That's what happens. Ex-fundamentalists become the most rabid anti-fundamentalists.
"Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again." Do all the Gospels teach that? Yep.
Creation and the Flood
I suppose there is a warning in all this blather. It is the "whole Bible" warning I mentioned above. I suppose there are people who get all torn up in knots about whether Genesis 1 means a literal 6 days or is poetic. Don't get worked up about these debates.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Yep, I'm good.
Hypocrisy on Homosexuality
Eichenwald's argument here is that some of those Christians who are most vocal about homosexuality pick and choose. So 1 Timothy 1:10 mentions homosexual practice. Then why doesn't Sarah Palin pay attention to 1 Timothy 2:12 on women leaders? Romans 1 also talks about homosexual sex. Then why does Pat Robertson feel free to rip Obama a new one in the light of Romans 13:1-5?
This whole section really grieves me. Has Eichenwald been the recipient of hate at some point? Look at the pictures that are scattered throughout this article. They all seem to say that Bible-loving Christians are either hateful or stupid. That's really unfair, even if those who have received hatred in the past feel like they are simply dishing back what they've experienced themselves. Not all Bible-loving Christians are like that.
My church emphatically insists on loving everyone, including those who are attracted to the same sex. We do this while taking seriously the fact that all the verses in the Bible that mention the act of homosexual sex are negative toward it. By contrast, there are female leaders in Scripture. There are leaders God overthrows in Scripture.
Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you hate them. No doubt all of us contradict ourselves at points without realizing it. Certainly all of us are wrong on some interpretations and need to be willing to revisit our traditions from time to time. But there are many Bible-loving Christians for whom loving everyone is even more important than their interpretations on these specific issues.
Public Prayer and Judging
One of the most ironic twists to me as this article comes to a close is that he ends by telling fundamentalists not to judge... after a section where he has basically accused people like Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal of calling prayer rallies as publicity stunts!!! The irony there was so blatant I laughed out loud.
"Judging," is when you jump to conclusions about someone's motives when you can't see them. Now some actions can be obvious. If you murder someone, I'm not judging if I say you've done something wrong.
Personally, it doesn't look good for politicians to front their Christianity when everyone knows it will help get them votes. I prefer politicians who are more cautious and reserved about their faith. But I can't see Rick Perry or Bobby Jindal's hearts. I can't say what their motives are. It is judging if I jump to conclusions about what they are.
Ultimately, Jesus' point in the Sermon on the Mount is not to pray in public for show. He wasn't just saying not to pray in public. Having a prayer rally in itself doesn't violate what Jesus is saying. Surely you can have a prayer rally because you sincerely want to rally people to pray.
In the end, I wonder what good will come of this piece. On the one hand, it stokes the anger of anti-fundamentalists toward Christianity in general, and even Bible-loving Christianity is much bigger than fundamentalism.
And as for fundamentalists? Those who are like he says will simply rent their clothes and say, "Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. The 'elite media' is liberal and you need to vote for the Tea Party Republican nearest you." That's a backfire there.
I don't want to react in kind. You know, perpetuate a situation where people like Eichenwald pop up their head and take a shot. Then I pop up my head and take a shot. Nevertheless, it seemed worth a response.
Introduction
A little over the top, it seems to me. Who are the "they" he is talking about? Even more ironic when he ends the article by telling "them" not to judge. Sure sounds like a whole lot of judging going on in this introduction!
Are all people who love the Bible like the people he describes? I think there are actually some people who both love the Bible and truly love people. And not everyone who loves the Bible is entangled in civil religion. Jim Wallis came to mind as someone who loves the Bible and doesn't look at all like this description.
I understand the temptation to lambaste people you think are hateful hypocrites. But probably more appropriate for a blog than the cover story of Newsweek. :-)
Missing Originals
I know there are still some King James only people out there, but this section is pretty boring for the vast majority of us who love the Bible. If you use the NIV or any other recent translation, there's nothing in this section that is new. It's REALLY old news.
I don't think many people in my circles are troubled by the question of whether Mark 16:9-20 was in the original copy of Mark or not. Even if the relatively small number of debated verses in the Bible were not original, every single Christian belief would still be there.
This does give me a chance to plug something. When we sing, "The Bible tells me so," we're talking about the whole Bible, the Bible in its total picture rather than focusing on trump or "clobber" verses. It is the individual verse that we are most likely to misunderstand, not the big themes. Indeed, it is the individual verse that is most likely to be context-specific to the original audience.
As a note to my Wesleyan family, it was those who opposed abolition in the 1800s who used individual clobber verses against us, just as they do today on the subject of women in ministry. Inerrancy, for the Wesleyan tradition, surely is a matter of the whole Bible's message, not the little piddly issues this Newsweek guy seems preoccupied with.
Translations
Again, this section is half boredom, half confusion. What are you after here? The King James again? That's old news. Perhaps you're trying to critique the NIV for wearing its theology on its sleeve?
OK, there are plenty of us who love the Bible who noticed that the NIV1984 wore the evangelical theology of its translators on its sleeves in various places. The NIV2011 is a significant improvement. But most of those in my circles don't really care what version you use--NRSV, CEB, NEB. It's all good.
This section seems to blur into the question of Jesus' divinity, which is a different question from mere translation. Basically, it looks like he has been reading some Bart Ehrman.
Constantine
This section seemed the worst factually to me of the whole piece and reminded me of some papers I've read that ramble on and on, with the student writing down whatever pops into his or her head next. What is he talking about? Constantine had nothing to do with which books are in the New Testament. That wasn't decided at Nicaea, despite how many internet pages might think so.
