Just a quick post today. What is a Christian philosophy of history?
We read the OT linearly today, as a well defined movement toward Christ. Adam sins and creates the human problem. This sets a trajectory in history toward the solution in Christ. God creates the world with a plan. Then after the Babylonian captivity we have a missing king and a trajectory toward Christ as well.
However, it does not seem likely that Israel experienced these texts in this way. Adam plays no appreciable role in the OT. And we remember in Samuel that the establishment of a king was no certain thing--in fact the appointment of Saul is seen as a kind of moral failure on Israel's part.
Like all the other nations of the world, the Jewish understanding of history in what we now call the OT was cyclical. The OT did not originally look to the end of the world or the consummation of the ages. It looked rather to localized restoration in times of slavery and defeat. "There is nothing new under the sun," but history rather repeats itself over and over again.
As far as we can tell, these expectations began to change among some Jews in the early second century BC. We begin to find increasing interest in the afterlife and in the restoration of Israel with quite significant cosmic language attached. Language in the OT that may originally have been understood metaphorically (e.g. Ezek. 35) began to be taken literally. What had been a cyclical view of history was transforming into a linear view.
This changing situation in the late intertestamental period sets the stage for the New Testament. More than anything else, the decisive event is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Christ's resurrection implies that the restoration of all things has begun. Even in his earthly ministry, Jesus cast out demons to show that the rule of God, the kingdom of God, was arriving on the earth.
All of history now becomes a singular story. Before there was the story of Israel. But with the apostle Paul we now have the story of all humanity. God created Adam to rule over the creation with glory and honor. But Adam sinned and all have sinned after him, and are lacking the glory God intended us to have. More than anything else, we die.
But Christ is risen; he is risen indeed. The powers of death and hell are defeated. It is only a matter of time, now, until he returns and all the wrongs of time are set straight.
The general contours of this approach to history now seem deeply engrained in a Christian worldview. Of course many Christians operate with a more cyclical view, despite the fact that they say in the creed that they believe in "the resurrection of the body." Perhaps even most Christians unthinkingly translate "resurrection" into "you die and go to heaven or hell." On the street, most Christians expect to live out a full life, die, and then be assigned an eternal destiny (heaven) and that's that.
But of course the resurrection of the body originally referred to an event at the end of time. It is not the same as the immortality of the soul, which is a more Greek than biblical idea. It coheres with biblical perspectives, but is not the focal biblical perspective. The NT rather looked to a time when Christ would return and then the dead in Christ would rise. We can find biblical teaching on an intermediate state between death and resurrection--but we have to look carefully to find it (thief on a cross, rich man and Lazarus, Philippians, Revelation).
Those who have a Christian philosophy of history today (and not simply a cyclical view) tend to have a premillennial view of history, a view that in recent times revived in the 1800's. The idea of a millennium comes from the book of Revelation, a thousand year reign of Christ on earth after his return. It is not clearly mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. As such, it is possible that we should take some of this imagery symbolically rather than literally (the so called amillennial position).
Nevertheless, a premillennial position has a pessimistic approach to history. The time of restoration, the earthly rule of Christ after his return, will only come after times get worse and worse. The imagery of Mark 13 and Matthew 24 is often applied to the end of time: "There will be wars and rumors of war." Famines and other calamities will accompany the nearness of the end. This is also the most literal reading of Revelation.
However, Mark 13 and Matthew 24 originally referred primarily to events preceding the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in AD70. It is also possible that Revelation has much to do with events of the late first century in addition to its material about the end of time. Certainly they may double for end time events, as biblical prophecy often seems to have multiple resonances in history.
It seems foolish, however, to let such views determine our attitudes toward world events. For example, there are those who object to peace talks in the Middle East because of a fatalistic view of history. "There will be no peace," they say.
But there has been. There have been centuries of peace here and there from time to time. Should we not rather follow the biblical formula that says, "If you know the good you ought to do and do not do it, that is sin" (James). If we can stop death or help curb poverty or bring the good news to anyone, it is surely sin not to try to do so (cf. Matt. 25). God does not bid us to calculate our chances of success before we try. He bids us do our bit, and He will take it from there.
A final Christian perspective on history is the so called postmillennial view. It is the view that has been held by most Christians throughout history. We might attribute its primary origins to Augustine, who was really the first person to formulate a systematic philosophy of history in the 400's.
The context of Augustine's thought on this subject was the sacking of Rome in AD410. Only 9-11 has come close to helping us appreciate the significance of this event. Rome for so many centuries had been the world power. To read the history of the centuries immediately preceding Christ's arrival is to get the inevitable "manifest destiny" of Rome to take over the whole world. Each century is the fall of a new set of nations before its power.
Similarly, the United States perceived itself to be nearly invincible in the days leading up to 9-11. The Cold War had been over for more than a decade. We had not been attacked on our own soil since Pearl Harbor in 1941. Even Pearl Harbor was off in Hawaii, which Americans no doubt perceived to be a distant outpost.
Now we find ourselves assaulted in New York City, within our borders. Historians will quite possibly describe the story of the last 8 years as a time of reactionary conservatism in the wake of the fear created by that event. As a small sample, the then mayor of the city of Marion had the courthouse baracaded immediately following the event. We look back and laugh, thinking, yeah, the Muslim world would want to attack Marion, Indiana.
But that was the feeling of paranoia we had at the time, and the powers that be enacted policies and did things that no one would ever have allowed them to do at another time. Even today, we find a host of literature based on the fallacy of composition, taking a subgroup of the Islamic world and falsely attributing the motives of a few to the entire Muslim population. Ironically, these attitudes on our part can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, for they polarize the Muslim community itself against us in a way it did not have to be.
Augustine seized on his own situation in the 400's and wrote his work The City of God. We should not be alarmed, he wrote, about the sacking of Rome. For the sacking of Rome merely indicates that the city of humanity is coming to an end. At the same time, the city of God is in the ascendency.
Augustine supposed that over time the city of humanity would continue to decline until all that was left was the city of God, the kingdom of God. The reign of God, the millennium, would thus rise on earth as the world changed into the kingdom of God. It was easy in the Middle Ages to see the dominancy of the medieval church as the presence of the kingdom of God, a position that we find more problematic today, particulary in the increasing secularization of the last 500 years.
Nevertheless, some would style themselves "postmillennials" today, based on the idea that the rule of God through the church is the millennium on earth and is already here in some sense. Whether one ascribes to a particular view of the millennium as now past or present, the postmillennial attitude is that of a "world changer" who believes that God wants us to work for Him in the world to see the kingdom of this world becomes the kingdom of our God.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
An Interview with Chris Bounds 2: Total Depravity
Ken Schenck: I understand that there are different interpretations of Wesley on his view of total depravity? How does Randy Maddox's understanding differ from Ken Collins'?
Chris Bounds: “There are as many interpretations as there are readers.” While this is not completely true of Wesley, there certainly are many different interpretative lenses (sometimes irreconcilable) through which Wesley is understood and explained. As such, there are definable “schools of understanding” of Wesley.
1. For example, Wesley is seen principally through a Reformed or Calvinist lens by George Croft Cell, through Lutheran Pietism by Franz Hildebrandt, through Puritanism by Gordon Rupp, and through the Eastern Church Fathers by Randy Maddox. Also, Wesley has been (re) interpreted through more contemporary lenses, such as the liberationist perspectives of Theodore Jennings and the process theology of John Cobb.
Specifically, in regard to Randy Maddox and Ken Collins, their differences in working with Wesley are rooted in two areas. First, Ken Collins locates Wesley’s theology in the Western theological tradition of Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Pietism – the Roman Catholic/Protestant tradition. Maddox seeks to understand Wesley more in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, particularly in the Eastern Church Fathers.
2. Second, Collins is a historical theologian and Randy Maddox is a systematic theologian. As a result, Collins is more committed to Wesley and Wesley’s particular theological thought than Maddox. Collins is more committed to Wesley’s theological understanding and views. He is reluctant to deviate from his understanding of Wesley.
Maddox is more committed to Wesley’s general theological methodology and goals. He is more willing to “think outside of the box.” He is more willing to allow for Wesley to be wrong or to speculate what Wesley might have discarded from/or incorporated into his theology had he had other theological/doctrinal resources to draw upon. Foremost for Wesley, according to Maddox, is building a theology that makes humanity truly responsible for actions and decisions and cooperating with God in the work of salvation.
3. These general differences can be seen in their respective treatments of Wesley’s doctrine of “total depravity.” Both Collins and Maddox agree on what Wesley’s teaching is on the creation of humanity, the Fall of humanity and the “natural state” of humanity as “totally depraved.” They agree on what Wesley’s doctrinal teaching is on these three interrelated doctrines of humanity. Also, they agree that Wesley’s teaching is rooted in the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition of the Anglican Church.
However, Maddox is far more speculative and open to the possibilities of what Wesley might have developed theologically if he had other sources (particularly Eastern Orthodox teachings) available to him. For example, Maddox in Responsible Grace speculates that Wesley might have embraced open theism to resolve the tension of foreknowledge and determinism and Maddox appears to approve of this direction.
More specifically, Maddox recognizes that Wesley follows the Western tradition in painting Adam and Eve as fully mature in the Garden before their Fall. The image and likeness of God in them was perfect. They had perfected reasoning, understanding and judgment. This is the reason why their disobedience is seen as so offensive and why the consequences of the Fall are seen as so “total” and devastating for all of humanity. Adam and Eve were fully aware of what they were doing in their act of disobedience.
However, in the Eastern tradition Adam and Eve are not seen as fully mature. The image and likeness of God was not fully formed in them. They were made to grow fully into the image and likeness of God through the exercise of their free will. They were immature. While their disobedience has devastating consequences for all, the disobedience is seen as being done by “children” and not fully informed, fully mature human beings, thus not as serious or devastating as the Western tradition. Maddox explicitly speculates that if Wesley would have had the Eastern teaching on Adam and Eve, he would, most probably, have moved in this Eastern direction.
While Maddox speculates here, he does not do this explicitly in regard to “total depravity.” However, Maddox’s speculative work on what Wesley might have done with the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall, leads me to believe that he is open to the possibility that Wesley might have been open to recasting “total depravity,” if more Eastern theology had been available to him.
Ken Collins, on the other hand would not. Collins from his solidly Reformed perspective of Wesley, strongly maintains the Western Reformed teaching on these issues. I would assume that he would not be open to recasting or re-visioning these doctrines as Wesleyans.
As such, there are no major differences between Maddox’s and Collins’ interpretations of Wesley’s teaching on “total depravity.” However, one appears more apt to believe that Wesley would have been open to re-vision the issues of the Fall, original sin, and “total depravity” from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.
Ken Schenck: Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to let us know a little of what is going on in the study and use of Wesley in theology.
Randy Maddox will actually be on campus here at IWU this Spring. It's too bad we couldn't have twisted Ken Collins' arm as well to get him here for a knock down, drag out... :-)
Chris Bounds: “There are as many interpretations as there are readers.” While this is not completely true of Wesley, there certainly are many different interpretative lenses (sometimes irreconcilable) through which Wesley is understood and explained. As such, there are definable “schools of understanding” of Wesley.
1. For example, Wesley is seen principally through a Reformed or Calvinist lens by George Croft Cell, through Lutheran Pietism by Franz Hildebrandt, through Puritanism by Gordon Rupp, and through the Eastern Church Fathers by Randy Maddox. Also, Wesley has been (re) interpreted through more contemporary lenses, such as the liberationist perspectives of Theodore Jennings and the process theology of John Cobb.
Specifically, in regard to Randy Maddox and Ken Collins, their differences in working with Wesley are rooted in two areas. First, Ken Collins locates Wesley’s theology in the Western theological tradition of Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Pietism – the Roman Catholic/Protestant tradition. Maddox seeks to understand Wesley more in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, particularly in the Eastern Church Fathers.
2. Second, Collins is a historical theologian and Randy Maddox is a systematic theologian. As a result, Collins is more committed to Wesley and Wesley’s particular theological thought than Maddox. Collins is more committed to Wesley’s theological understanding and views. He is reluctant to deviate from his understanding of Wesley.
Maddox is more committed to Wesley’s general theological methodology and goals. He is more willing to “think outside of the box.” He is more willing to allow for Wesley to be wrong or to speculate what Wesley might have discarded from/or incorporated into his theology had he had other theological/doctrinal resources to draw upon. Foremost for Wesley, according to Maddox, is building a theology that makes humanity truly responsible for actions and decisions and cooperating with God in the work of salvation.
3. These general differences can be seen in their respective treatments of Wesley’s doctrine of “total depravity.” Both Collins and Maddox agree on what Wesley’s teaching is on the creation of humanity, the Fall of humanity and the “natural state” of humanity as “totally depraved.” They agree on what Wesley’s doctrinal teaching is on these three interrelated doctrines of humanity. Also, they agree that Wesley’s teaching is rooted in the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition of the Anglican Church.
However, Maddox is far more speculative and open to the possibilities of what Wesley might have developed theologically if he had other sources (particularly Eastern Orthodox teachings) available to him. For example, Maddox in Responsible Grace speculates that Wesley might have embraced open theism to resolve the tension of foreknowledge and determinism and Maddox appears to approve of this direction.
More specifically, Maddox recognizes that Wesley follows the Western tradition in painting Adam and Eve as fully mature in the Garden before their Fall. The image and likeness of God in them was perfect. They had perfected reasoning, understanding and judgment. This is the reason why their disobedience is seen as so offensive and why the consequences of the Fall are seen as so “total” and devastating for all of humanity. Adam and Eve were fully aware of what they were doing in their act of disobedience.
However, in the Eastern tradition Adam and Eve are not seen as fully mature. The image and likeness of God was not fully formed in them. They were made to grow fully into the image and likeness of God through the exercise of their free will. They were immature. While their disobedience has devastating consequences for all, the disobedience is seen as being done by “children” and not fully informed, fully mature human beings, thus not as serious or devastating as the Western tradition. Maddox explicitly speculates that if Wesley would have had the Eastern teaching on Adam and Eve, he would, most probably, have moved in this Eastern direction.
While Maddox speculates here, he does not do this explicitly in regard to “total depravity.” However, Maddox’s speculative work on what Wesley might have done with the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall, leads me to believe that he is open to the possibility that Wesley might have been open to recasting “total depravity,” if more Eastern theology had been available to him.
Ken Collins, on the other hand would not. Collins from his solidly Reformed perspective of Wesley, strongly maintains the Western Reformed teaching on these issues. I would assume that he would not be open to recasting or re-visioning these doctrines as Wesleyans.
As such, there are no major differences between Maddox’s and Collins’ interpretations of Wesley’s teaching on “total depravity.” However, one appears more apt to believe that Wesley would have been open to re-vision the issues of the Fall, original sin, and “total depravity” from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.
Ken Schenck: Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to let us know a little of what is going on in the study and use of Wesley in theology.
Randy Maddox will actually be on campus here at IWU this Spring. It's too bad we couldn't have twisted Ken Collins' arm as well to get him here for a knock down, drag out... :-)
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Hebrews Vodcast Today: 5:11-6:20
Here is the link to today's vodcast on Hebrews 5:11-6:20. Scholars' names taken in vain include Gary Cockerill, David deSilva, William Lane, Scot McKnight, Grant Osborne, among others.