Constantine didn't put people to death for not believing in the Trinity. Good grief. He didn't even make worship of the Roman gods illegal! Even a brief stop at Wikipedia would have helped on this one. BTW, "Holy" Roman Empire... REALLY? Did he really confuse the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire??!! Sheeez!
And of course there are plenty of Bible-loving Christians who aren't too keen on Constantine anyway, Anabaptists especially.
Bible Contradictions
Ho-hum. Is it difficult to fit together the Christmas and Easter accounts together... never heard that one before... NOT. I wonder if this guy is an ex-fundamentalist, someone who used to major on these details. That's what happens. Ex-fundamentalists become the most rabid anti-fundamentalists.
"Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again." Do all the Gospels teach that? Yep.
Creation and the Flood
I suppose there is a warning in all this blather. It is the "whole Bible" warning I mentioned above. I suppose there are people who get all torn up in knots about whether Genesis 1 means a literal 6 days or is poetic. Don't get worked up about these debates.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Yep, I'm good.
Hypocrisy on Homosexuality
Eichenwald's argument here is that some of those Christians who are most vocal about homosexuality pick and choose. So 1 Timothy 1:10 mentions homosexual practice. Then why doesn't Sarah Palin pay attention to 1 Timothy 2:12 on women leaders? Romans 1 also talks about homosexual sex. Then why does Pat Robertson feel free to rip Obama a new one in the light of Romans 13:1-5?
This whole section really grieves me. Has Eichenwald been the recipient of hate at some point? Look at the pictures that are scattered throughout this article. They all seem to say that Bible-loving Christians are either hateful or stupid. That's really unfair, even if those who have received hatred in the past feel like they are simply dishing back what they've experienced themselves. Not all Bible-loving Christians are like that.
My church emphatically insists on loving everyone, including those who are attracted to the same sex. We do this while taking seriously the fact that all the verses in the Bible that mention the act of homosexual sex are negative toward it. By contrast, there are female leaders in Scripture. There are leaders God overthrows in Scripture.
Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you hate them. No doubt all of us contradict ourselves at points without realizing it. Certainly all of us are wrong on some interpretations and need to be willing to revisit our traditions from time to time. But there are many Bible-loving Christians for whom loving everyone is even more important than their interpretations on these specific issues.
Public Prayer and Judging
One of the most ironic twists to me as this article comes to a close is that he ends by telling fundamentalists not to judge... after a section where he has basically accused people like Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal of calling prayer rallies as publicity stunts!!! The irony there was so blatant I laughed out loud.
"Judging," is when you jump to conclusions about someone's motives when you can't see them. Now some actions can be obvious. If you murder someone, I'm not judging if I say you've done something wrong.
Personally, it doesn't look good for politicians to front their Christianity when everyone knows it will help get them votes. I prefer politicians who are more cautious and reserved about their faith. But I can't see Rick Perry or Bobby Jindal's hearts. I can't say what their motives are. It is judging if I jump to conclusions about what they are.
Ultimately, Jesus' point in the Sermon on the Mount is not to pray in public for show. He wasn't just saying not to pray in public. Having a prayer rally in itself doesn't violate what Jesus is saying. Surely you can have a prayer rally because you sincerely want to rally people to pray.
In the end, I wonder what good will come of this piece. On the one hand, it stokes the anger of anti-fundamentalists toward Christianity in general, and even Bible-loving Christianity is much bigger than fundamentalism.
And as for fundamentalists? Those who are like he says will simply rent their clothes and say, "Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. The 'elite media' is liberal and you need to vote for the Tea Party Republican nearest you." That's a backfire there.
Sunday, January 04, 2015
Roger Olson on distinctions that aren't different
I enjoyed reading Roger Olson's post on distinctions without differences, mainly because his examples are mainly Calvinist. :-)
I agree that there is really no substantial difference between these distinctions:
I agree that there is really no substantial difference between these distinctions:
- single and double predestination
- hard and soft determinism
S1. Jesus saves.
It dawned on me that last week's post should probably have been the second in the unit on salvation in my ongoing series, theology in bullet points. So here now is the first one.
The first section of the series was on God and Creation, and I have also finished units on Christology and Atonement.
________________________
Jesus saves.
It is a core belief of Christianity that the default state of humanity is one of alienation from God. As Romans 3:23 puts it, "All have sinned and are lacking the glory of God." This state of humanity, sometimes called a state of "total depravity," is one from which no human can lift him or herself. [1] It is thus only by way of God's grace, his "unmerited favor," that we can be reconciled to God, that we can be "saved."
Salvation has to do with escaping something harmful or undesirable. There are a number of different respects in which Christ's death saves us, and the study of salvation is called soteriology.
1. Ultimately, Christ's death saves us from death. It rescues us from physical death as the final word of our existence and it saves us from eternal death in hell, however it is conceived. We escape the finality of existence because of Christ's death.
2. In the New Testament, the primary sense of salvation is escape from God's coming wrath. As Romans 5:9 puts it: "Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God" (NRSV). It was the belief of the earliest church that Jesus would literally return to earth to rule God's kingdom and that preceding his full reign would be a judgment (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:2-3). Salvation, in its primary New Testament sense, thus had to do with escape from the coming wrath of God (e.g., Rom. 1:18).
This future salvation should not be a matter of doubt for us if we have the Holy Spirit, who is a seal of God's ownership and who guarantees our inheritance (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). Paul and the New Testament do not teach that this guarantee is an absolute. Amazingly, a person can despise the grace of God and throw it away (e.g., Heb. 10:26, 29). But the normal expectation is that those who have received the Spirit will end up being saved in the end. Therefore, we can say, figuratively, "I am saved," now, in anticipation of the literal salvation that will occur on the Day of Judgment (e.g., Eph. 2:8).
3. We might also say, however, that Christ's death can save us now from power of Sin. While the New Testament does not use the word "save" (sozo) in this way, it is certainly true to the meaning of the biblical text. Paul tells the Romans that they are not to let Sin rule over their bodies (e.g., Rom. 6:12) and that the Holy Spirit sets us free from the power of Sin and death (Rom. 8:2). Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to say that the Spirit "saves" us from the power of Sin. We are saved from our enslavement to Sin as a power over us.
4. The Gospel of Luke also attests another distinct meaning to the word sozo, namely, "to heal." [1] Jesus says to the blind man in Luke 18:42, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you" (NIV). While it is possible that Luke intends us to hear a double entendre here, the primary meaning of the word is "heal" rather than "save."
Certainly Christians believe that Jesus' death makes possible our healing as humans. Part of our salvation is the restoration of the image of God in us. God begins to restore us to what true humanity is supposed to look like. God heals us of our sin.
5. The process of salvation, which Wesley called an "order of salvation" (ordo salutis) begins with God and ends with the full restoration of both humanity and the creation to its intended glory. It begins with God's plan (predestination), which included his reaching out to us long before we knew it, indeed long before we were ever born (prevenient grace).
When we respond, by God's power, to his invitation by faith and repentance, he forgives us of our past. He fills us with his Spirit and puts his seal of ownership on us (initial sanctification), freeing us from our past enslavement (redemption) and making us spiritually alive again (regeneration). We are "born again." New creation has taken place. He incorporates us into Christ and makes us his children (adoption). He pronounces us in right standing with him (justification). We are at peace with God.
This process of restoring us to life is a process (progressive sanctification) that requires every bit of us (entire sanctification). As long as we are in our current flesh in this world, there will always be temptation to sin. We long for the transformation of our bodies and the creation when Christ returns (glorification).
Next week: S3. God was reaching out to us far before we knew it.
[1] Words have distinctly different meanings each time they are used. It is thus the "overload fallacy" to try to mix different meanings of a word together when interpreting a single instance of the word. Sozo either means to save or to heal, but it doesn't mean both at the same time, unless an author is intentionally making a play on words, a double entendre. Therefore, Ephesians 2:8 does not mean, "By grace you have been healed," and it at least is not clear that Luke 18:42 means, "Your faith has saved you."
The first section of the series was on God and Creation, and I have also finished units on Christology and Atonement.
________________________
Jesus saves.
It is a core belief of Christianity that the default state of humanity is one of alienation from God. As Romans 3:23 puts it, "All have sinned and are lacking the glory of God." This state of humanity, sometimes called a state of "total depravity," is one from which no human can lift him or herself. [1] It is thus only by way of God's grace, his "unmerited favor," that we can be reconciled to God, that we can be "saved."
Salvation has to do with escaping something harmful or undesirable. There are a number of different respects in which Christ's death saves us, and the study of salvation is called soteriology.
1. Ultimately, Christ's death saves us from death. It rescues us from physical death as the final word of our existence and it saves us from eternal death in hell, however it is conceived. We escape the finality of existence because of Christ's death.
2. In the New Testament, the primary sense of salvation is escape from God's coming wrath. As Romans 5:9 puts it: "Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God" (NRSV). It was the belief of the earliest church that Jesus would literally return to earth to rule God's kingdom and that preceding his full reign would be a judgment (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:2-3). Salvation, in its primary New Testament sense, thus had to do with escape from the coming wrath of God (e.g., Rom. 1:18).
This future salvation should not be a matter of doubt for us if we have the Holy Spirit, who is a seal of God's ownership and who guarantees our inheritance (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). Paul and the New Testament do not teach that this guarantee is an absolute. Amazingly, a person can despise the grace of God and throw it away (e.g., Heb. 10:26, 29). But the normal expectation is that those who have received the Spirit will end up being saved in the end. Therefore, we can say, figuratively, "I am saved," now, in anticipation of the literal salvation that will occur on the Day of Judgment (e.g., Eph. 2:8).
3. We might also say, however, that Christ's death can save us now from power of Sin. While the New Testament does not use the word "save" (sozo) in this way, it is certainly true to the meaning of the biblical text. Paul tells the Romans that they are not to let Sin rule over their bodies (e.g., Rom. 6:12) and that the Holy Spirit sets us free from the power of Sin and death (Rom. 8:2). Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to say that the Spirit "saves" us from the power of Sin. We are saved from our enslavement to Sin as a power over us.
4. The Gospel of Luke also attests another distinct meaning to the word sozo, namely, "to heal." [1] Jesus says to the blind man in Luke 18:42, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you" (NIV). While it is possible that Luke intends us to hear a double entendre here, the primary meaning of the word is "heal" rather than "save."
Certainly Christians believe that Jesus' death makes possible our healing as humans. Part of our salvation is the restoration of the image of God in us. God begins to restore us to what true humanity is supposed to look like. God heals us of our sin.
5. The process of salvation, which Wesley called an "order of salvation" (ordo salutis) begins with God and ends with the full restoration of both humanity and the creation to its intended glory. It begins with God's plan (predestination), which included his reaching out to us long before we knew it, indeed long before we were ever born (prevenient grace).
When we respond, by God's power, to his invitation by faith and repentance, he forgives us of our past. He fills us with his Spirit and puts his seal of ownership on us (initial sanctification), freeing us from our past enslavement (redemption) and making us spiritually alive again (regeneration). We are "born again." New creation has taken place. He incorporates us into Christ and makes us his children (adoption). He pronounces us in right standing with him (justification). We are at peace with God.
This process of restoring us to life is a process (progressive sanctification) that requires every bit of us (entire sanctification). As long as we are in our current flesh in this world, there will always be temptation to sin. We long for the transformation of our bodies and the creation when Christ returns (glorification).