URL: http://indwes.acrobat.com/p45995008/
As a post-note, Ben Witherington has posted some material on this passage on his website today, Wednesday, Feb. 14th (Happy Valentines Day): http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/02/christian-apostasy-and-hebrews-6.html
URL: http://indwes.acrobat.com/p45995008/
As a post-note, Ben Witherington has posted some material on this passage on his website today, Wednesday, Feb. 14th (Happy Valentines Day): http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/02/christian-apostasy-and-hebrews-6.html
Monday, February 11, 2008
Monday Thoughts 3: Faces Continued
Very similar to the ideas of Michel Foucault are those of Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) that we encounted back in chapter 8. Kuhn, you will remember, suggested that what we perceive to be the progress of science is really a somewhat random cycle of theory replacing theory. All scientific paradigms leave some data unaccounted for. "Normal science" does its best to accommodate such data within the prevailing paradigm.
But eventually someone suggests a new paradigm. Normal science resists, often successfully for some time because it holds the power over what is allowed to be considered truth. But if the new paradigm can gain traction, can gain power, eventually those with the older paradigm may die off. Suddenly a new "truth" emerges that becomes the new normal science, and the cycle continues.
The parallels with Foucault are straightforward. In both cases, knowledge takes place within a certain paradigm, a way of structuring knowledge. But in both cases as well, that structure is not fixed or absolute. It is rather a function of power, where those who have power are able to set the terms for what is allowed to be considered as plausible or true.
Both cases also seem somewhat extreme, although they both get at certain truths that needed to be heard. We will try to appropriate their ideas within a Christian framework at the end of the chapter.
Perhaps the best known face of postmodernism of all is that of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). If Foucault doubted the way we structure knowledge and Kuhn doubted the objectivity of science, Derrida doubted the meaning of words. He is the father of deconstruction, the idea that words do not have stable meanings. Derrida believed that any attempt to "construct" understanding of words--or the world--inevitably self-destructs in the process.
If Nietzsche believed that "there are no facts, only interpretations," Derrida hardly believed that there were even interpretations. The meaning of a word is simply other words, whose meaning simply defers to yet other words. One never arrives at any definite content, only "traces" of meaning to be found in the difference between the signs, the squigglies we call words. As part of his flamboyant personality, Derrida combined these two words--"defer" and "differ" to make his own French word: différance.
Like Nietzsche, Derrida did not restrict this problem to written texts. To him, the entire world was a text, and its meaning was just as uncertain as the meaning of written texts were to him. He thus is known for saying that "There is nothing outside the text."
It is of course ironic that Derrida wrote texts and might argue with others over their meaning. Derrida does a good job of reminding us that almost any text can be misunderstood. And we saw already in chapter 4 that the meaning of words can be very stable indeed.
Nevertheless, people at least think they understand each other far more than Derrida would have us believe. He is an important footnote to meaning, and his thoughts deserve to be taken seriously. But we can only take them seriously if we disagree somewhat with them. Only if we believe that texts can be understood to some degree can we ever take the thoughts of others seriously.
The preceding discussion leads us finally to the face of Richard Rorty (1931-2007), whom we should identify with pragmatic realism. Rorty has all the doubt of all the other postmodern philosophers we have mentioned. Yet he recognized that despite our doubts about the world outside our heads, it "works" to live as if that world is real.
For an extreme postmodern, the only real test for truth is the pragmatic test we mentioned back in chapter 3. It "works" to say that some things are true about the world and other things are not. Following Rorty's lead, we might use Derrida's words--recognizing the contradiction since we are using words--and yet chalk it up to the fact that such dialog "works." We would not thereby be saying anything about their actual "truth" or meaning, only that our acts work for us.
However, surely as Christians we hope for something more certain than this scenario, especially since we are people of faith. For individuals like James K. A. Smith (1970-) and Nicholas Wolterstorff (1932-), the situation is perfect for a radical orthodoxy. Christians believe in what they believe without a rational basis to do so. For them postmodernism makes room for Christianity at a table from which they were barred under modernism.
Another more rational approach is that of critical realism. Critical realists recognize that our perspective on reality is clouded by our rational limitations. But by faith they believe that reality exists and that God in some way guarantees that our knowledge of that reality "works" in a way that is far more fixed than Rorty might acknowledge. Like Kant, we believe that the world exists and that we can only know it as it appears to us. But unlike Kant, we are far more aware of the limitations of how it appears to us.
But eventually someone suggests a new paradigm. Normal science resists, often successfully for some time because it holds the power over what is allowed to be considered truth. But if the new paradigm can gain traction, can gain power, eventually those with the older paradigm may die off. Suddenly a new "truth" emerges that becomes the new normal science, and the cycle continues.
The parallels with Foucault are straightforward. In both cases, knowledge takes place within a certain paradigm, a way of structuring knowledge. But in both cases as well, that structure is not fixed or absolute. It is rather a function of power, where those who have power are able to set the terms for what is allowed to be considered as plausible or true.
Both cases also seem somewhat extreme, although they both get at certain truths that needed to be heard. We will try to appropriate their ideas within a Christian framework at the end of the chapter.
Perhaps the best known face of postmodernism of all is that of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). If Foucault doubted the way we structure knowledge and Kuhn doubted the objectivity of science, Derrida doubted the meaning of words. He is the father of deconstruction, the idea that words do not have stable meanings. Derrida believed that any attempt to "construct" understanding of words--or the world--inevitably self-destructs in the process.
If Nietzsche believed that "there are no facts, only interpretations," Derrida hardly believed that there were even interpretations. The meaning of a word is simply other words, whose meaning simply defers to yet other words. One never arrives at any definite content, only "traces" of meaning to be found in the difference between the signs, the squigglies we call words. As part of his flamboyant personality, Derrida combined these two words--"defer" and "differ" to make his own French word: différance.
Like Nietzsche, Derrida did not restrict this problem to written texts. To him, the entire world was a text, and its meaning was just as uncertain as the meaning of written texts were to him. He thus is known for saying that "There is nothing outside the text."
It is of course ironic that Derrida wrote texts and might argue with others over their meaning. Derrida does a good job of reminding us that almost any text can be misunderstood. And we saw already in chapter 4 that the meaning of words can be very stable indeed.
Nevertheless, people at least think they understand each other far more than Derrida would have us believe. He is an important footnote to meaning, and his thoughts deserve to be taken seriously. But we can only take them seriously if we disagree somewhat with them. Only if we believe that texts can be understood to some degree can we ever take the thoughts of others seriously.
The preceding discussion leads us finally to the face of Richard Rorty (1931-2007), whom we should identify with pragmatic realism. Rorty has all the doubt of all the other postmodern philosophers we have mentioned. Yet he recognized that despite our doubts about the world outside our heads, it "works" to live as if that world is real.
For an extreme postmodern, the only real test for truth is the pragmatic test we mentioned back in chapter 3. It "works" to say that some things are true about the world and other things are not. Following Rorty's lead, we might use Derrida's words--recognizing the contradiction since we are using words--and yet chalk it up to the fact that such dialog "works." We would not thereby be saying anything about their actual "truth" or meaning, only that our acts work for us.
However, surely as Christians we hope for something more certain than this scenario, especially since we are people of faith. For individuals like James K. A. Smith (1970-) and Nicholas Wolterstorff (1932-), the situation is perfect for a radical orthodoxy. Christians believe in what they believe without a rational basis to do so. For them postmodernism makes room for Christianity at a table from which they were barred under modernism.
Another more rational approach is that of critical realism. Critical realists recognize that our perspective on reality is clouded by our rational limitations. But by faith they believe that reality exists and that God in some way guarantees that our knowledge of that reality "works" in a way that is far more fixed than Rorty might acknowledge. Like Kant, we believe that the world exists and that we can only know it as it appears to us. But unlike Kant, we are far more aware of the limitations of how it appears to us.
Monday Thoughts 2: The Faces of Postmodernism
17.3 The Faces of Postmodernism
In this section, we have chosen several figures from postmodernism to give you some sense of this recent trend in philosophy.
We start with Michel Foucault (pronounced foo-KOH). You will remember that Francis Bacon in the 1500's had the famous slogan that "Knowledge is power." The more truth you know, the more you are able to do in the world. Foucault turned this expression on its head, "Power is knowledge." For Foucault, the truth is whatever you have the power to convince others is true.
Foucault's writings apply this principle to subjects like the punishment of crime, insanity, and sexuality. In his historical studies, Foucault shows how society's paradigms have changed in the last few centuries.
For example, the punishment of crime was very public up until recent times. People were beheaded or hanged in public for all to see. Particularly heinous crimes were met with such grusome punishments as being drawn and quartered. The goal was to deter others from doing the same.
Foucault argues that changes in contemporary culture do not indicate that we are more civilized than previous generations. Rather, he argues, we have made punishment into a matter of revenge. The goal is no longer to show others what not to do. Now the goal is to make the criminal suffer for what they have done. In both cases, lines of power have created what is true.
With regard to sexuality, Foucault argues that the very category of sexuality as an aspect of a person is a recent invention. In previous days, people did not divide human sexuality into the categories of hetero- and homosexual with distinct "orientations." Homosexual activity was exactly that--sexual activity that some people engaged in.
However, such individuals would likely have been married and have children as well. To use our language, earlier generations would have assumed that everyone was a heterosexual but that some people engaged in homosexual behavior as well. But they did not have a category "heterosexual" in their mind.
A good deal of what Foucault had to say about such things seems to work when we apply them to history. For example, we saw in chapter 12 that the Bible only seems to address homosexual activity, not a homosexual orientation. All our knowing of the world involves the use of paradigms, ways we categorize the data of the world. Unlike God, we cannot hold in our minds all the data in its relationship to all the other data of the world. We have to "group" the data, to simplify it. Then once we have reduced the data of the world into smaller groups, we propose relationships between those bigger categories.
But these "structures" our minds and cultures give to reality almost always involve skew.<1> We almost always have to oversimplify reality in order for us to process it. Have you ever heard the saying, "The Devil is in the details"? This saying basically reflects the truth that our nice categories often break down when we get down to the nitty gritty of applying them.
Foucault himself recognized that he himself was imposing his own power on the data of history. Indeed, we should be on guard as we read him, for he would have been inconsistent if he actually claimed to be relating something true about history. Nevertheless, we can learn a good deal from his studies. We can believe that there are better and worse interpretations of history and yet recognize that power plays an enormous role in what people believe is true.
We often do not realize how differently groups outside our own understand history differently than we do. When we think of the recent war in Iraq, for example, we find competing versions of history in play. In the days following the events of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush had the power to impose a particular paradigm on a good part of the Western world. Using the power of words, he used language of traditional warfare like "attack," "war on terror," and so forth in order to urge the launch of conventional troops against a nation he included within that war.
President Bush had the power to maintain that paradigm through the 2004 election. But we can see several points of potential skew in the paradigm. For example, to simplify the data, Bush included a number of different "terrorist" groups together as a singular opponent. Foucault would note that even the imposition of the label "terrorist" immediately results in a skew of the actual data. How similar were these individual groups? How accurate was it to include the regime of Saddam Hussein within the same group as Al Qaeda? It may very well be that the historical paradigms of the future in relation to these events will be much different from that used by the Bush administration in its time of crisis.
...
<1> Foucault is sometimes called a "post-structuralist."
In this section, we have chosen several figures from postmodernism to give you some sense of this recent trend in philosophy.
We start with Michel Foucault (pronounced foo-KOH). You will remember that Francis Bacon in the 1500's had the famous slogan that "Knowledge is power." The more truth you know, the more you are able to do in the world. Foucault turned this expression on its head, "Power is knowledge." For Foucault, the truth is whatever you have the power to convince others is true.
Foucault's writings apply this principle to subjects like the punishment of crime, insanity, and sexuality. In his historical studies, Foucault shows how society's paradigms have changed in the last few centuries.
For example, the punishment of crime was very public up until recent times. People were beheaded or hanged in public for all to see. Particularly heinous crimes were met with such grusome punishments as being drawn and quartered. The goal was to deter others from doing the same.
Foucault argues that changes in contemporary culture do not indicate that we are more civilized than previous generations. Rather, he argues, we have made punishment into a matter of revenge. The goal is no longer to show others what not to do. Now the goal is to make the criminal suffer for what they have done. In both cases, lines of power have created what is true.
With regard to sexuality, Foucault argues that the very category of sexuality as an aspect of a person is a recent invention. In previous days, people did not divide human sexuality into the categories of hetero- and homosexual with distinct "orientations." Homosexual activity was exactly that--sexual activity that some people engaged in.
However, such individuals would likely have been married and have children as well. To use our language, earlier generations would have assumed that everyone was a heterosexual but that some people engaged in homosexual behavior as well. But they did not have a category "heterosexual" in their mind.
A good deal of what Foucault had to say about such things seems to work when we apply them to history. For example, we saw in chapter 12 that the Bible only seems to address homosexual activity, not a homosexual orientation. All our knowing of the world involves the use of paradigms, ways we categorize the data of the world. Unlike God, we cannot hold in our minds all the data in its relationship to all the other data of the world. We have to "group" the data, to simplify it. Then once we have reduced the data of the world into smaller groups, we propose relationships between those bigger categories.
But these "structures" our minds and cultures give to reality almost always involve skew.<1> We almost always have to oversimplify reality in order for us to process it. Have you ever heard the saying, "The Devil is in the details"? This saying basically reflects the truth that our nice categories often break down when we get down to the nitty gritty of applying them.
Foucault himself recognized that he himself was imposing his own power on the data of history. Indeed, we should be on guard as we read him, for he would have been inconsistent if he actually claimed to be relating something true about history. Nevertheless, we can learn a good deal from his studies. We can believe that there are better and worse interpretations of history and yet recognize that power plays an enormous role in what people believe is true.
We often do not realize how differently groups outside our own understand history differently than we do. When we think of the recent war in Iraq, for example, we find competing versions of history in play. In the days following the events of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush had the power to impose a particular paradigm on a good part of the Western world. Using the power of words, he used language of traditional warfare like "attack," "war on terror," and so forth in order to urge the launch of conventional troops against a nation he included within that war.
President Bush had the power to maintain that paradigm through the 2004 election. But we can see several points of potential skew in the paradigm. For example, to simplify the data, Bush included a number of different "terrorist" groups together as a singular opponent. Foucault would note that even the imposition of the label "terrorist" immediately results in a skew of the actual data. How similar were these individual groups? How accurate was it to include the regime of Saddam Hussein within the same group as Al Qaeda? It may very well be that the historical paradigms of the future in relation to these events will be much different from that used by the Bush administration in its time of crisis.
...
<1> Foucault is sometimes called a "post-structuralist."
Monday Thoughts 1: Redefining Postmodernism
17.1 Redefining Postmodernism
It is somewhat ironic that the idea of "postmodernism" has become part of the very Western "myth of progress" that it proposes to unravel. In an age of ever increasing technological advancement, Western culture ignorantly dubbed postmodernism as the next stage in human cultural evolution. To be postmodern is thus to be forward looking, to be on the cutting edge of the future.
But of course anyone who thinks of postmodernism in this way does not understand what postmodernism is. Nor is postmodernism new in terms of what it represents, although it has never manifested itself in such a pervasive and thoroughly pessimistic way.
Postmodernism is, more than anything else, doubt that we can speak of truth in any definite or absolute sense. François Lyotard called it "incredulity toward metanarratives," by which he meant disbelief in any overarching system of truth. So you can see that anyone who speaks of postmodernism as if it were the newest and best system of truth to date has not really understood what postmodernism is.
The word postmodernism itself of course evokes the idea of modernism, which evokes the idea of pre-modernism. In a moment we will suggest that these labels are less than helpful philosophically. Their main value comes as an introduction to one segment of the history of recent thought. Even here, though, any deep penetration into the thinkers of recent times deconstructs this superficial model and begs for a more sophisticated way to categorize various individuals.