Next week: S3. God was reaching out to us far before we knew it.
[1] Words have distinctly different meanings each time they are used. It is thus the "overload fallacy" to try to mix different meanings of a word together when interpreting a single instance of the word. Sozo either means to save or to heal, but it doesn't mean both at the same time, unless an author is intentionally making a play on words, a double entendre. Therefore, Ephesians 2:8 does not mean, "By grace you have been healed," and it at least is not clear that Luke 18:42 means, "Your faith has saved you."
Saturday, January 03, 2015
Wesleyans and Grudem (Prayer)
Now to continue my Saturday posts reflecting on Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology from the standpoint of Wesleyan-Arminian thought. My last post was some time ago on his chapter on Miracles (chap. 17).
Chapter 18: Prayer
There is little in this chapter to which a Wesleyan-Arminian would object. A WA would object to how Grudem thinks prayer works, but Grudem does not explicitly get into that here. He writes the chapter in a way that a WA could agree with. His two-dimensional use of Scripture will continue to annoy anyone with a historical consciousness, but that is a critique we have already noted repeatedly.
A. Why pray?
Grudem gives three reasons. First, it is an expression of trust and faith, which is a good thing. Second, it brings us into deeper fellowship with God. Third, it involves us in things that are eternally important. Fair enough.
B. Effective prayer
1. First, Grudem notes that prayer changes the way God acts. "When we ask, God responds" (377).
The way that Grudem words this section is completely in sync with WA thought. Where WAs would disagree with him is in the underlying mechanism. For a WA, God knows whether we are going to pray or not and also knows how he will respond accordingly. But God empowers us to decide freely whether to pray.
For Grudem, God not only knows but he decides whether to make us pray or not. So while Grudem says "prayer changes the way God acts," the assumption is that God is determining whether we pray and thus how he will respond. There is no free act of prayer in Grudem's theology.
Grudem is a soft determinist, which means that we experience our actions as free even though they are ultimately determined by God.
However, because Grudem does not make these assumptions of the chapter explicit, there is nothing in this section that a WA could not also say. Indeed, this section really would be more natural for a WA to say than for Grudem. God chooses to act differently depending on whether we pray. The stakes of prayer are thus even more crucial for a WA than for Grudem.
2. Second, prayer is made possible by Christ. Grudem rightly notes that God knows everything, so God "hears" every prayer in the sense that he is aware of all prayers. It is common in some circles to act as if God isn't even aware of the prayer of someone who does not trust in Christ. Grudem rightly points out that God knows everything.
However, God has not promised to answer the prayers of the unbeliever. For Grudem, however, it is ultimately God's choice, which again is sound. Through Christ, however, the believer has confidence to approach God in prayer. [1]
3. Grudem's third, fourth, and fifth points in this section have to do with praying in Jesus' name, whether we should pray to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and the role of the Holy Spirit in prayer.
Grudem notes that praying in Jesus' name is not merely saying those words at the end of a prayer, "in Jesus' name." It means that we are praying with his authorization to pray (379). This urges us to pray in a way that is consistent with his character. Grudem actually discourages a ritualistic or formulaic use of the phrase, where it becomes empty. "Genuine prayer is conversation" (380).
Grudem notes that most of the prayers in the New Testament are to God the Father, but that some are to Jesus (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:22). [2] He suggests that prayer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit is not inappropriate, for they are God, but he suggests it should not be our dominant form of prayer, since it is not the New Testament pattern.
This is a very interesting section, for it reflects Grudem filling in gaps in the Bible by way of reasoning. This is completely appropriate, even necessary. Grudem is normally hesitant to do it and is cautious even here. Nevertheless, reason is a necessary element in all theologizing.
Finally, Grudem rightly points to Romans 8:26-27 for the key function of the Holy Spirit in helping us in prayer.
C. Important considerations
Most of the rest of the chapter covers miscellaneous issues in the Bible relating to prayer. For example, he addresses praying according to God's will. If we pray something that is in Scripture, we know we are praying according to his will and all is good. If we do not know God's will, we should pray with a spirit of "If it is your will." (383).
We should pray with faith. A person can have a sort of "settled assurance" that God is going to answer (384). Our disobedience hinders our prayers. We can pray in confession of our sins. We need to forgive others before we expect God to forgive us. Humility is the right attitude to have in prayer.
We need to pray regularly and with a significant time investment, not using empty phrases but being earnest in any repetition of prayer. Jesus did. "Intensity and depth of emotional involvement in prayer should never be faked" (387). We may have to wait on the Lord to respond. We should pray in private and with others.
Fasting appropriately accompanies prayer for many reasons, most of which sharpens us in self-discipline and humility, but also expresses our earnestness and urgency. God does not grant every prayer but there will be some unanswered prayers in God's sovereignty and also because of our failings.
D. Finally, praise and thanksgiving are essential elements in prayer.
Conclusion
Again, there is little if anything in this chapter that a Wesleyan-Arminian will find objectionable, especially since Grudem does not get into the mechanisms he would say are behind the scenes. He presents us as individuals who make choices, which is the key difference between the WA and Calvinist traditions.
A WA would thus only accentuate the claim that prayer changes things. God, in his sovereignty, has given us this great privilege and responsibility to pray. He actually factors our prayers into his decisions on whether to intervene in the natural flow of events. What a fearsome honor!
[1] I personally believe that passages in Romans 8 and Hebrews that have to do with the intercession of Christ are specifically about intercession relating to atonement.
[2] Prayer to Jesus is one of the key arguments of Larry Hurtado that earliest Christianity was "binitarian," worshiping Jesus alongside God the Father. See One God One Lord (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988).