Modernism is said to originate with René Descartes, whose agenda of doubt aimed for certainty in knowledge. What Descartes famously concluded was that he could doubt everything but his own existence--"I think; therefore, I am." For the next four hundred years, so the story goes, philosophers sought objectivity in knowledge, to divest themselves of all bias.
It is no coincidence that the age of science ran parallel to this quest. The scientific method of Francis Bacon required a person to collect evidence impartially and form objective hypotheses that one might then test against the evidence.
The term pre-modern thus was a slam against the age before, the pre-critical age, the age of religion, the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages between the ancient Greco-Roman world and the Renaissance. Such terminology, whatever truth it may relate, is itself riddled with bias of its own sort.
The truth of the term "pre-modern" is the sense that most human cultures have tended to be unreflective toward the reasons underlying what they believe to be true. The human animal tends to assume that the way its herd views the world is in fact the only way to view the world.
For example, when those in the Western world draw lines around the world, they draw cats and dogs on the domesticated side of the line, the human side. It is thus unthinkable to most Westerners that a person would eat cat or dog. And how uncivilized of those from other parts of the world to do so. This ethic is unreflective, unexamined for those in the West.
The impulse of "modernism" was thus to become aware of all biases and become objective about the truth. Like Spock from Star Trek, the perfect modernist divests him or herself of emotional reasoning and forms conclusions only on the evidence. The perfect modernist would thus be completely reflective and objective.
Postmodernism--after modernism--correctly recognizes that the perfect modernist does not exist in the human plane. God is the only modernist who knows all the evidence and can process it with complete objectivity in relation to all the other evidence. Postmodernism tells the modernist that he or she is only partially reflective at any time. And what is worse, by very definition we cannot know the points at which we are unreflective.
The next section presents some of the key changes in thinking that took place after Immanuel Kant. Then we will meet some of the key postmodern thinkers of recent times and attempt to process their ideas from a Christian perspective. The chapter ends with some suggestions for how Christians might think about thinking as we look toward the rest of the twenty-first century.
It is somewhat ironic that the idea of "postmodernism" has become part of the very Western "myth of progress" that it proposes to unravel. In an age of ever increasing technological advancement, Western culture ignorantly dubbed postmodernism as the next stage in human cultural evolution. To be postmodern is thus to be forward looking, to be on the cutting edge of the future.
But of course anyone who thinks of postmodernism in this way does not understand what postmodernism is. Nor is postmodernism new in terms of what it represents, although it has never manifested itself in such a pervasive and thoroughly pessimistic way.
Postmodernism is, more than anything else, doubt that we can speak of truth in any definite or absolute sense. François Lyotard called it "incredulity toward metanarratives," by which he meant disbelief in any overarching system of truth. So you can see that anyone who speaks of postmodernism as if it were the newest and best system of truth to date has not really understood what postmodernism is.
The word postmodernism itself of course evokes the idea of modernism, which evokes the idea of pre-modernism. In a moment we will suggest that these labels are less than helpful philosophically. Their main value comes as an introduction to one segment of the history of recent thought. Even here, though, any deep penetration into the thinkers of recent times deconstructs this superficial model and begs for a more sophisticated way to categorize various individuals.
Modernism is said to originate with René Descartes, whose agenda of doubt aimed for certainty in knowledge. What Descartes famously concluded was that he could doubt everything but his own existence--"I think; therefore, I am." For the next four hundred years, so the story goes, philosophers sought objectivity in knowledge, to divest themselves of all bias.
It is no coincidence that the age of science ran parallel to this quest. The scientific method of Francis Bacon required a person to collect evidence impartially and form objective hypotheses that one might then test against the evidence.
The term pre-modern thus was a slam against the age before, the pre-critical age, the age of religion, the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages between the ancient Greco-Roman world and the Renaissance. Such terminology, whatever truth it may relate, is itself riddled with bias of its own sort.
The truth of the term "pre-modern" is the sense that most human cultures have tended to be unreflective toward the reasons underlying what they believe to be true. The human animal tends to assume that the way its herd views the world is in fact the only way to view the world.
For example, when those in the Western world draw lines around the world, they draw cats and dogs on the domesticated side of the line, the human side. It is thus unthinkable to most Westerners that a person would eat cat or dog. And how uncivilized of those from other parts of the world to do so. This ethic is unreflective, unexamined for those in the West.
The impulse of "modernism" was thus to become aware of all biases and become objective about the truth. Like Spock from Star Trek, the perfect modernist divests him or herself of emotional reasoning and forms conclusions only on the evidence. The perfect modernist would thus be completely reflective and objective.
Postmodernism--after modernism--correctly recognizes that the perfect modernist does not exist in the human plane. God is the only modernist who knows all the evidence and can process it with complete objectivity in relation to all the other evidence. Postmodernism tells the modernist that he or she is only partially reflective at any time. And what is worse, by very definition we cannot know the points at which we are unreflective.
The next section presents some of the key changes in thinking that took place after Immanuel Kant. Then we will meet some of the key postmodern thinkers of recent times and attempt to process their ideas from a Christian perspective. The chapter ends with some suggestions for how Christians might think about thinking as we look toward the rest of the twenty-first century.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Sunday Hebrews: Expository Notes on 2:5-9
I thought I would do the Preaching Notes on all chapter 2 next week and continue through the exposition of 2:5-18.
___________
5 For it is not to angels that [God] has subjected the coming world of which we speak...
The author now shifts back to teaching, after telling the audience the importance of heeding the voice of Christ. The angels are powerful and important, but Christ is even more significant. If punishment under the angelic Law was severe, just imagine what lies in store for those who neglect the word through Christ.
Hebrews leaves it to us to determine who is in mind, to whom the coming world is subjected. The context thus far leads us to think it is to Christ that the coming world will be subjected. This is certainly true, although the author may have even more than this in mind.
The coming world here is the unshakeable kingdom to come, which confirms that the author had in mind the heavenly world or the world of the eschaton when he speaks of God leading His firstborn Son into the "inhabited world."
6-8 For someone, somewhere has witnessed saying,
What is a mortal that You remember him,
or the son of a mortal that You look on him?
You made him a little lower than the angels;
you crowned him with glory and honor;
you subjected all things under his feet.
The author's introduction of Psalm 8 does not reflect a lapse of memory--"someone, somewhere." Like the Jewish author Philo, this style of reference says that Scripture is not simply the words of a human author. Rather, Scripture is a medium of the voice of God. God's word is bigger than Scripture, but Scripture is God's word as He speaks through it.
So the author will later locate Psalm 95 "in David" (4:7), but what he doesn't say is that David says something (cf. Rom. 4:6). In other places in Hebrews, it is God (1:5), the Holy Spirit (3:7), or Christ (10:5) who speaks through the words of the Bible. Since Psalm 8 is a human inquiring of God, the author distances the human author from the text by speaking of David anonymously.
Were 2:5 expected the author to go on to speak of Christ, Psalm 8 of course makes us think of humanity in general. The psalm can refer to Christ of course, as Paul's writings show. However, we get a sense that the author is saying something deeper here that implies a solidarity between humanity and Christ, between humanity's problem and Christ's solution.
8b For when [God] subjected all things to him [mortals], He left nothing unsubjected. But now not yet do we see all things subjected.
We are getting a sense that God created humanity with the intent that humans would have glory and honor over the creation, that all things would be under humanity's feet. The problem is that we do not see this intent fulfilled. All things are not yet under humanity's feet.
This statement evokes images of Romans 3:23--"All have sinned and are lacking the glory of God." God intended humanity to have glory and honor in the creation, but because of Adam's sin, this situation is not the case.
9 But we do see one who was made a little lower than the angels--Jesus--who was crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every [mortal].
The author unfolds the solution to the human problem artfully, suspensefully. Humanity was unable to attain God's intended glory. But one who became lower than the angels did for us. By the grace of God, we no longer need be defeated by death.
more to come...
___________
5 For it is not to angels that [God] has subjected the coming world of which we speak...
The author now shifts back to teaching, after telling the audience the importance of heeding the voice of Christ. The angels are powerful and important, but Christ is even more significant. If punishment under the angelic Law was severe, just imagine what lies in store for those who neglect the word through Christ.
Hebrews leaves it to us to determine who is in mind, to whom the coming world is subjected. The context thus far leads us to think it is to Christ that the coming world will be subjected. This is certainly true, although the author may have even more than this in mind.
The coming world here is the unshakeable kingdom to come, which confirms that the author had in mind the heavenly world or the world of the eschaton when he speaks of God leading His firstborn Son into the "inhabited world."
6-8 For someone, somewhere has witnessed saying,
What is a mortal that You remember him,
or the son of a mortal that You look on him?
You made him a little lower than the angels;
you crowned him with glory and honor;
you subjected all things under his feet.
The author's introduction of Psalm 8 does not reflect a lapse of memory--"someone, somewhere." Like the Jewish author Philo, this style of reference says that Scripture is not simply the words of a human author. Rather, Scripture is a medium of the voice of God. God's word is bigger than Scripture, but Scripture is God's word as He speaks through it.
So the author will later locate Psalm 95 "in David" (4:7), but what he doesn't say is that David says something (cf. Rom. 4:6). In other places in Hebrews, it is God (1:5), the Holy Spirit (3:7), or Christ (10:5) who speaks through the words of the Bible. Since Psalm 8 is a human inquiring of God, the author distances the human author from the text by speaking of David anonymously.
Were 2:5 expected the author to go on to speak of Christ, Psalm 8 of course makes us think of humanity in general. The psalm can refer to Christ of course, as Paul's writings show. However, we get a sense that the author is saying something deeper here that implies a solidarity between humanity and Christ, between humanity's problem and Christ's solution.
8b For when [God] subjected all things to him [mortals], He left nothing unsubjected. But now not yet do we see all things subjected.
We are getting a sense that God created humanity with the intent that humans would have glory and honor over the creation, that all things would be under humanity's feet. The problem is that we do not see this intent fulfilled. All things are not yet under humanity's feet.
This statement evokes images of Romans 3:23--"All have sinned and are lacking the glory of God." God intended humanity to have glory and honor in the creation, but because of Adam's sin, this situation is not the case.
9 But we do see one who was made a little lower than the angels--Jesus--who was crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every [mortal].
The author unfolds the solution to the human problem artfully, suspensefully. Humanity was unable to attain God's intended glory. But one who became lower than the angels did for us. By the grace of God, we no longer need be defeated by death.
more to come...
Saturday, February 09, 2008
The Train of Thought in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10
Prior Context
In the verses just prior to this passage, Paul has expressed his solidarity with Jesus in his sufferings. In my interpretation, Paul exercises the same faith in God during trial that Jesus exercised in trial. Christ said "I have exercised faith" (4:13) so also Paul and those who are suffering for Christ also assert--"we are exercising faith" (5:13). Paul has faith that the same God who saved Jesus out of death will also raise them.
4:16
Therefore, we are not losing heart. But even if our outward person is being corrupted, our inward person is nevertheless being renewed day by day.
This statement ties in with the theme of suffering Paul has just mentioned. His outward, visible body is physically suffering, but a part of him is a different story.
4:17-18
For the immediate, light matter of tribulation is exceedingly abundantly working for us an eternal weight of glory. For we are not looking at the things that are seen but at the things that are not seen, for the things that are seen are temporary but the things that are not seen are eternal.
From these verses we see a temporal and a visible contrast. The visible contrast is between the physical realm that we can see and the spiritual realm we cannot. These correspond to the present world and the world that is coming.
5:1
For we know that if our earthly tent-dwelling (οικια του σκηνους) should be destroyed, we have a domicile (οικοδομη) from God, an eternal dwelling (οικια) not made with hands in the heavens.
It is agreed that the "dwelling of a tent" that Paul has in mind is our earthly body. For it to be destroyed is thus for us to die. The "building" the "domicile" from God would thus appear to be our spiritual body.
To be sure, there have been those who have seen a shift in Paul's thinking here, from a resurrection body to a kind of reclothing immediately at death with a heavenly dwelling, a movement from a return to the earth after death to a heaven oriented eternity.
This verse does not require any shift from Paul's earlier thought. Paul does not say here that we get this dwelling at death. It is quite possible that he is still thinking of a resurrection body.
But is our body already prepared for us in heaven, like a suit waiting in some heavenly closet? 1 Corinthians 15 indicates that the resurrection body is a "spiritual body" (σωμα πνευματικον). What exactly this body might be in Paul's mind is difficult to say. It is not just a spirit--it is some kind of body. It is clearly of a different sort than our earthly, "soulish" body (σωμα ψυχικον).
Resurrection is to bear "the image of the heavenly man," Christ (1 Cor. 15:49). "The first man was dust from the earth. The second man was from heaven" (15:47). I don't think this last comment is about the incarnation. The issue is the nature of the resurrection body. Adam was dust whose source was the earth. The source of the second man's "stuff" is heaven.
Paul uses the imagery of clothing in 1 Corinthians 15 as he will use in 2 Corinthians. The corruptible will "put on" (ενδυω) incorruptibility. The immortal will put on immortality (ενδυω) (15:53). The timing is the point of resurrection.
5:2
For even at this time we groan, longing to put (επενδυω) on our dwelling (οικητηριον) from heaven...
The language is very similar to 1 Corinthians 15. There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to see more in this verse than a reference to the resurrection. It seems like we would need strong reason to see the heavenly body as pre-prepared in heaven waiting for us. The point is that as we suffer in our earthly bodies, we long for our (future) resurrection body, a heavenly body.
5:3
... if indeed also after we undress (εκδυω) we will not be found naked.
Nakedness here surely refers to the destiny of those who do not have a resurrection body in store for them. It is difficult to know what exactly Paul understands such nakedness to be. If we follow the model of 1 Corinthians 15, it is to "be lost" (15:18). Paul does not speak of punishment for these individuals. Their fate seems almost one of non-existence.
What is nakedness? A spirit without a body? A shade in the underworld? Hard to tell.
5:4
For even we who are in [this] tent groan and are burdened, in that we do not want to undress (εκδυω) but to dress (επενδυω) so that the mortal might be swallowed by life.
Although some have suggested it, this statement doesn't seem to refer to what happens at death but to the point of resurrection. We do not look forward to death, but we do look forward to getting our resurrection body. One important feature of this passage is the recognition that Paul does not likely anticipate a long time between death and resurrection. Indeed, it could be that the audience will still be alive when the resurrection takes place.
It is not clear what this verse has to say about the meantime for those who die before resurrection. Does Paul think that we will be "naked" in this period?
5:5
And the One who has made us for this very thing is God who has given to us the earnest of the Spirit.
Since the Spirit is a downpayment, a foretaste of glory divine, we once again get the sense that our spiritual body will be made of heavenly stuff, spirit stuff.
5:6
Therefore, since we are always bold and know that when we are at home (ενδημεω) in the body we are away from home (εκδημεω) from the Lord.
The image of a home fits well with the idea of a body. When we are in this body, we are not in the body that is with the Lord. So perhaps Paul is thinking of the body we will get at the second coming, at the resurrection.
At the same time, it is tempting to think of this statement in terms of death. We die and are at home with the Lord. Philippians 1:23 speaks of being with the Lord at death, even while this world continues on. But if that is what Paul is saying here, then he has changed his mind on when we get our resurrection body. If Paul is thinking we receive a resurrection body at death, then he has fundamentally shifted his understanding of resurrection.
Another possibility is that "at home" is not a reference to having our resurrection body but to being with the Lord in some way in between death and resurrection. In Paul's imagery here, it would be a reference to being "naked" in heaven with the Lord. It is an option to ponder.
5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight.
This apparently future reference--things to come--points more toward resurrection as what Paul continues to have in mind rather than some intermediate state.