Chapter 18: Prayer
There is little in this chapter to which a Wesleyan-Arminian would object. A WA would object to how Grudem thinks prayer works, but Grudem does not explicitly get into that here. He writes the chapter in a way that a WA could agree with. His two-dimensional use of Scripture will continue to annoy anyone with a historical consciousness, but that is a critique we have already noted repeatedly.
A. Why pray?
Grudem gives three reasons. First, it is an expression of trust and faith, which is a good thing. Second, it brings us into deeper fellowship with God. Third, it involves us in things that are eternally important. Fair enough.
B. Effective prayer
1. First, Grudem notes that prayer changes the way God acts. "When we ask, God responds" (377).
The way that Grudem words this section is completely in sync with WA thought. Where WAs would disagree with him is in the underlying mechanism. For a WA, God knows whether we are going to pray or not and also knows how he will respond accordingly. But God empowers us to decide freely whether to pray.
For Grudem, God not only knows but he decides whether to make us pray or not. So while Grudem says "prayer changes the way God acts," the assumption is that God is determining whether we pray and thus how he will respond. There is no free act of prayer in Grudem's theology.
Grudem is a soft determinist, which means that we experience our actions as free even though they are ultimately determined by God.
However, because Grudem does not make these assumptions of the chapter explicit, there is nothing in this section that a WA could not also say. Indeed, this section really would be more natural for a WA to say than for Grudem. God chooses to act differently depending on whether we pray. The stakes of prayer are thus even more crucial for a WA than for Grudem.
2. Second, prayer is made possible by Christ. Grudem rightly notes that God knows everything, so God "hears" every prayer in the sense that he is aware of all prayers. It is common in some circles to act as if God isn't even aware of the prayer of someone who does not trust in Christ. Grudem rightly points out that God knows everything.
However, God has not promised to answer the prayers of the unbeliever. For Grudem, however, it is ultimately God's choice, which again is sound. Through Christ, however, the believer has confidence to approach God in prayer. [1]
3. Grudem's third, fourth, and fifth points in this section have to do with praying in Jesus' name, whether we should pray to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and the role of the Holy Spirit in prayer.
Grudem notes that praying in Jesus' name is not merely saying those words at the end of a prayer, "in Jesus' name." It means that we are praying with his authorization to pray (379). This urges us to pray in a way that is consistent with his character. Grudem actually discourages a ritualistic or formulaic use of the phrase, where it becomes empty. "Genuine prayer is conversation" (380).
Grudem notes that most of the prayers in the New Testament are to God the Father, but that some are to Jesus (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:22). [2] He suggests that prayer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit is not inappropriate, for they are God, but he suggests it should not be our dominant form of prayer, since it is not the New Testament pattern.
This is a very interesting section, for it reflects Grudem filling in gaps in the Bible by way of reasoning. This is completely appropriate, even necessary. Grudem is normally hesitant to do it and is cautious even here. Nevertheless, reason is a necessary element in all theologizing.
Finally, Grudem rightly points to Romans 8:26-27 for the key function of the Holy Spirit in helping us in prayer.
C. Important considerations
Most of the rest of the chapter covers miscellaneous issues in the Bible relating to prayer. For example, he addresses praying according to God's will. If we pray something that is in Scripture, we know we are praying according to his will and all is good. If we do not know God's will, we should pray with a spirit of "If it is your will." (383).
We should pray with faith. A person can have a sort of "settled assurance" that God is going to answer (384). Our disobedience hinders our prayers. We can pray in confession of our sins. We need to forgive others before we expect God to forgive us. Humility is the right attitude to have in prayer.
We need to pray regularly and with a significant time investment, not using empty phrases but being earnest in any repetition of prayer. Jesus did. "Intensity and depth of emotional involvement in prayer should never be faked" (387). We may have to wait on the Lord to respond. We should pray in private and with others.
Fasting appropriately accompanies prayer for many reasons, most of which sharpens us in self-discipline and humility, but also expresses our earnestness and urgency. God does not grant every prayer but there will be some unanswered prayers in God's sovereignty and also because of our failings.
D. Finally, praise and thanksgiving are essential elements in prayer.
Conclusion
Again, there is little if anything in this chapter that a Wesleyan-Arminian will find objectionable, especially since Grudem does not get into the mechanisms he would say are behind the scenes. He presents us as individuals who make choices, which is the key difference between the WA and Calvinist traditions.
A WA would thus only accentuate the claim that prayer changes things. God, in his sovereignty, has given us this great privilege and responsibility to pray. He actually factors our prayers into his decisions on whether to intervene in the natural flow of events. What a fearsome honor!
[1] I personally believe that passages in Romans 8 and Hebrews that have to do with the intercession of Christ are specifically about intercession relating to atonement.
[2] Prayer to Jesus is one of the key arguments of Larry Hurtado that earliest Christianity was "binitarian," worshiping Jesus alongside God the Father. See One God One Lord (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988).
Friday, January 02, 2015
Business Thought, by Dr. Obvious
I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to business, so my thoughts are usually pretty basic (think Mr. Obvious). Here's one I had recently.
1. To make a business a go, you need customers--people who want your product and who will buy it from you.
2. Each product has an "average customer." So Harvard's "average customer" is a very above average student. The Democratic and Republican parties each have "average customers" in various locales. The different parts of IWU each have "average customers." Seminaries have "average customers."
3. OK, here's the really obvious thought. The number of customers must be sufficient for the business to survive.
Implications
The long and short of it is that if the "average customer" that a business, college, political party, etc. is targeting does not exist in sufficient numbers, the business won't survive, the college will close, the political party won't get elected, etc.
What's the point?
The point is that a lot of failing organizations formulate their identities on their ideals--what they want to be--rather than on their most likely average customer. Think of the seminaries that have brilliant faculty but no students. Are their faculty brilliant? Quite possibly so. The business will still fail if it doesn't have enough average customers.