5:8
And we are bold and we would rather be away from the home (εκδημεω) of our body and to be at home (ενδημεω) with the Lord.
It is a different expression here for "with the Lord" (προς τον κυριον) than it is in Philippians 1:23 (συν Χριστω). Whether that means there is a different sense to the expression remains to be seen. We are still left uncertain whether Paul has in mind the resurrection/second coming, which the context seems to point toward, or some intermediate state on death.
5:9
Therefore we also strive to be pleasing to him, whether at home (ενδημεω) or away from home (εκδημεω) [in terms of our bodies]...
How can we strive to please Christ when we are away from the body? The next verse seems to imply it is when we stand before Christ in judgment.
5:10
For it is necessary for us all to appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each may get their due for the things that they did with the body, whether good or bad.
It would appear that whenever Paul has in mind that we might be "away from the home" of our body, it is at that point that we stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Traditionally, this would be the resurrection. But we understand how some have suggested that Paul has altered his view somewhat from 1 Corinthians. They would suggest that Paul now equates resurrection with the point of death. This seems unlikely to me, as it has to the majority of scholars.
In the verses just prior to this passage, Paul has expressed his solidarity with Jesus in his sufferings. In my interpretation, Paul exercises the same faith in God during trial that Jesus exercised in trial. Christ said "I have exercised faith" (4:13) so also Paul and those who are suffering for Christ also assert--"we are exercising faith" (5:13). Paul has faith that the same God who saved Jesus out of death will also raise them.
4:16
Therefore, we are not losing heart. But even if our outward person is being corrupted, our inward person is nevertheless being renewed day by day.
This statement ties in with the theme of suffering Paul has just mentioned. His outward, visible body is physically suffering, but a part of him is a different story.
4:17-18
For the immediate, light matter of tribulation is exceedingly abundantly working for us an eternal weight of glory. For we are not looking at the things that are seen but at the things that are not seen, for the things that are seen are temporary but the things that are not seen are eternal.
From these verses we see a temporal and a visible contrast. The visible contrast is between the physical realm that we can see and the spiritual realm we cannot. These correspond to the present world and the world that is coming.
5:1
For we know that if our earthly tent-dwelling (οικια του σκηνους) should be destroyed, we have a domicile (οικοδομη) from God, an eternal dwelling (οικια) not made with hands in the heavens.
It is agreed that the "dwelling of a tent" that Paul has in mind is our earthly body. For it to be destroyed is thus for us to die. The "building" the "domicile" from God would thus appear to be our spiritual body.
To be sure, there have been those who have seen a shift in Paul's thinking here, from a resurrection body to a kind of reclothing immediately at death with a heavenly dwelling, a movement from a return to the earth after death to a heaven oriented eternity.
This verse does not require any shift from Paul's earlier thought. Paul does not say here that we get this dwelling at death. It is quite possible that he is still thinking of a resurrection body.
But is our body already prepared for us in heaven, like a suit waiting in some heavenly closet? 1 Corinthians 15 indicates that the resurrection body is a "spiritual body" (σωμα πνευματικον). What exactly this body might be in Paul's mind is difficult to say. It is not just a spirit--it is some kind of body. It is clearly of a different sort than our earthly, "soulish" body (σωμα ψυχικον).
Resurrection is to bear "the image of the heavenly man," Christ (1 Cor. 15:49). "The first man was dust from the earth. The second man was from heaven" (15:47). I don't think this last comment is about the incarnation. The issue is the nature of the resurrection body. Adam was dust whose source was the earth. The source of the second man's "stuff" is heaven.
Paul uses the imagery of clothing in 1 Corinthians 15 as he will use in 2 Corinthians. The corruptible will "put on" (ενδυω) incorruptibility. The immortal will put on immortality (ενδυω) (15:53). The timing is the point of resurrection.
5:2
For even at this time we groan, longing to put (επενδυω) on our dwelling (οικητηριον) from heaven...
The language is very similar to 1 Corinthians 15. There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to see more in this verse than a reference to the resurrection. It seems like we would need strong reason to see the heavenly body as pre-prepared in heaven waiting for us. The point is that as we suffer in our earthly bodies, we long for our (future) resurrection body, a heavenly body.
5:3
... if indeed also after we undress (εκδυω) we will not be found naked.
Nakedness here surely refers to the destiny of those who do not have a resurrection body in store for them. It is difficult to know what exactly Paul understands such nakedness to be. If we follow the model of 1 Corinthians 15, it is to "be lost" (15:18). Paul does not speak of punishment for these individuals. Their fate seems almost one of non-existence.
What is nakedness? A spirit without a body? A shade in the underworld? Hard to tell.
5:4
For even we who are in [this] tent groan and are burdened, in that we do not want to undress (εκδυω) but to dress (επενδυω) so that the mortal might be swallowed by life.
Although some have suggested it, this statement doesn't seem to refer to what happens at death but to the point of resurrection. We do not look forward to death, but we do look forward to getting our resurrection body. One important feature of this passage is the recognition that Paul does not likely anticipate a long time between death and resurrection. Indeed, it could be that the audience will still be alive when the resurrection takes place.
It is not clear what this verse has to say about the meantime for those who die before resurrection. Does Paul think that we will be "naked" in this period?
5:5
And the One who has made us for this very thing is God who has given to us the earnest of the Spirit.
Since the Spirit is a downpayment, a foretaste of glory divine, we once again get the sense that our spiritual body will be made of heavenly stuff, spirit stuff.
5:6
Therefore, since we are always bold and know that when we are at home (ενδημεω) in the body we are away from home (εκδημεω) from the Lord.
The image of a home fits well with the idea of a body. When we are in this body, we are not in the body that is with the Lord. So perhaps Paul is thinking of the body we will get at the second coming, at the resurrection.
At the same time, it is tempting to think of this statement in terms of death. We die and are at home with the Lord. Philippians 1:23 speaks of being with the Lord at death, even while this world continues on. But if that is what Paul is saying here, then he has changed his mind on when we get our resurrection body. If Paul is thinking we receive a resurrection body at death, then he has fundamentally shifted his understanding of resurrection.
Another possibility is that "at home" is not a reference to having our resurrection body but to being with the Lord in some way in between death and resurrection. In Paul's imagery here, it would be a reference to being "naked" in heaven with the Lord. It is an option to ponder.
5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight.
This apparently future reference--things to come--points more toward resurrection as what Paul continues to have in mind rather than some intermediate state.
5:8
And we are bold and we would rather be away from the home (εκδημεω) of our body and to be at home (ενδημεω) with the Lord.
It is a different expression here for "with the Lord" (προς τον κυριον) than it is in Philippians 1:23 (συν Χριστω). Whether that means there is a different sense to the expression remains to be seen. We are still left uncertain whether Paul has in mind the resurrection/second coming, which the context seems to point toward, or some intermediate state on death.
5:9
Therefore we also strive to be pleasing to him, whether at home (ενδημεω) or away from home (εκδημεω) [in terms of our bodies]...
How can we strive to please Christ when we are away from the body? The next verse seems to imply it is when we stand before Christ in judgment.
5:10
For it is necessary for us all to appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each may get their due for the things that they did with the body, whether good or bad.
It would appear that whenever Paul has in mind that we might be "away from the home" of our body, it is at that point that we stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Traditionally, this would be the resurrection. But we understand how some have suggested that Paul has altered his view somewhat from 1 Corinthians. They would suggest that Paul now equates resurrection with the point of death. This seems unlikely to me, as it has to the majority of scholars.
Friday, February 08, 2008
An Interview with Chris Bounds 1: Total Depravity
I thought I would ask Dr. Chris Bounds of IWU some questions on the doctrine of total depravity. Next week we will conclude the interview with his comparison of Randy Maddox and Ken Collins in their interpretations of John Wesley.
____________________
1. How would Calvin define "total depravity" and how close is Calvin’s understanding to Augustine’s?
I thought it would be helpful to quote Calvin himself in regard to his understanding of total depravity. Here is a key discussion and description of “total depravity” from Book II.2 of Institutes of the Christian Religion. As you will see he appropriates Augustine and principally follows Augustine’s teaching in articulating his own understanding.
I feel pleased with the well-known saying which has been borrowed from the writings of Augustine, that man's natural gifts were corrupted by sin, and his supernatural gifts withdrawn; meaning by supernatural gifts the light of faith and righteousness, which would have been sufficient for the attainment of heavenly life and everlasting felicity. Man, when he withdrew his allegiance to God, was deprived of the spiritual gifts by which he had been raised to the hope of eternal salvation.
Hence it follows, that he is now an exile from the kingdom of God, so that all things which pertain to the blessed life of the soul are extinguished in him until he recover them by the grace of regeneration. Among these are faith, love to God, charity towards our neighbour, the study of righteousness and holiness. All these, when restored to us by Christ, are to be regarded as adventitious and above nature.
If so, we infer that they were previously abolished. On the other hand, soundness of mind and integrity of heart were, at the same time, withdrawn, and it is this which constitutes the corruption of natural gifts. For although there is still some residue of intelligence and judgement as well as will, we cannot call a mind sound and entire which is both weak and immersed in darkness. As to the will, its depravity is but too well known.
Therefore, since reason, by which man discerns between good and evil, and by which he understands and judges, is a natural gift, it could not be entirely destroyed; but being partly weakened and partly corrupted, a shapeless ruin is all that remains. In this sense it is said, (John 1: 5,) that "the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not;" these words clearly expressing both points, viz., that in the perverted and degenerate nature of man there are still some sparks which show that he is a rational animal, and differs from the brutes, inasmuch as he is endued with intelligence, and yet, that this light is so smothered by clouds of darkness that it cannot shine forth to any good effect.
Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden, Calvin, as well as Augustine, taught that holiness, righteousness, love of God and neighbor, and faith in God (Calvin uses the term from the Augustinian tradition “supranatural gifts” to describe these) were completely destroyed in humanity. Consequently, all human beings apart from divine grace are spiritually dead to God, thoroughly sinful, under divine condemnation, helpless to change themselves, ignorant of their present state, and are incapable of grasping their plight. This is total depravity.
Therefore if human beings are going to be redeemed, God is the One who must take the initiative. If human beings are to be awakened, convicted of their sin, repent, and exercise faith to be converted, then God must do the work, because humanity has no internal resources with which to move toward God and progress in the way of salvation.
However, it is important to point out that Calvin believed that some vestiges of the “image and likeness of God” remained in humanity after the Fall (Calvin uses the term from the Augustinian tradition “natural gifts” to describe these), allowing for some degree of rationality and understanding to continue to exist in human beings. Yet, none of these “vestiges” offer any resources in the work of salvation.
2. What is Wesley’s understanding of “total Depravity?”
According to John Wesley “total depravity” is the natural state of humanity. Humanity has no internal resources to offer or contribute to the work of salvation. Humanity in the natural state is without any awareness that there is a God, any awareness that humanity stands under divine condemnation, and any awareness that humanity even needs to be saved. Humanity is incapable of doing any good. Humanity is dead to God and dead in sin. As such, John Wesley is completely in the Reformed tradition, in agreement with John Calvin and Augustine. If human beings are going to be redeemed, then God is the one who must take the initiative.
However, at this point, Wesley begins to separate his theology from the Reformed Augustinian-Calvinist tradition, which, with its view of God as sovereign King and Judge, argues that God takes the initiative to redeem human beings by divine and irresistible election. God in His Wisdom chooses certain people to save. Because God is sovereign King, these people elected for redemption cannot help, but be saved; the rest are justly consigned to eternal punishment. On the other hand, Wesley, with his understanding of God as loving Father develops his doctrine of prevenient grace as the divine initial in the work of redemption.
3. How does the Eastern Orthodox view differ from the view of the Western church?
Basically, the Eastern view is not as pessimistic as the Western view in their understanding of the Fall and original sin. The Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Fall and original sin differs in two primary ways from the Protestant approach of Luther, Calvin, and Wesley.
First, Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the idea of inherited guilt and penalty for original sin. The Western Protestant tradition has argued that all human beings stand condemned by God and subject to damnation by the reality of original sin. Even though we did not ask to be born in the state of original sin, even though this state of sin has been transmitted to us, we are responsible for it and are subject to God’s judgment of it.
The mere fact of having the “sin nature” places a person (even babies and children) under the penalty of eternal death/Hell. In contrast, the Eastern Church has taught that while the consequences of original sin are passed down to all of humanity (physical death, propensity or bent toward sinning, alienation from God, other human beings, and the created order, etc.), guilt or responsibility for original sin remains entirely with the first parents.
Thus, the offspring of Adam and Eve do not have to worry about being condemned by God for merely have the sin nature or being born in the state of sin. It is only when our will cooperates with the sin nature that we come under the judgment of God and incur guilt.
Second, the Eastern Church does not see the Fall as “totally” as the Western Protestant tradition. The major Protestant tradition understands the Fall and original sin as destroying the ability of humanity to choose the good, to turn toward God, to exercise true love, and to have faith. Human beings have no inherent powers to contribute to the work of salvation in their natural fallen state. They have no inherent power to say “yes” to God or cooperate with God. The human will is totally corrupted.
In contrast the Eastern tradition contends that the Fall and original sin weakened free will, but it did not destroy it. Therefore, human beings still posses the internal resources to cooperate with grace, the power to say “yes” or “no” to grace when grace is made available. Human beings have something to contribute to the work of salvation.
____________
Thanks to Dr. Bounds for giving us time you don't have
____________________
1. How would Calvin define "total depravity" and how close is Calvin’s understanding to Augustine’s?
I thought it would be helpful to quote Calvin himself in regard to his understanding of total depravity. Here is a key discussion and description of “total depravity” from Book II.2 of Institutes of the Christian Religion. As you will see he appropriates Augustine and principally follows Augustine’s teaching in articulating his own understanding.
I feel pleased with the well-known saying which has been borrowed from the writings of Augustine, that man's natural gifts were corrupted by sin, and his supernatural gifts withdrawn; meaning by supernatural gifts the light of faith and righteousness, which would have been sufficient for the attainment of heavenly life and everlasting felicity. Man, when he withdrew his allegiance to God, was deprived of the spiritual gifts by which he had been raised to the hope of eternal salvation.
Hence it follows, that he is now an exile from the kingdom of God, so that all things which pertain to the blessed life of the soul are extinguished in him until he recover them by the grace of regeneration. Among these are faith, love to God, charity towards our neighbour, the study of righteousness and holiness. All these, when restored to us by Christ, are to be regarded as adventitious and above nature.
If so, we infer that they were previously abolished. On the other hand, soundness of mind and integrity of heart were, at the same time, withdrawn, and it is this which constitutes the corruption of natural gifts. For although there is still some residue of intelligence and judgement as well as will, we cannot call a mind sound and entire which is both weak and immersed in darkness. As to the will, its depravity is but too well known.
Therefore, since reason, by which man discerns between good and evil, and by which he understands and judges, is a natural gift, it could not be entirely destroyed; but being partly weakened and partly corrupted, a shapeless ruin is all that remains. In this sense it is said, (John 1: 5,) that "the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not;" these words clearly expressing both points, viz., that in the perverted and degenerate nature of man there are still some sparks which show that he is a rational animal, and differs from the brutes, inasmuch as he is endued with intelligence, and yet, that this light is so smothered by clouds of darkness that it cannot shine forth to any good effect.
Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden, Calvin, as well as Augustine, taught that holiness, righteousness, love of God and neighbor, and faith in God (Calvin uses the term from the Augustinian tradition “supranatural gifts” to describe these) were completely destroyed in humanity. Consequently, all human beings apart from divine grace are spiritually dead to God, thoroughly sinful, under divine condemnation, helpless to change themselves, ignorant of their present state, and are incapable of grasping their plight. This is total depravity.