The same applies to colleges. Faculty usually want to formulate the product on the basis of what they think is true and what they think is quality. If there are enough "average customers" who are interested in their idea of the product, no worries. But if there aren't, it doesn't matter that they're right.
Here's is the rub that frustrates a lot of us. There are institutions that we might view as inferior in quality but that are far more successful as businesses because they have more customers interested in their product. For example, it may very well be possible that some of the heady scholars at dying institutions could slice and dice in argument some of the professors at more "successful" ones. Doesn't matter. The popular institutions will grow gang busters if there is a huge market for their product. Survival and success in a business is simply not about being right. It's not about truth. It's about having customers.
Indeed, if I might be realistic. "Average" overall, by definition, is the majority of people. Therefore, any organization whose average customer is most like the average person is most likely to be the most successful organization from a business standpoint!
It's a frustrating thought but totally obvious. Those educational institutions that most satisfy the average possible student will be the most successful as businesses.
1. To make a business a go, you need customers--people who want your product and who will buy it from you.
2. Each product has an "average customer." So Harvard's "average customer" is a very above average student. The Democratic and Republican parties each have "average customers" in various locales. The different parts of IWU each have "average customers." Seminaries have "average customers."
3. OK, here's the really obvious thought. The number of customers must be sufficient for the business to survive.
Implications
The long and short of it is that if the "average customer" that a business, college, political party, etc. is targeting does not exist in sufficient numbers, the business won't survive, the college will close, the political party won't get elected, etc.
What's the point?
The point is that a lot of failing organizations formulate their identities on their ideals--what they want to be--rather than on their most likely average customer. Think of the seminaries that have brilliant faculty but no students. Are their faculty brilliant? Quite possibly so. The business will still fail if it doesn't have enough average customers.
The same applies to colleges. Faculty usually want to formulate the product on the basis of what they think is true and what they think is quality. If there are enough "average customers" who are interested in their idea of the product, no worries. But if there aren't, it doesn't matter that they're right.
Here's is the rub that frustrates a lot of us. There are institutions that we might view as inferior in quality but that are far more successful as businesses because they have more customers interested in their product. For example, it may very well be possible that some of the heady scholars at dying institutions could slice and dice in argument some of the professors at more "successful" ones. Doesn't matter. The popular institutions will grow gang busters if there is a huge market for their product. Survival and success in a business is simply not about being right. It's not about truth. It's about having customers.
Indeed, if I might be realistic. "Average" overall, by definition, is the majority of people. Therefore, any organization whose average customer is most like the average person is most likely to be the most successful organization from a business standpoint!
It's a frustrating thought but totally obvious. Those educational institutions that most satisfy the average possible student will be the most successful as businesses.
How did James view Gentile believers?
... So how would James or Peter have conceptualized these Gentile believers? Surely they did not consider them now to be Jews. They were not converts in the strictest sense of the word for they did not become circumcised, and they were only keeping the most basic purity considerations so that they might join Christian Jews in table fellowship. Paul's converts kept even less of the holiness codes--mostly those elements relating to sexual purity. For James they must have remained God-fearers, more or less, only now to those Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. [1]
Surely James and Peter would have applauded these individuals for their faith in God and their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. Assuming that the earliest church was a deeply apocalyptic community, these Gentiles would presumably escape the coming wrath of God. We can easily imagine that James thought of them much like the strangers in the land in Deuteronomy 10:17-19. They remained outsiders to Israel. They were not "in," but they stood somewhat under the favor and protection of Yahweh. When God delivered Israel from its enemies, those aliens would benefit from his protection. They were, in a sense, separate and unequal, yet in a far better eschatological situation than those who served other gods...
[1] One suspects that even the notion of a God-fearer was relatively new to James. In the Diaspora, we can imagine that many synagogues had God-fearers who associated with them. In Galilee and Jerusalem, however, fewer Gentiles were around and any God-fearers who existed would have likely associated with Hellenistic synagogues.
Surely James and Peter would have applauded these individuals for their faith in God and their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. Assuming that the earliest church was a deeply apocalyptic community, these Gentiles would presumably escape the coming wrath of God. We can easily imagine that James thought of them much like the strangers in the land in Deuteronomy 10:17-19. They remained outsiders to Israel. They were not "in," but they stood somewhat under the favor and protection of Yahweh. When God delivered Israel from its enemies, those aliens would benefit from his protection. They were, in a sense, separate and unequal, yet in a far better eschatological situation than those who served other gods...
[1] One suspects that even the notion of a God-fearer was relatively new to James. In the Diaspora, we can imagine that many synagogues had God-fearers who associated with them. In Galilee and Jerusalem, however, fewer Gentiles were around and any God-fearers who existed would have likely associated with Hellenistic synagogues.
Thursday, January 01, 2015
Popular Scholarship, they know about popular...
I was reading Brian Small's summary of Paul Himes' resources on Hebrews. Notice the hat tips to David Alan Black's book arguing for Paul as author of Hebrews.
A whole host of thoughts run through my head. One is that popular sells and easy sells. Tradition sells. Popular even controls colleges, universities, and seminaries. One of the things I loved about England is that it really felt like the professors had few ideological strings attached. Not so in America, where liberal strings are attached to liberal institutions, conservative strings are attached to conservative institutions, and traditional strings are attached to institutions in particular traditions.
So D. A. Carson style scholarship seems to rule the roost in most American Christian colleges, it seems. This is the neo-evangelical power block that rules ETS and produced the ESV. IMO, a scholar in this world is the person with the most creativity in supporting what everyone already wants to think. The Bible expert in this realm, the teaching pastor, is the person who is able to memorize well.
The late twentieth century saw the increasing empowerment of Christian institutions to offer their own PhDs. This allowed traditions to teach their own in a more insulated way. For all the benefits, you also could now get a PhD for being clever at justifying your own tradition without engaging the "other" on its own terms. Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, large churches can circumvent educational institutions altogether in deference to the great cloud of memorizers.
The Lord keep me from ever exploding with satiric wit on YouTube,.. you know, the Schenck Weekly Show. :-)
A whole host of thoughts run through my head. One is that popular sells and easy sells. Tradition sells. Popular even controls colleges, universities, and seminaries. One of the things I loved about England is that it really felt like the professors had few ideological strings attached. Not so in America, where liberal strings are attached to liberal institutions, conservative strings are attached to conservative institutions, and traditional strings are attached to institutions in particular traditions.
So D. A. Carson style scholarship seems to rule the roost in most American Christian colleges, it seems. This is the neo-evangelical power block that rules ETS and produced the ESV. IMO, a scholar in this world is the person with the most creativity in supporting what everyone already wants to think. The Bible expert in this realm, the teaching pastor, is the person who is able to memorize well.
The late twentieth century saw the increasing empowerment of Christian institutions to offer their own PhDs. This allowed traditions to teach their own in a more insulated way. For all the benefits, you also could now get a PhD for being clever at justifying your own tradition without engaging the "other" on its own terms. Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, large churches can circumvent educational institutions altogether in deference to the great cloud of memorizers.
The Lord keep me from ever exploding with satiric wit on YouTube,.. you know, the Schenck Weekly Show. :-)
New Year's Resolutions 2015
Here we go again.
Looking Back
As far as last year's goals...
1. I may try to write one serious book this year. We'll see. The working title I have in mind is The Way We Read. I may self-publish some lighter projects.
2. There are a number of books on my list to read this year. Perhaps I will try on Wednesdays to post a review of some chapter read each week. Here are some key ones for me:
4. Still hoping to get through my calculus and physics books by the time I'm 55 (note to self, 383, 526).
Looking Back
As far as last year's goals...
- I did finish my NT series with Wesleyan Publishing. Acts and its devotionals have been done for about a year but should come out at the end of March. Hebrews through Revelation and its devotionals should come out at the end of June. That will complete my life application series on the whole New Testament for the Wesleyan Church. These are also being released with sermon series so that a pastor could preach through the content of the books while small groups in the church go through the six week devotionals.
- I did read and critique some books: Bart Ehrman, Paul Ricoeur, George Gamow. I read parts of the Epic of Eden and Mark Wilson's Purple Fish.
- I didn't finish N. T. Wright's tome, Paul and the Faithfulness of God.
- I did a little more on Grudem but not as much as I hoped.
- I did do some more in my walk through physics and calculus, but didn't make my page goals. I got distracted by reading some other science books.
- I ran well in the summer, the best in years. Not doing so well now in winter. :-)
1. I may try to write one serious book this year. We'll see. The working title I have in mind is The Way We Read. I may self-publish some lighter projects.
2. There are a number of books on my list to read this year. Perhaps I will try on Wednesdays to post a review of some chapter read each week. Here are some key ones for me:
- Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God stays on the list.
- Campbell's The Deliverance of God is on the list now.
- I'd like to read Gadamer's Truth and Method in the first six months of the year.
- I want to continue through Grudem on Saturdays but with a slightly different approach than the one that ended in this self-published volume. I want to work through more with this approach.
4. Still hoping to get through my calculus and physics books by the time I'm 55 (note to self, 383, 526).
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Church Growth and the Spirit
My brother-in-law, Dwayne Winterberg, repeated an interesting thought by A. W. Tozer today. I'll just quote the first half for reflection: "If the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the church today, 95 percent of what we do would go on and no one would know the difference."
What do you think? I do think that a church can grow very successfully with charismatic leadership and good organization, regardless of whether the Holy Spirit is present or not. At the same time, a church can have charismatic leadership, good organization, grow, and have the Holy Spirit moving as well. Surely that is what we all hope for!
What do you think? I do think that a church can grow very successfully with charismatic leadership and good organization, regardless of whether the Holy Spirit is present or not. At the same time, a church can have charismatic leadership, good organization, grow, and have the Holy Spirit moving as well. Surely that is what we all hope for!
Top Ten Posts of 2014
Here are my 2014 statistics, following the numbers in Google Analytics. As of last night, I had over 80,500 pageviews and almost 30,000 unique visitors. I'm up over 4,000 page views from last year and up about 1500 unique visitors.
From Previous Years
As usual, some of my most visited pages were not even from 2014 but from earlier years. For example,
Top Ten of 2014
Now for the top ten posts actually from 2014. Any numbers below are not really accurate because I assume many people do not actually click on the specific post but read it from the basic blog landing page.
And now, the top 10 posts from 2014:
10. I reviewed the "Noah Movie" in March (# 31 overall).
9. I tried to quell misinformation about IWU and abortion in "Making Money Off Christians." (#29).
8. I reviewed the movie, "God's Not Dead" in April (#24 overall).
7. I reviewed Bart Ehrman's book, and the chapter, "Did Jesus Think He Was God" was #21 overall.
6. "Immigration Reform" was #19 overall, from November.
5. "Trump Verse Hermeneutics" from February was #16 overall.
4. "Let the Wesleyan Movement Begin" from May was #15 overall.
3. Number 3 from this year (#12 overall) was my theology in bullet points post in March that launched the theology series I've been doing on Sundays this past year.