Therefore if human beings are going to be redeemed, God is the One who must take the initiative. If human beings are to be awakened, convicted of their sin, repent, and exercise faith to be converted, then God must do the work, because humanity has no internal resources with which to move toward God and progress in the way of salvation.
However, it is important to point out that Calvin believed that some vestiges of the “image and likeness of God” remained in humanity after the Fall (Calvin uses the term from the Augustinian tradition “natural gifts” to describe these), allowing for some degree of rationality and understanding to continue to exist in human beings. Yet, none of these “vestiges” offer any resources in the work of salvation.
2. What is Wesley’s understanding of “total Depravity?”
According to John Wesley “total depravity” is the natural state of humanity. Humanity has no internal resources to offer or contribute to the work of salvation. Humanity in the natural state is without any awareness that there is a God, any awareness that humanity stands under divine condemnation, and any awareness that humanity even needs to be saved. Humanity is incapable of doing any good. Humanity is dead to God and dead in sin. As such, John Wesley is completely in the Reformed tradition, in agreement with John Calvin and Augustine. If human beings are going to be redeemed, then God is the one who must take the initiative.
However, at this point, Wesley begins to separate his theology from the Reformed Augustinian-Calvinist tradition, which, with its view of God as sovereign King and Judge, argues that God takes the initiative to redeem human beings by divine and irresistible election. God in His Wisdom chooses certain people to save. Because God is sovereign King, these people elected for redemption cannot help, but be saved; the rest are justly consigned to eternal punishment. On the other hand, Wesley, with his understanding of God as loving Father develops his doctrine of prevenient grace as the divine initial in the work of redemption.
3. How does the Eastern Orthodox view differ from the view of the Western church?
Basically, the Eastern view is not as pessimistic as the Western view in their understanding of the Fall and original sin. The Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Fall and original sin differs in two primary ways from the Protestant approach of Luther, Calvin, and Wesley.
First, Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the idea of inherited guilt and penalty for original sin. The Western Protestant tradition has argued that all human beings stand condemned by God and subject to damnation by the reality of original sin. Even though we did not ask to be born in the state of original sin, even though this state of sin has been transmitted to us, we are responsible for it and are subject to God’s judgment of it.
The mere fact of having the “sin nature” places a person (even babies and children) under the penalty of eternal death/Hell. In contrast, the Eastern Church has taught that while the consequences of original sin are passed down to all of humanity (physical death, propensity or bent toward sinning, alienation from God, other human beings, and the created order, etc.), guilt or responsibility for original sin remains entirely with the first parents.
Thus, the offspring of Adam and Eve do not have to worry about being condemned by God for merely have the sin nature or being born in the state of sin. It is only when our will cooperates with the sin nature that we come under the judgment of God and incur guilt.
Second, the Eastern Church does not see the Fall as “totally” as the Western Protestant tradition. The major Protestant tradition understands the Fall and original sin as destroying the ability of humanity to choose the good, to turn toward God, to exercise true love, and to have faith. Human beings have no inherent powers to contribute to the work of salvation in their natural fallen state. They have no inherent power to say “yes” to God or cooperate with God. The human will is totally corrupted.
In contrast the Eastern tradition contends that the Fall and original sin weakened free will, but it did not destroy it. Therefore, human beings still posses the internal resources to cooperate with grace, the power to say “yes” or “no” to grace when grace is made available. Human beings have something to contribute to the work of salvation.
____________
Thanks to Dr. Bounds for giving us time you don't have
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Sin in Romans 1
Last summer I never finished looking at sin in Romans--the semester started and so it went. However, Hebrews class this week has raised questions about what sin is again, this time in relation to Jesus. What exactly does the author of Hebrews have in mind when he says that Christ was tested in every way similarly without sin?
I don't propose an answer to that today, but I do want to finish running through Romans eventually, so a revisiting of Romans 1 today.
1. (1:18) The wrath of God is revealed against ασεβεια (ungodliness) and αδικια (unrighteousness).
Certainly sin is in view. What is it? It primarily seems to look toward the practice of idolatry (1:23). Paul invokes culpability on the basis of knowledge--they should have known better (1:19-21). There seems to be a sense that, at least corporately, those nations that have rejected God are involved in a known transgression--they knew the good they ought to do but did not do it.
Romans 1 treats the "sins" in the rest of the chapter as derivative. Because of their idolatry, God "gave them up" to sexual sins and many other types of sin as well. 1:32 reiterates culpability again--"although they knew the right--that those who practice such things are worthy of death--they not only did them but approved of those who did them."
Again, Paul is making a corporate rather than individual argument. What is interesting to me is the apparent importance of knowledge in culpability here. There does seem to be enslavement in the chapter as well--"God gave them up in their passions" (1:24, 26, 28). So we can perhaps speak of two views of sin in this chapter by Paul 1) ultimate culpability on the basis of intention and 2) intermediate slavery to sin as a result of prior intention.
Questions emerge of course. Is prior individual intention or prior corporate intention the main source of enslavement to sin in Paul's mind? To what extent is this a "parable" of sin in humanity and to what extent is it a blueprint? Idolatry as Paul has in view does not exist in most of our worlds, yet the other behaviors of the chapter do. Does homosexuality generally follow on idolatry and did Paul really mean to suggest something of this sort.
Questions, questions...
I don't propose an answer to that today, but I do want to finish running through Romans eventually, so a revisiting of Romans 1 today.
1. (1:18) The wrath of God is revealed against ασεβεια (ungodliness) and αδικια (unrighteousness).
Certainly sin is in view. What is it? It primarily seems to look toward the practice of idolatry (1:23). Paul invokes culpability on the basis of knowledge--they should have known better (1:19-21). There seems to be a sense that, at least corporately, those nations that have rejected God are involved in a known transgression--they knew the good they ought to do but did not do it.
Romans 1 treats the "sins" in the rest of the chapter as derivative. Because of their idolatry, God "gave them up" to sexual sins and many other types of sin as well. 1:32 reiterates culpability again--"although they knew the right--that those who practice such things are worthy of death--they not only did them but approved of those who did them."
Again, Paul is making a corporate rather than individual argument. What is interesting to me is the apparent importance of knowledge in culpability here. There does seem to be enslavement in the chapter as well--"God gave them up in their passions" (1:24, 26, 28). So we can perhaps speak of two views of sin in this chapter by Paul 1) ultimate culpability on the basis of intention and 2) intermediate slavery to sin as a result of prior intention.
Questions emerge of course. Is prior individual intention or prior corporate intention the main source of enslavement to sin in Paul's mind? To what extent is this a "parable" of sin in humanity and to what extent is it a blueprint? Idolatry as Paul has in view does not exist in most of our worlds, yet the other behaviors of the chapter do. Does homosexuality generally follow on idolatry and did Paul really mean to suggest something of this sort.
Questions, questions...
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Analyzing Fundamentalism
This week some thoughts have coalesced in my mind about the nature of American fundamentalism. As far as self-description, a fundamentalist might say, "We simply take the Bible literally and apply it to our lives." How could anyone object to that?
Here are the hidden parts, which are why I don't believe fundamentalism is the best representative of God's mind or for that matter of the Bible:
The Underlying Dynamic
The key feature of American fundamentalism is its failure to distinguish between the context of the Bible and the context of its own origins as an American group. Because it applies the words of the Bible directly to today, it blurs ancient words with early the twentieth century when it originated. As a result it 1) blurs its present with the Bible's past, 2) blurs the Bible's past with its present, and 3) does so largely without realizing the sociology of its own origins.
1. Fundamentalism brings the present into the past.
Fundamentalism does not recognize what it means to say that the Bible was written to ancient Israelites, Romans, Corinthians, etc... The implication is that the Bible was originally intelligible to these ancients, who did not think in our categories. In particular, they did not think within the frameworks of science and history that the fundamentalists of the early twentieth century did.
But the fundamentalist does not see the ancient categories. Because of when fundamentalism was born, things like the fact that the earth goes around the sun were already considered fact. The fundamentalist thus assumes that the Bible also thinks in these categories. Categories of modern science are inappropriately read into the biblical text.
Modern sensibilities of what constitutes truth telling in history or genre are also imposed on the biblical text. No real thought is given to what the standards for such things were at the time the books of the Bible were actually inspired.
2. Fundamentalism brings the past into the present.
At the same time, fundamentalism does not recognize elements of ancient culture in the Bible that do not have the same significance in our world as they did in the biblical worlds. Some groups do not allow their women to cut their hair, for example, not even considering whether this action might have different significance now than it did then.
We think of the household codes of Colossians and 1 Peter where the husband is the head or master of his wife. This structure was exactly that of ancient culture at large and not uniquely Christian in its context. Yet fundamentalist groups do not consider the biblical material on women in relation to its day in order to look for what is uniquely Christian. They look only on the surface statements of the text which are then blindly applied to a different context.
3. Fundamentalism is locked into the time of its origins.
Ultimately, fundamentalism is inconsistent in its direct application of Scripture. When it originated in the early 1900's, it fused the biblical world with the time of its origins. So the issue of the earth going around the sun was not at issue at that time. Accordingly, fundamentalists do not take such biblical language literally. On the other hand, evolution was an issue, so Genesis 1 is taken literally.
In general, issues of literality that were non-issues remain non-issues, while any potential changes in taking biblical material literally are strongly resisted.
Fundamentalism also wed the Bible to a particular sociology of its origins--a sociology that fundamentalists assume is biblical although it is simply a function of the group dynamics of its creation. So fundamentalism assumes a particular militant stance politically. It does not consider other legitimate possibilities for the relationship between Christ and culture.
Fundamentalists assume certain priorities in relation to moral issues, unexamined priorities. The result is that the moral issues of one political party--the Republican party--are unthinkingly assumed to be of more importance than the moral issues of the other political party--the Democratic one.
Indeed, issues that do not map to biblical teaching at all take on a religious authority simply because of the group dynamic. How, for example, is opposition to gun control a Christian issue. It can become one because of the way fundamentalism blurs the Bible with its own sociology. It is no surprise that conservative Christians in other countries like Britain find many of fundamentalism's "religious" values peculiar variations on American culture.
Here are the hidden parts, which are why I don't believe fundamentalism is the best representative of God's mind or for that matter of the Bible:
The Underlying Dynamic
The key feature of American fundamentalism is its failure to distinguish between the context of the Bible and the context of its own origins as an American group. Because it applies the words of the Bible directly to today, it blurs ancient words with early the twentieth century when it originated. As a result it 1) blurs its present with the Bible's past, 2) blurs the Bible's past with its present, and 3) does so largely without realizing the sociology of its own origins.
1. Fundamentalism brings the present into the past.
Fundamentalism does not recognize what it means to say that the Bible was written to ancient Israelites, Romans, Corinthians, etc... The implication is that the Bible was originally intelligible to these ancients, who did not think in our categories. In particular, they did not think within the frameworks of science and history that the fundamentalists of the early twentieth century did.
But the fundamentalist does not see the ancient categories. Because of when fundamentalism was born, things like the fact that the earth goes around the sun were already considered fact. The fundamentalist thus assumes that the Bible also thinks in these categories. Categories of modern science are inappropriately read into the biblical text.
Modern sensibilities of what constitutes truth telling in history or genre are also imposed on the biblical text. No real thought is given to what the standards for such things were at the time the books of the Bible were actually inspired.
2. Fundamentalism brings the past into the present.
At the same time, fundamentalism does not recognize elements of ancient culture in the Bible that do not have the same significance in our world as they did in the biblical worlds. Some groups do not allow their women to cut their hair, for example, not even considering whether this action might have different significance now than it did then.
We think of the household codes of Colossians and 1 Peter where the husband is the head or master of his wife. This structure was exactly that of ancient culture at large and not uniquely Christian in its context. Yet fundamentalist groups do not consider the biblical material on women in relation to its day in order to look for what is uniquely Christian. They look only on the surface statements of the text which are then blindly applied to a different context.
3. Fundamentalism is locked into the time of its origins.
Ultimately, fundamentalism is inconsistent in its direct application of Scripture. When it originated in the early 1900's, it fused the biblical world with the time of its origins. So the issue of the earth going around the sun was not at issue at that time. Accordingly, fundamentalists do not take such biblical language literally. On the other hand, evolution was an issue, so Genesis 1 is taken literally.
In general, issues of literality that were non-issues remain non-issues, while any potential changes in taking biblical material literally are strongly resisted.
Fundamentalism also wed the Bible to a particular sociology of its origins--a sociology that fundamentalists assume is biblical although it is simply a function of the group dynamics of its creation. So fundamentalism assumes a particular militant stance politically. It does not consider other legitimate possibilities for the relationship between Christ and culture.
Fundamentalists assume certain priorities in relation to moral issues, unexamined priorities. The result is that the moral issues of one political party--the Republican party--are unthinkingly assumed to be of more importance than the moral issues of the other political party--the Democratic one.
Indeed, issues that do not map to biblical teaching at all take on a religious authority simply because of the group dynamic. How, for example, is opposition to gun control a Christian issue. It can become one because of the way fundamentalism blurs the Bible with its own sociology. It is no surprise that conservative Christians in other countries like Britain find many of fundamentalism's "religious" values peculiar variations on American culture.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Hebrews Vodcast Today
Just like last week, and for the rest of the semester, we'll be shooting the Hebrews vodcast live from the Old College Church (the southeast corner classroom). We will start at about 9:30am.
You can make live chat comments and ask questions if you want. The link is
http://indwes.acrobat.com/hebrews.
Obviously it is now long after 9:30. Here is the recorded video...
https://admin.acrobat.com/_a753851402/p46796211/
You can make live chat comments and ask questions if you want. The link is
http://indwes.acrobat.com/hebrews.
Obviously it is now long after 9:30. Here is the recorded video...
https://admin.acrobat.com/_a753851402/p46796211/
Monday, February 04, 2008
Monday Thoughts: Science and Faith
8.3 Creation
Christians throughout the centuries have affirmed that God created the universe. As the Apostle's Creed says, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth." Since at least the 200's, Christians have also regularly affirmed that God created the world out of nothing. Christians seem to have forged this particular belief in argument with individuals called Gnostics. Gnostics believed matter was evil, perhaps even created by an evil spiritual power. In response, both Jews and Christians asserted that in fact God had created the world out of nothing.<1> If God created everything, including the substance of the universe, then Gnostics could not blame it for the evil in the world.
The conviction that God created the world out of nothing brings into perspective a number of other things that Christians have usually believed. For example, if God created the world out of nothing, God apparently does not need the world to exist. God existed at a point when no world was around. God is thus self-sufficient (God's "aseity").
Similarly, if God created the world out of nothing, then God presumably has as much "power" as God puts into the world. Christians have accordingly considered God to be all powerful (God's "omnipotence"). And since God does not have any materials to begin with, God must know everything made in every way. We thus say that God is all knowing (God's "omniscience"), although this line of argument only necessitates that God know all the possibilities of the creation.<2>
The Gnostics are not the only ones these last two thousand years who have brought challenges to the way Christians have viewed creation. For example, until the time of the Renaissance in the 1500's, Christians assumed that the earth stood at the center of the universe, with the heavenly realm where angels and Christ lived straight up and the dead below the earth. It thus went against the commonly held view of the universe for individuals like Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo to suggest that in fact the earth went around the sun (heliocentric universe) rather than the sun going around the earth (geocentric universe) as everyone had previously assumed.