2. Number 2 (also #2 overall) was about the proposed closing of Nazarene Publishing House, which in the end didn't happen (as predicted). It was just reorganized. (1434 page specific views)
1. And my number 1 post for the year was my reporting on the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate in February. I tried to be somewhat middle of the road in my reaction. (1525 page specific views)
From Previous Years
As usual, some of my most visited pages were not even from 2014 but from earlier years. For example,
- #3 this year was my post on Socially Constructed Identity from 2010 (It was number 2 last year).
- #4 this year was my post on the lyrics of the children's song, "Sermon in Shoes," again from 2012 (I published it in conjunction with my father's death--it was #3 last year).
- #5 this year was a post on the Wesleyan flexibility on the subject of baptism from 2011 (It was #9 last year).
- #6 this year was again my clarification on a quote often attributed imprecisely to Socrates, "To know the good is to do the good." (It was #4 last year and #1 the previous year, from 2012).
- #7 this year was "Famous Empiricists" from 2008.
- #8 this year was "Leadership Summary 1" from 2012.
- #9 was "Famous Rationalists" from 2011.
- #10 was on the "Four-Fold View of Scripture" from 2012.
Top Ten of 2014
Now for the top ten posts actually from 2014. Any numbers below are not really accurate because I assume many people do not actually click on the specific post but read it from the basic blog landing page.
And now, the top 10 posts from 2014:
10. I reviewed the "Noah Movie" in March (# 31 overall).
9. I tried to quell misinformation about IWU and abortion in "Making Money Off Christians." (#29).
8. I reviewed the movie, "God's Not Dead" in April (#24 overall).
7. I reviewed Bart Ehrman's book, and the chapter, "Did Jesus Think He Was God" was #21 overall.
6. "Immigration Reform" was #19 overall, from November.
5. "Trump Verse Hermeneutics" from February was #16 overall.
4. "Let the Wesleyan Movement Begin" from May was #15 overall.
3. Number 3 from this year (#12 overall) was my theology in bullet points post in March that launched the theology series I've been doing on Sundays this past year.
2. Number 2 (also #2 overall) was about the proposed closing of Nazarene Publishing House, which in the end didn't happen (as predicted). It was just reorganized. (1434 page specific views)
1. And my number 1 post for the year was my reporting on the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate in February. I tried to be somewhat middle of the road in my reaction. (1525 page specific views)
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Gentile conversion to early Christianity
How did Gentiles conceptualize their conversion to earliest Christianity?
Yesterday I was contemplating the following break-down:
1. Some within the earliest church believed a Gentile needed to convert fully to Judaism. We call these the "Judaizers." We find hints of them in Acts 15:5 with Christian Pharisees, Pharisees who had believed in Jesus as Messiah without stopping to be Pharisees. Paul's opponents in Galatia similarly were Christians who believed Paul's Gentile converts needed to convert fully.
The tone of Galatians suggests that some did. So one group of Gentile converts to the Jesus sect became circumcised and fully converted to Judaism.
2. A second group--let's call it the James/Peter group--also saw full conversion as the optimal course for Gentiles. But they did not force Gentiles to convert fully (Gal. 2:3). Perhaps on the model of the stranger in the land, they believed that Gentiles could be saved from the coming wrath of God if they put their faith in God and his Christ. They expected them to follow some basic purity rules in order to have table fellowship.
3. A third group is the Pauline group. Paul fully included Gentiles within the "seed of Abraham" alongside Jews on the basis of faith. They were grafted into the tree. Did they see themselves as converting to a form of Christian Judaism? Perhaps it is misleading to put it that way in that "Judaism" was not a word that meant what we use the word to mean now.
Did they see themselves as converting to a Jewish sect? Obviously the word sect is a modern one, but I think they surely saw themselves becoming part of a Jewish group.
4. Finally there were probably Gentiles, especially as time went by, perhaps especially after the destruction of the temple, who saw themselves as outside Israel. The fiscus Judaicus, the tax on Jews first levied by Vespasian after the destruction of Jerusalem, was no doubt a driving force among Gentile believers to distinguish themselves from Judaism.
Unsurprisingly, the "parting of the ways" between Judaism and Christianity may have ultimately been driven at first by money.
Yesterday I was contemplating the following break-down:
1. Some within the earliest church believed a Gentile needed to convert fully to Judaism. We call these the "Judaizers." We find hints of them in Acts 15:5 with Christian Pharisees, Pharisees who had believed in Jesus as Messiah without stopping to be Pharisees. Paul's opponents in Galatia similarly were Christians who believed Paul's Gentile converts needed to convert fully.
The tone of Galatians suggests that some did. So one group of Gentile converts to the Jesus sect became circumcised and fully converted to Judaism.
2. A second group--let's call it the James/Peter group--also saw full conversion as the optimal course for Gentiles. But they did not force Gentiles to convert fully (Gal. 2:3). Perhaps on the model of the stranger in the land, they believed that Gentiles could be saved from the coming wrath of God if they put their faith in God and his Christ. They expected them to follow some basic purity rules in order to have table fellowship.
3. A third group is the Pauline group. Paul fully included Gentiles within the "seed of Abraham" alongside Jews on the basis of faith. They were grafted into the tree. Did they see themselves as converting to a form of Christian Judaism? Perhaps it is misleading to put it that way in that "Judaism" was not a word that meant what we use the word to mean now.
Did they see themselves as converting to a Jewish sect? Obviously the word sect is a modern one, but I think they surely saw themselves becoming part of a Jewish group.
4. Finally there were probably Gentiles, especially as time went by, perhaps especially after the destruction of the temple, who saw themselves as outside Israel. The fiscus Judaicus, the tax on Jews first levied by Vespasian after the destruction of Jerusalem, was no doubt a driving force among Gentile believers to distinguish themselves from Judaism.
Unsurprisingly, the "parting of the ways" between Judaism and Christianity may have ultimately been driven at first by money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