[textbox--Philippians 2, the three storied universe, quote from Paradise Lost]
It is easy for us to dismiss this challenge to faith today as if it was nothing significant and Christians should not have been disturbed at the time. Indeed, the fact that the greatest opposition at the time came from the Roman Catholic Church makes it all the easier for Bible oriented Christians today to dismiss the issue. Yet is seems almost certain that if modern day fundamentalists had existed in the 1500's, they almost certainly would have joined the Roman Catholics against the heliocentric view of the universe.
[textbox, fundamentalist]
A fundamentalist is a Christian who reads the Bible not with a view to what its books meant when they were written, but as a book whose words apply directly and literally to our world today. A fundamentalist might deny that any distinction between the two exists, that what the Bible meant to the ancients is the same as what it means today. This view is difficult to hold the more one studies the ancient world and reads the Bible in that light.
Those who critique the fundamentalist approach would say that the result is a blurring of the ancient world with the modern world. On the one hand, the fundamentalist reads the Bible in the light of modern science. For example, a fundamentalist might see a globe when Isaiah only speaks of the "circle of the earth." An ancient might merely have pictured a two-dimensional circle. It is possible that fundamentalists inappropriately hear modern scientific categories in the text of the Bible where none were intended.
On the other hand, it is also possible that fundamentalists at times bring aspects of ancient culture inappropriately into the modern world. For example, fundamentalists tend to limit the roles that women can play in the church and society. They do so because they are applying ancient biblical material from extremely "patriarchal" cultures directly to today (and at the same time ignoring very positive teaching on women in the Bible). We can at least ask, however, whether the good news of Christ plays out a little differently in our world than it did two thousand years ago in completely male dominated cultures.
Fundamentalists often seem inconsistent in their application of Scripture because they do not take such differences into account. If they are going to prohibit women from pastoring, for example, why do they not prohibit them from teaching any males in any context, including college classes?<3> They question changes that currently face them in modern culture, but do not realize how much change from biblical times has already taken place. It is for this reason that we suggest they would have opposed the idea that the earth goes around the sun if they had existed as a group in the 1500's.
Another challenge to Christian views of creation has come from voices that have seen the world either as God (pantheism) or the world as a part of God (panentheism). Since neither of these views rest on scientific evidence, neither has really brought about any substantial change to historic Christian views of creation. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), who was Jewish rather than Christian, was perhaps the earliest person to suggest that we should identify God with the world. As a result he was "excommunicated" from the Jewish community in Amsterdam.
Panentheism is a more recent version of this approach to creation in which the world does not completely make up God, as it did for Spinoza. Rather the world is a part of God, perhaps something like God's body. Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000) popularized the term when he developed an approach to God called process theology. Unlike historic Christianity, which sees God's nature as unchanging, process theology sees God's nature changing in interaction with an evolving world.<4>
[textbox: pantheism, panentheism, process theology]
Process theology brings up the most recent challenge to traditional Christian views of creation, namely, evolution. On the most basic level, evolution is the idea that complex organisms have developed or evolved from less complicated organisms over time. Charles Darwin (1809-82) suggested, for example, that all the different finches he observed in the Galapagos islands had developed from a common finch-like ancestor over time.
Darwin did not have an explanation for how this variety might have come about in the first place. But he did have a suggestion for how some types ended up on one island and other types on other islands. His suggestion was called natural selection or survival of the fittest. Once the variety existed, some birds were better equipped to survive on some islands than on others, perhaps they had just the right beaks for the particular food on that island. Over time, then, the better equipped birds on that island--the "fittest"--came to dominate there.
The example of the peppered moth in England is often given as an example of this process of natural selection. Before the Industrial Revolution, before high amounts of soot were introduced into England's atmosphere, light moths tended to prosper. The darker or peppered moths tended to be a much smaller population if for no other reason than they stood out and birds could see them better. But after the Industrial Revolution, trees darkened from the soot and the peppered moth population flourished, while the lighter type moth dropped off sharply in population.
[textbox: micro-evolution, macro-evolution, natural selection]
On the one hand, this level of "evolution" does not seem problematic, especially since it is common sense. It is sometimes called micro-evolution, and Christian scientists of all stripes have no problem with it. However, Darwin suggested that this process had taken place from the first life all the way to humanity, macro-evolution, and it is here that the potential challenge to Christianity has ensued.
While Darwin could explain survival of the fittest, he had no good explanation for how the fittest came into existence in the first place. This piece of the puzzle was added later by neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism suggests that mutation occasionally produces a "fitter" form of an organism that eventually wins out over the earlier form of that organism. The vast majority of mutations, small changes to our genetic structure, are harmful.
But Christian scientists of all stripes would agree that mutations do occasionally benefit an organism, particularly when we are talking about micro-organisms. One of the reasons that certain medicines stop working over time is because some mutated form of a virus or bacteria proves itself resistant. Over time, the old medicine kills off all the earlier forms, leaving the drug-resistant form to flourish.
[neo-Darwinism, mutation]
It is beyond the scope of this book to engage in Christian debates over the science of macro-evolution. Over the last few decades, a significant literature has emerged against it by scientific creationists and more recently, those who hold to intelligent design theory. The former group marshalled biologists, geologists, and other scientists to argue for a young earth whose complexion is best explained on the basis of catastrophes like the biblical Flood. Their model of the earth's geology is called catastrophism, as opposed to the uniformitarianism of Darwinism. Uniformitarianism assumes that the earth's geology has resulted from the same slow processes we observe today, just over billions of years.
[textbox: scientific creationism, intelligent design theory, catastrophism, uniformitaritanism]
Intelligent design theory takes a slightly different tactic. It suggests that certain aspects of life reflect an "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved. They attempt to demonstrate that the evolution of certain things like proteins is a mathematical impossibility by chance because they are so complex. Unless they were designed, we cannot account for their existence.
At the same time, the evolutionary community has not stood still either. Many evolutionists no longer hold to the uniformitarinism of Darwinism and suggest now that the most radical phases of evolution may take place quickly in various spurts. This process is sometimes called spontaneous equilibrium.
Again, our purpose is not to examine the science involved. We can refer to a body of Christian scientific literature that makes scientific arguments against macro-evolution.<4> At the same time, some Christian scientists argue for theistic evolution, the idea that God directed the evolutionary process.<5>
We might briefly mention the biblical texts that most come into play in such debates. The first is obviously Genesis 1, which presents creation in terms of seven "days." Theistic evolutionists take such language as poetry rather than a straightforward description. Perhaps the days represent ages of history, they might say. At the same time, fundamentalist interpreters put a high premium on taking the days as literal 24 hour days, since they presume the Bible speaks in the language of modern science. Similarly, when Genesis says God made everything "after its kind," this description is taken to preclude evolution between species.
The greatest difficulty with evolution from an orthodox Christian perspective is not, however, Genesis 1. A close reading of Genesis 1 shows that the fundamentalist has not actually read the text literally him or herself. For example, Genesis 1 never explicitly mentions the creation of the primordial waters--they are there before God begins creating on Day 1 in verse 3. Also, God divides the primordial waters on Day 2 in verse 6. On Day 4, God appears to place the sun, moon, and stars in this space between the waters (verse 14).
In short, God unsurprisingly seems to have revealed Genesis 1 in terms that communicated well to those for whom it was first written. By the same token, it is quite possible that the fundamentalist does violence to the text when he or she tries to force it to speak in the categories of modern science.
The place where evolution is difficult from a Christian point of view is not with Genesis 1 but with Romans 5. In Romans 5, Paul tells the Romans that death entered the world through sin, through the sin of Adam in particular. Yet evolution requires lots and lots of death to take place before Adam. If Romans is referring to physical death, then evolution could not have functioned before him.
What is non-negotiable for the historic Christian is that God created the universe and has all power and knowledge of it. Further God is involved in the world and through Christ will eventually set right everything that is wrong in it. Within these boundaries, we find some variety of perspective among faithful Christians.
<1> Christians ever since have generally heard the idea of creation out of nothing in biblical texts like Genesis 1:1-2 and Hebrews 11:3.
<2> As we will briefly discuss in chapter 10, the idea that God knows every possible outcome in addition to every actual outcome is called "middle knowledge" or Molinism.
<3> The operative passage in question is 1 Timothy 2:12-15--"I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man."
<4> Process theology is not the same as Open Theism. In process theology, God's nature changes. In Open Theism, God intentionally limits His knowledge so that humans can have free will.
<5>Scientific Creationism, Behe...
<6>Kenneth B.
Christians throughout the centuries have affirmed that God created the universe. As the Apostle's Creed says, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth." Since at least the 200's, Christians have also regularly affirmed that God created the world out of nothing. Christians seem to have forged this particular belief in argument with individuals called Gnostics. Gnostics believed matter was evil, perhaps even created by an evil spiritual power. In response, both Jews and Christians asserted that in fact God had created the world out of nothing.<1> If God created everything, including the substance of the universe, then Gnostics could not blame it for the evil in the world.
The conviction that God created the world out of nothing brings into perspective a number of other things that Christians have usually believed. For example, if God created the world out of nothing, God apparently does not need the world to exist. God existed at a point when no world was around. God is thus self-sufficient (God's "aseity").
Similarly, if God created the world out of nothing, then God presumably has as much "power" as God puts into the world. Christians have accordingly considered God to be all powerful (God's "omnipotence"). And since God does not have any materials to begin with, God must know everything made in every way. We thus say that God is all knowing (God's "omniscience"), although this line of argument only necessitates that God know all the possibilities of the creation.<2>
The Gnostics are not the only ones these last two thousand years who have brought challenges to the way Christians have viewed creation. For example, until the time of the Renaissance in the 1500's, Christians assumed that the earth stood at the center of the universe, with the heavenly realm where angels and Christ lived straight up and the dead below the earth. It thus went against the commonly held view of the universe for individuals like Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo to suggest that in fact the earth went around the sun (heliocentric universe) rather than the sun going around the earth (geocentric universe) as everyone had previously assumed.
[textbox--Philippians 2, the three storied universe, quote from Paradise Lost]
It is easy for us to dismiss this challenge to faith today as if it was nothing significant and Christians should not have been disturbed at the time. Indeed, the fact that the greatest opposition at the time came from the Roman Catholic Church makes it all the easier for Bible oriented Christians today to dismiss the issue. Yet is seems almost certain that if modern day fundamentalists had existed in the 1500's, they almost certainly would have joined the Roman Catholics against the heliocentric view of the universe.
[textbox, fundamentalist]
A fundamentalist is a Christian who reads the Bible not with a view to what its books meant when they were written, but as a book whose words apply directly and literally to our world today. A fundamentalist might deny that any distinction between the two exists, that what the Bible meant to the ancients is the same as what it means today. This view is difficult to hold the more one studies the ancient world and reads the Bible in that light.
Those who critique the fundamentalist approach would say that the result is a blurring of the ancient world with the modern world. On the one hand, the fundamentalist reads the Bible in the light of modern science. For example, a fundamentalist might see a globe when Isaiah only speaks of the "circle of the earth." An ancient might merely have pictured a two-dimensional circle. It is possible that fundamentalists inappropriately hear modern scientific categories in the text of the Bible where none were intended.
On the other hand, it is also possible that fundamentalists at times bring aspects of ancient culture inappropriately into the modern world. For example, fundamentalists tend to limit the roles that women can play in the church and society. They do so because they are applying ancient biblical material from extremely "patriarchal" cultures directly to today (and at the same time ignoring very positive teaching on women in the Bible). We can at least ask, however, whether the good news of Christ plays out a little differently in our world than it did two thousand years ago in completely male dominated cultures.
Fundamentalists often seem inconsistent in their application of Scripture because they do not take such differences into account. If they are going to prohibit women from pastoring, for example, why do they not prohibit them from teaching any males in any context, including college classes?<3> They question changes that currently face them in modern culture, but do not realize how much change from biblical times has already taken place. It is for this reason that we suggest they would have opposed the idea that the earth goes around the sun if they had existed as a group in the 1500's.
Another challenge to Christian views of creation has come from voices that have seen the world either as God (pantheism) or the world as a part of God (panentheism). Since neither of these views rest on scientific evidence, neither has really brought about any substantial change to historic Christian views of creation. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), who was Jewish rather than Christian, was perhaps the earliest person to suggest that we should identify God with the world. As a result he was "excommunicated" from the Jewish community in Amsterdam.
Panentheism is a more recent version of this approach to creation in which the world does not completely make up God, as it did for Spinoza. Rather the world is a part of God, perhaps something like God's body. Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000) popularized the term when he developed an approach to God called process theology. Unlike historic Christianity, which sees God's nature as unchanging, process theology sees God's nature changing in interaction with an evolving world.<4>
[textbox: pantheism, panentheism, process theology]
Process theology brings up the most recent challenge to traditional Christian views of creation, namely, evolution. On the most basic level, evolution is the idea that complex organisms have developed or evolved from less complicated organisms over time. Charles Darwin (1809-82) suggested, for example, that all the different finches he observed in the Galapagos islands had developed from a common finch-like ancestor over time.
Darwin did not have an explanation for how this variety might have come about in the first place. But he did have a suggestion for how some types ended up on one island and other types on other islands. His suggestion was called natural selection or survival of the fittest. Once the variety existed, some birds were better equipped to survive on some islands than on others, perhaps they had just the right beaks for the particular food on that island. Over time, then, the better equipped birds on that island--the "fittest"--came to dominate there.
The example of the peppered moth in England is often given as an example of this process of natural selection. Before the Industrial Revolution, before high amounts of soot were introduced into England's atmosphere, light moths tended to prosper. The darker or peppered moths tended to be a much smaller population if for no other reason than they stood out and birds could see them better. But after the Industrial Revolution, trees darkened from the soot and the peppered moth population flourished, while the lighter type moth dropped off sharply in population.
[textbox: micro-evolution, macro-evolution, natural selection]
On the one hand, this level of "evolution" does not seem problematic, especially since it is common sense. It is sometimes called micro-evolution, and Christian scientists of all stripes have no problem with it. However, Darwin suggested that this process had taken place from the first life all the way to humanity, macro-evolution, and it is here that the potential challenge to Christianity has ensued.
While Darwin could explain survival of the fittest, he had no good explanation for how the fittest came into existence in the first place. This piece of the puzzle was added later by neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism suggests that mutation occasionally produces a "fitter" form of an organism that eventually wins out over the earlier form of that organism. The vast majority of mutations, small changes to our genetic structure, are harmful.
But Christian scientists of all stripes would agree that mutations do occasionally benefit an organism, particularly when we are talking about micro-organisms. One of the reasons that certain medicines stop working over time is because some mutated form of a virus or bacteria proves itself resistant. Over time, the old medicine kills off all the earlier forms, leaving the drug-resistant form to flourish.
[neo-Darwinism, mutation]
It is beyond the scope of this book to engage in Christian debates over the science of macro-evolution. Over the last few decades, a significant literature has emerged against it by scientific creationists and more recently, those who hold to intelligent design theory. The former group marshalled biologists, geologists, and other scientists to argue for a young earth whose complexion is best explained on the basis of catastrophes like the biblical Flood. Their model of the earth's geology is called catastrophism, as opposed to the uniformitarianism of Darwinism. Uniformitarianism assumes that the earth's geology has resulted from the same slow processes we observe today, just over billions of years.
[textbox: scientific creationism, intelligent design theory, catastrophism, uniformitaritanism]
Intelligent design theory takes a slightly different tactic. It suggests that certain aspects of life reflect an "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved. They attempt to demonstrate that the evolution of certain things like proteins is a mathematical impossibility by chance because they are so complex. Unless they were designed, we cannot account for their existence.
At the same time, the evolutionary community has not stood still either. Many evolutionists no longer hold to the uniformitarinism of Darwinism and suggest now that the most radical phases of evolution may take place quickly in various spurts. This process is sometimes called spontaneous equilibrium.
Again, our purpose is not to examine the science involved. We can refer to a body of Christian scientific literature that makes scientific arguments against macro-evolution.<4> At the same time, some Christian scientists argue for theistic evolution, the idea that God directed the evolutionary process.<5>
We might briefly mention the biblical texts that most come into play in such debates. The first is obviously Genesis 1, which presents creation in terms of seven "days." Theistic evolutionists take such language as poetry rather than a straightforward description. Perhaps the days represent ages of history, they might say. At the same time, fundamentalist interpreters put a high premium on taking the days as literal 24 hour days, since they presume the Bible speaks in the language of modern science. Similarly, when Genesis says God made everything "after its kind," this description is taken to preclude evolution between species.
The greatest difficulty with evolution from an orthodox Christian perspective is not, however, Genesis 1. A close reading of Genesis 1 shows that the fundamentalist has not actually read the text literally him or herself. For example, Genesis 1 never explicitly mentions the creation of the primordial waters--they are there before God begins creating on Day 1 in verse 3. Also, God divides the primordial waters on Day 2 in verse 6. On Day 4, God appears to place the sun, moon, and stars in this space between the waters (verse 14).
In short, God unsurprisingly seems to have revealed Genesis 1 in terms that communicated well to those for whom it was first written. By the same token, it is quite possible that the fundamentalist does violence to the text when he or she tries to force it to speak in the categories of modern science.
The place where evolution is difficult from a Christian point of view is not with Genesis 1 but with Romans 5. In Romans 5, Paul tells the Romans that death entered the world through sin, through the sin of Adam in particular. Yet evolution requires lots and lots of death to take place before Adam. If Romans is referring to physical death, then evolution could not have functioned before him.
What is non-negotiable for the historic Christian is that God created the universe and has all power and knowledge of it. Further God is involved in the world and through Christ will eventually set right everything that is wrong in it. Within these boundaries, we find some variety of perspective among faithful Christians.
<1> Christians ever since have generally heard the idea of creation out of nothing in biblical texts like Genesis 1:1-2 and Hebrews 11:3.
<2> As we will briefly discuss in chapter 10, the idea that God knows every possible outcome in addition to every actual outcome is called "middle knowledge" or Molinism.
<3> The operative passage in question is 1 Timothy 2:12-15--"I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man."
<4> Process theology is not the same as Open Theism. In process theology, God's nature changes. In Open Theism, God intentionally limits His knowledge so that humans can have free will.
<5>Scientific Creationism, Behe...
<6>Kenneth B.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
An Argument for the Existence of God
With 35 seconds left in the game, I said to my wife Angie, "The existence of God is at stake here." Immediately Eli Manning threw the winning touchdown to someone who had only caught one ball all night.
Justice is done. Ladies and gentleman, God is indeed alive and well!
Justice is done. Ladies and gentleman, God is indeed alive and well!
Sunday Hebrews: Expository Notes on 2:1-4
A short comment today, since time is short:
__________
On account of this, ...
That is, because Christ is greater than the angels, and angels are only ministering spirits sent for those about to inherit salvation
... let us hold fast to the things we have heard...
Namely, the word of salvation first spoken by the Lord that the author will quickly mention
... lest at some time we drift away.
This is not just a hypothetical but a real possibility. If we do not remain faithful, we do not make it.
For if the word that was spoken through angels became firm and every transgression and disobedience received a just punishment...
The author is constructing a "lesser to greater argument," also called an a minore ad minorem, an a fortiori, and in Hebrew, a qal wahomer argument. If something is true of the lesser angels, then it will certainly be true of the greater Christ.
The idea that the Jewish law was brought to Moses through angels appears in intertestamental Judaism and several times in the NT (e.g., Gal. 3 and Acts 7).
... how will we escape, if we neglect such a great salvation that received the beginning of speaking through the Lord...
If the angels, along with the prophets, were mediums of God's revelation in the old covenant, Christ is the one through whom God has spoken his most recent logos. Christ thus does not appear to be directly equivalent to the word itself in Hebrews' imagery.
Interesting is that what is contrasted is the punishment. Christians often conceptualize the OT as a time of punishment and the NT as a time of grace. It is not so for Hebrews. If the punishment of disobedience was large in the old covenant, you can imagine it will be large under the new covenant.
... and was confirmed to us by those who heard him [the Lord]...
This single comment effectively eliminates Paul as the author of Hebrews. It would be completely unprecedented for Paul to place himself not among those who had direct contact with the Lord but with those who did above him (Peter, etc...). Paul rather considers himself equal to the apostles and an eyewitness (1 Cor. 9:1).
... God confirming at the same time both with signs and wonders and various powers and dispensations of the Holy Spirit according to His will.
Interesting is that the train of thought seems to indicate that it was the apostles who did signs and wonders. Since the audience knew these people, we cannot pretend as if these signs and wonders were merely legend. Those second generation Christians who passed on the word of salvation must have done wonders.
__________
On account of this, ...
That is, because Christ is greater than the angels, and angels are only ministering spirits sent for those about to inherit salvation
... let us hold fast to the things we have heard...
Namely, the word of salvation first spoken by the Lord that the author will quickly mention
... lest at some time we drift away.
This is not just a hypothetical but a real possibility. If we do not remain faithful, we do not make it.
For if the word that was spoken through angels became firm and every transgression and disobedience received a just punishment...
The author is constructing a "lesser to greater argument," also called an a minore ad minorem, an a fortiori, and in Hebrew, a qal wahomer argument. If something is true of the lesser angels, then it will certainly be true of the greater Christ.
The idea that the Jewish law was brought to Moses through angels appears in intertestamental Judaism and several times in the NT (e.g., Gal. 3 and Acts 7).
... how will we escape, if we neglect such a great salvation that received the beginning of speaking through the Lord...
If the angels, along with the prophets, were mediums of God's revelation in the old covenant, Christ is the one through whom God has spoken his most recent logos. Christ thus does not appear to be directly equivalent to the word itself in Hebrews' imagery.
Interesting is that what is contrasted is the punishment. Christians often conceptualize the OT as a time of punishment and the NT as a time of grace. It is not so for Hebrews. If the punishment of disobedience was large in the old covenant, you can imagine it will be large under the new covenant.
... and was confirmed to us by those who heard him [the Lord]...
This single comment effectively eliminates Paul as the author of Hebrews. It would be completely unprecedented for Paul to place himself not among those who had direct contact with the Lord but with those who did above him (Peter, etc...). Paul rather considers himself equal to the apostles and an eyewitness (1 Cor. 9:1).
... God confirming at the same time both with signs and wonders and various powers and dispensations of the Holy Spirit according to His will.
Interesting is that the train of thought seems to indicate that it was the apostles who did signs and wonders. Since the audience knew these people, we cannot pretend as if these signs and wonders were merely legend. Those second generation Christians who passed on the word of salvation must have done wonders.
Friday, February 01, 2008
MDiv Road Trip and Things to Come
I'll be mostly out of contact till Monday. Keith Drury, Norm Wilson, Russ Gunsalus, David Smith, and I are going off to draft the curriculum guidelines for the coming MDiv 6 hour course: Global Christian Mission. The guidelines will be extensive, including week by week outcomes, in ministry research to do, and potential learning objects to create.
Like the overall curriculum, Bible and theology will likely be integrated throughout the course, which in 15 weeks will cover the praxis of
1. service/volunteerism (the missional nature of ministry toward the whole person)
2. evangelism (our responsibility for bringing the good news of salvation)
3. church growth and muliplication (the corporate responsibility of churches)
4. traditional missions (toward those at a distance)
Keep your fingers crossed next week for an interview with Dr. Chris Bounds, in my estimation the greatest theologian of the Wesleyan Church at present (even though he's not Wesleyan :-). The topic is differing views of total depravity in Christian tradition.
If we have Wesley's view on this subject, then we are simply a form of Calvinism. If this is the right position, I will have to change my sense of who I am. My question is, can we reform Wesley to where we are in fact a mainstream theological option rather than a "remonstrant" within Calvinism? Should we?
Like the overall curriculum, Bible and theology will likely be integrated throughout the course, which in 15 weeks will cover the praxis of
1. service/volunteerism (the missional nature of ministry toward the whole person)
2. evangelism (our responsibility for bringing the good news of salvation)
3. church growth and muliplication (the corporate responsibility of churches)
4. traditional missions (toward those at a distance)
Keep your fingers crossed next week for an interview with Dr. Chris Bounds, in my estimation the greatest theologian of the Wesleyan Church at present (even though he's not Wesleyan :-). The topic is differing views of total depravity in Christian tradition.
If we have Wesley's view on this subject, then we are simply a form of Calvinism. If this is the right position, I will have to change my sense of who I am. My question is, can we reform Wesley to where we are in fact a mainstream theological option rather than a "remonstrant" within Calvinism? Should we?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Trying to Think Christianly about Immigration
On my way back from Christmas break, my family and I stopped at a hotel for the night in Tennesee. In the morning, I noticed that a middle aged Hispanic woman was servicing the breakfast items they had out.
Given the recent discussion of immigration, the thought crossed my mind--I wonder if she's legal. I figured she probably was, because I would be very nervous about such a public job if I wasn't.
But what if she was undocumented? It's possible. I pictured a life of increasing fear. Maybe she has children. What if she finds herself unable to get a driver's license? How would she get to work? What if she gets fired? How will she feed her family? What if she has been here for decades and doesn't have any home to go back to?
The American government has looked the other way on this issue for years and years. For some of us, we are only now thinking about these things. But it has been acceptable to look the other way on these things for decades. The government has known about fake Social Security cards and other mechanisms of underground immigration forever. They might seem like new news to us, but this is big time old news.
So you can understand if I feel that it's not a little hypocritical to get "righteously indignant" about this issue all of a sudden. It would be like the Wesleyan Church suddenly revoking the membership of Wesleyans who go to movies after decades of a rule on the books that almost no one paid any attention to. Shall we suddenly start imprisoning individuals who violate blue laws where they are still on the books? Shall we make homosexuals do prison time? It's still on the books in Texas.
Shall we throw Rosa Parks in prison for not getting out of her seat? It was against the law.
We as America have been complicit in creating this problem, and it is not a little hypocritical to pretend as if they are fully to blame when we have not acted like these were important rules.
And what of the individuals whose lives are suddenly ghetto-ized by new rules. Some have lived here for decades peacefully, working minimum wage jobs. Many have children in our public schools who were born here--they are US citizens. Many have no home back in Mexico to go back to--this is where they had moved to spend the rest of their lives.
If some politicians get their way, the unintended result will be a ghetto-izing of this group--real men, women, and children--not completely unlike what the Nazis did intentionally to the Jews. No jobs--how will they eat? (Answer: Christians will feed them in violation of the law because it is better to serve God than mortals) No cars--how will they be able to get outside their "fence"?
They have broken a law. Have any of us broken a law? Anyone ever received a speeding ticket? Did you know that walking on a train track is trespassing on Federal property? Let's look at the income tax filings of the most vociferous voices on this issue. I guarantee many of them regularly violate the law more most of these families looking for a better life.
And law in Mexico is not like we imagine law to be in the United States. We often ignore speed limits, but we do it at least half willing to pay the consequences. In Mexico, the law is sometimes a matter of bribery. It does not have the ideological status it has here. The effect is that the intentionality of entering does not have the significance for them that we are (currently) assigning to it.
But the title of this post is trying to think Christianly about this subject. Thus far I have only tried to highlight some blind spots and hypocrisy in the current debate. Let me now get out my Bible and go looking for some principals:
1. God is no respecter of persons.
Americans are not more valuable or important to God than Mexicans. God looks on the heart. In God's eyes, we are not worth a dime more than any one of them. Did you know that my church has Hispanic churches? Could anyone in any of them be undocumented? Let's turn them over the government. (Really, the Wesleyan Church has those kinds of churches--I thought you all were good white Christians?)
I have no doubt but that there is a healthy dose of prejudice in play here. We can blah, blah, blah and rationalize it. "I know they are just as valuable in God's eyes, but there are consequences for breaking the law." It's very hard for me to see this kind of comment as anything but a rationalization of prejudice. Multiplication of words does not the truth make.
So fine them and make them become legal--that's a consequence.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
How would you want to be treated if you lived below the poverty line but had it better here than in Mexico? Maybe you would like to become legal but the possibility of deportation keeps you from it. The bottom line is that most people do not put illegals in the same category as themselves at all. They think of them more along the lines of animals that need to be run off the property.
3. Christ died for the whole world.
People who think Christianly think redemptively--how can we minister God's grace to those whose lives are broken on every level. An obvious answer is to help them come in to the fold. It is not, let us send them as far away from the gospel as we can.
If I had any political power? I'd try to secure the borders and make a path to citizenship for those who truly want to be a part of the great American experiment. Teach them English, sure.
So, Schenck, you believe in "amnesty"--that dirty word. Funny how the politicians are so concerned not to get this label. Who cares? I'm not interested in what you call something; I'm interested in what Jesus would do.
And what Jesus did was bring "good news to the poor, sight to the blind, liberty to the captives." The elder brother might chastise his dad for reaching out to his brother, make him pay for the wrong things he did. Jesus cares more for 1 lost sheep than for 99 middle class white American Christians.
Given the recent discussion of immigration, the thought crossed my mind--I wonder if she's legal. I figured she probably was, because I would be very nervous about such a public job if I wasn't.
But what if she was undocumented? It's possible. I pictured a life of increasing fear. Maybe she has children. What if she finds herself unable to get a driver's license? How would she get to work? What if she gets fired? How will she feed her family? What if she has been here for decades and doesn't have any home to go back to?
The American government has looked the other way on this issue for years and years. For some of us, we are only now thinking about these things. But it has been acceptable to look the other way on these things for decades. The government has known about fake Social Security cards and other mechanisms of underground immigration forever. They might seem like new news to us, but this is big time old news.
So you can understand if I feel that it's not a little hypocritical to get "righteously indignant" about this issue all of a sudden. It would be like the Wesleyan Church suddenly revoking the membership of Wesleyans who go to movies after decades of a rule on the books that almost no one paid any attention to. Shall we suddenly start imprisoning individuals who violate blue laws where they are still on the books? Shall we make homosexuals do prison time? It's still on the books in Texas.
Shall we throw Rosa Parks in prison for not getting out of her seat? It was against the law.
We as America have been complicit in creating this problem, and it is not a little hypocritical to pretend as if they are fully to blame when we have not acted like these were important rules.
And what of the individuals whose lives are suddenly ghetto-ized by new rules. Some have lived here for decades peacefully, working minimum wage jobs. Many have children in our public schools who were born here--they are US citizens. Many have no home back in Mexico to go back to--this is where they had moved to spend the rest of their lives.
If some politicians get their way, the unintended result will be a ghetto-izing of this group--real men, women, and children--not completely unlike what the Nazis did intentionally to the Jews. No jobs--how will they eat? (Answer: Christians will feed them in violation of the law because it is better to serve God than mortals) No cars--how will they be able to get outside their "fence"?
They have broken a law. Have any of us broken a law? Anyone ever received a speeding ticket? Did you know that walking on a train track is trespassing on Federal property? Let's look at the income tax filings of the most vociferous voices on this issue. I guarantee many of them regularly violate the law more most of these families looking for a better life.
And law in Mexico is not like we imagine law to be in the United States. We often ignore speed limits, but we do it at least half willing to pay the consequences. In Mexico, the law is sometimes a matter of bribery. It does not have the ideological status it has here. The effect is that the intentionality of entering does not have the significance for them that we are (currently) assigning to it.
But the title of this post is trying to think Christianly about this subject. Thus far I have only tried to highlight some blind spots and hypocrisy in the current debate. Let me now get out my Bible and go looking for some principals:
1. God is no respecter of persons.
Americans are not more valuable or important to God than Mexicans. God looks on the heart. In God's eyes, we are not worth a dime more than any one of them. Did you know that my church has Hispanic churches? Could anyone in any of them be undocumented? Let's turn them over the government. (Really, the Wesleyan Church has those kinds of churches--I thought you all were good white Christians?)
I have no doubt but that there is a healthy dose of prejudice in play here. We can blah, blah, blah and rationalize it. "I know they are just as valuable in God's eyes, but there are consequences for breaking the law." It's very hard for me to see this kind of comment as anything but a rationalization of prejudice. Multiplication of words does not the truth make.
So fine them and make them become legal--that's a consequence.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
How would you want to be treated if you lived below the poverty line but had it better here than in Mexico? Maybe you would like to become legal but the possibility of deportation keeps you from it. The bottom line is that most people do not put illegals in the same category as themselves at all. They think of them more along the lines of animals that need to be run off the property.
3. Christ died for the whole world.
People who think Christianly think redemptively--how can we minister God's grace to those whose lives are broken on every level. An obvious answer is to help them come in to the fold. It is not, let us send them as far away from the gospel as we can.
If I had any political power? I'd try to secure the borders and make a path to citizenship for those who truly want to be a part of the great American experiment. Teach them English, sure.
So, Schenck, you believe in "amnesty"--that dirty word. Funny how the politicians are so concerned not to get this label. Who cares? I'm not interested in what you call something; I'm interested in what Jesus would do.
And what Jesus did was bring "good news to the poor, sight to the blind, liberty to the captives." The elder brother might chastise his dad for reaching out to his brother, make him pay for the wrong things he did. Jesus cares more for 1 lost sheep than for 99 middle class white American Christians.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Revelation, Discovery, Reason, Experience
I wanted to sketch out the rest of my thoughts on "sources of truth" for later filling in.
1. First, the three major sources of revelation for a Christian are 1) Scripture, 2) Christian tradition or the Church, and 3) direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.
2. Surely Christians would also agree that reason and our senses (or experience) are sources of truth as well. We might call these sources of discovered truth rather than sources of revealed truth. So we can reason our way to truths of math. If a right triangle has smaller sides a and b, we can reasonably conclude that the longest side measures the square root of a + b.
Similarly, I have personally learned that it hurts to break a finger. Western culture is primarily oriented around the use of the senses to discover truth. It is a culture of science and experimentation.
Throughout history there have been extreme examples of rationalists (Plato) and empiricists (Hume), but both extremes are inappropriate. On the one hand, our culture pushes us to recognize how strange it would be to say that reason apart from the experiences of our senses is the sole source of truth. Where we need convincing is to see that it is absurd also to say that our senses apart from reason are the sole source of truth.
I cannot experience the future. It is always something I am about to experience. In that sense, my senses alone cannot tell me what will happen if I jump off a cliff. It is my reason that connects that as yet unexperienced action to my past experience.
These things were well captured by Kant--the content of my knowledge may come through my senses, but the structure I give to that content is a function of my mind. This situation eventually leads to the postmodern question, for since I do not understand the world apart from my mind's organization of its input, how do I know that the organization of my mind is in fact true?
3. As we contemplate revelatory sources of truth like Scripture, Christian tradition, and the Holy Spirit, how does our reason and sense experience relate to them? Can I appropriate revealed truth without the operation of reason and experience?
The best candidate for revelation that does not involve any reasoning or sense experience would be a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. Of course, as soon as I put that revelation in language, I have used human reason. Perhaps there was some pre-verbal "umph" to Noah that involved only the tiniest bit of reason to put into the form: "God wants me to build an ark." The danger of course of such revelation is to make sure that it is, in fact, revelation from God and not from breakfast.
The use of the Bible--apart from individual "umphs" from the Holy Spirit that alight from the words of the text directly to me--involves vast and overwhelming amounts of reason. First I must define the words and contruct meaning from sentence structure. Then I must compile the meanings of sentences into the broader meanings of discourses.
Then I must map the meanings of one part of the Bible to the other parts. And I must also consider the difference between the many different ancient contexts of the Bible and my context today. All these operations require overwhelming amounts of reasoning, and of course it is no wonder that we have tens of thousands of different Christian groups with differing interpretations. The appropriation of the Bible is probably the most unstable and reason-laden operations of knowledge mentioned in this chapter.
By the same token, the common beliefs of Christianity are extremely stable. It approximately amounts to polling all the Christians who have lived for the last 2000 years. What do they say about the Trinity? It is an overwhelmingly clear affirmation. What do they say about our existence between death and resurrection? Again, they answer in the affirmative. It is the control of the Church that keeps a Scripture only group from becoming a cult.
4. So what is the appropriate relationship between revealed truth and discovered truth? We can mention three principal options:
a. "I understand in order to believe."
Josh McDowell, C. S. Lewis, the apologists, Abelard, Aquinas
The evidence demands the verdict of what we believe. Revelation is extremely reasonable.
b. "I believe in order to understand."
Anselm, Pascal, Barth
Faith seeks understanding, but if you don't start with faith in your reasoning, you are just as likely to go astray.
c. Faith is blind faith, irrational
Kierkegaard
Perhaps we might be able to place various Christian beliefs in each one of these categories?
1. First, the three major sources of revelation for a Christian are 1) Scripture, 2) Christian tradition or the Church, and 3) direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.
2. Surely Christians would also agree that reason and our senses (or experience) are sources of truth as well. We might call these sources of discovered truth rather than sources of revealed truth. So we can reason our way to truths of math. If a right triangle has smaller sides a and b, we can reasonably conclude that the longest side measures the square root of a + b.
Similarly, I have personally learned that it hurts to break a finger. Western culture is primarily oriented around the use of the senses to discover truth. It is a culture of science and experimentation.
Throughout history there have been extreme examples of rationalists (Plato) and empiricists (Hume), but both extremes are inappropriate. On the one hand, our culture pushes us to recognize how strange it would be to say that reason apart from the experiences of our senses is the sole source of truth. Where we need convincing is to see that it is absurd also to say that our senses apart from reason are the sole source of truth.
I cannot experience the future. It is always something I am about to experience. In that sense, my senses alone cannot tell me what will happen if I jump off a cliff. It is my reason that connects that as yet unexperienced action to my past experience.
These things were well captured by Kant--the content of my knowledge may come through my senses, but the structure I give to that content is a function of my mind. This situation eventually leads to the postmodern question, for since I do not understand the world apart from my mind's organization of its input, how do I know that the organization of my mind is in fact true?
3. As we contemplate revelatory sources of truth like Scripture, Christian tradition, and the Holy Spirit, how does our reason and sense experience relate to them? Can I appropriate revealed truth without the operation of reason and experience?
The best candidate for revelation that does not involve any reasoning or sense experience would be a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. Of course, as soon as I put that revelation in language, I have used human reason. Perhaps there was some pre-verbal "umph" to Noah that involved only the tiniest bit of reason to put into the form: "God wants me to build an ark." The danger of course of such revelation is to make sure that it is, in fact, revelation from God and not from breakfast.
The use of the Bible--apart from individual "umphs" from the Holy Spirit that alight from the words of the text directly to me--involves vast and overwhelming amounts of reason. First I must define the words and contruct meaning from sentence structure. Then I must compile the meanings of sentences into the broader meanings of discourses.
Then I must map the meanings of one part of the Bible to the other parts. And I must also consider the difference between the many different ancient contexts of the Bible and my context today. All these operations require overwhelming amounts of reasoning, and of course it is no wonder that we have tens of thousands of different Christian groups with differing interpretations. The appropriation of the Bible is probably the most unstable and reason-laden operations of knowledge mentioned in this chapter.
By the same token, the common beliefs of Christianity are extremely stable. It approximately amounts to polling all the Christians who have lived for the last 2000 years. What do they say about the Trinity? It is an overwhelmingly clear affirmation. What do they say about our existence between death and resurrection? Again, they answer in the affirmative. It is the control of the Church that keeps a Scripture only group from becoming a cult.
4. So what is the appropriate relationship between revealed truth and discovered truth? We can mention three principal options:
a. "I understand in order to believe."
Josh McDowell, C. S. Lewis, the apologists, Abelard, Aquinas
The evidence demands the verdict of what we believe. Revelation is extremely reasonable.
b. "I believe in order to understand."
Anselm, Pascal, Barth
Faith seeks understanding, but if you don't start with faith in your reasoning, you are just as likely to go astray.
c. Faith is blind faith, irrational
Kierkegaard
Perhaps we might be able to place various Christian beliefs in each one of these categories?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Live Vodcast Today: Hebrews 3:1-4:13
I plan to shoot the vodcast for Hebrews live today from 9:25 till whenever I finish. The link to join the shooting in progress is
http://indwes.acrobat.com/hebrews/
I've added a chat pod this week, which I'm hoping will allow anyone to chime in with a question during the presentation. There may be a couple students present in the room as well (in the Old College Church, southeast corner classroom, all welcome). I'm hoping that it will be more interesting with some interaction rather than just a talking head. Bring your laptop if you come so you can see the PowerPoints.
http://indwes.acrobat.com/hebrews/
I've added a chat pod this week, which I'm hoping will allow anyone to chime in with a question during the presentation. There may be a couple students present in the room as well (in the Old College Church, southeast corner classroom, all welcome). I'm hoping that it will be more interesting with some interaction rather than just a talking head. Bring your laptop if you come so you can see the PowerPoints.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Monday Thoughts: Distinctives of the Proposed Seminary
In a comment on the previous post, Mark Schnell observed the distinction I was making between traditional seminaries and the MDiv we already forsee at IWU. By the way, I should make it clear that we are in the most basic accreditation process for this MDiv and that it is on the supposition of approval that I speak of IWU offering it.
Here's what we think is distinctive about our proposed curriculum:
___________________
1. We believe this Wesleyan seminary would provide the most integrative MDiv degree in existence.
Most seminary programs follow a scholastic model where you take individual Bible, theology, and historical courses that largely remain unconnected to practical courses or at best connect in an ad hoc way. Our MDiv would offer individual elective courses in Bible and theology to be sure, but the core curriculum is completely oriented around the practice of ministry. Each of the six practical domains (global mission, congregational formation, congregational life, proclamation, worship, and leadership) includes biblical, theological, and historical units within the course, informed by content experts in these areas. So unlike other programs, you have interdisciplinary accountability in the curriculum of practitioners by theoreticians and theoreticians by practitioners within each course design.
2. We believe this Wesleyan seminary would offer the most practice oriented MDiv degree in existence.
This orientation is evident not only from the way biblical, theological, and historical material is organized around practical ministry, but from the fact that each of the six domain courses requires a person to be in ministry currently. Each course thus involves a supervised ministry in which case studies of a problem-based nature are brought into the mix of the course. The actual practice of the domain is part of the course. Full time residential students without appointment will receive placements within reasonable proximity to the campus.
3. Although most programs have spiritual formation components, this Wesleyan MDiv would be one of the few that has spiritual formation across the curriculum.
Alongside each of the six domain courses, a person will take a one hour spiritual formation course with the same facilitator, who also serves as the cohort advisor. Distinctive here is the fact that these courses follow the process of change, rather than the traditional course in spiritual disciplines that has no real map for change but only sends you off to read and pray.
4. This Wesleyan seminary would likely join those few cutting edge MDiv degrees that only require about a third of the degree to be onsite.
Yet even these onsite courses would not require a person to move to a residential location. In roughly two, one week onsite intensive courses per year, the student would be able to complete their residential requirement. However, a student would also be able to move to Marion to attend the seminary full time.
5. The program would be a 75 hour degree, which would make it one of the most compact MDiv degrees in existence.
The lowest number of hours currently accepted by the Association of Theological Schools is 72 hours. The typical student will complete this degree in a little over 4 years, although a full time student might finish it in a little more than 2. The Association of Theological Schools also allows for about 15 hours of such a program to be “excused” in the light of courses a person has already taken in undergraduate programs. We would further allow for a certain amount of “credit by assessment” if a student can assemble a convincing portfolio. These features will combine to make IWU’s degree highly competitive in a market that runs on convenience.
6. Finally, the program would allow for a 15 hour concentration in an area of specialization.
This concentration will fit hand in glove with MA specializations currently offered by IWU's graduate program in religion: Youth Ministries and Ministerial Leadership. These concentrations will no doubt proliferate. For example, a concentration in Biblical Preaching might accentuate skills of biblical interpretation and hermeneutics. Certainly Greek and Hebrew will be available as electives, as will a number of advanced theology courses. These concentrations allow a person to develop a specific skill set. Further, a student can take the concentration either on the front or back end of the program.
__________________
Here are the most general objectives of the Global Christian Mission course:
Description: This course is a comprehensive, integrative approach to missional Christianity, beginning with biblical foundations and ending with the tools needed to facilitate mission, church multiplication, and service in the church today. Topics range from the classical fields of evangelism, church growth, and global missions to volunteerism and service to the world in its economic and social dimensions. The course involves contextually appropriate missional ministry and so requires that a student currently be in an approved ministry setting. Prerequisite: Pastor, Church, and World.
Objectives: By the end of this course the student should be able to
1. Compare and evaluate the most effective ways to lead others to Christ and grow the church.
2. Compare and evaluate the most common and effective ways in which Christians can and should serve the non-believing world both locally and globally, in all the domains of life.
3. Be able to apply the theoretical principles of mission, church multiplication, and Christian service to one’s own ministerial context.
4. Be able to integrate Scripture, Christian theology, and Christian history with the conduct of mission and the multiplication of the church, as well as in the service of others.
5. Express the importance of the Great Commission and the Great Commandment of loving service to others in all domains of life.
Here's what we think is distinctive about our proposed curriculum:
___________________
1. We believe this Wesleyan seminary would provide the most integrative MDiv degree in existence.
Most seminary programs follow a scholastic model where you take individual Bible, theology, and historical courses that largely remain unconnected to practical courses or at best connect in an ad hoc way. Our MDiv would offer individual elective courses in Bible and theology to be sure, but the core curriculum is completely oriented around the practice of ministry. Each of the six practical domains (global mission, congregational formation, congregational life, proclamation, worship, and leadership) includes biblical, theological, and historical units within the course, informed by content experts in these areas. So unlike other programs, you have interdisciplinary accountability in the curriculum of practitioners by theoreticians and theoreticians by practitioners within each course design.
2. We believe this Wesleyan seminary would offer the most practice oriented MDiv degree in existence.
This orientation is evident not only from the way biblical, theological, and historical material is organized around practical ministry, but from the fact that each of the six domain courses requires a person to be in ministry currently. Each course thus involves a supervised ministry in which case studies of a problem-based nature are brought into the mix of the course. The actual practice of the domain is part of the course. Full time residential students without appointment will receive placements within reasonable proximity to the campus.
3. Although most programs have spiritual formation components, this Wesleyan MDiv would be one of the few that has spiritual formation across the curriculum.
Alongside each of the six domain courses, a person will take a one hour spiritual formation course with the same facilitator, who also serves as the cohort advisor. Distinctive here is the fact that these courses follow the process of change, rather than the traditional course in spiritual disciplines that has no real map for change but only sends you off to read and pray.
4. This Wesleyan seminary would likely join those few cutting edge MDiv degrees that only require about a third of the degree to be onsite.
Yet even these onsite courses would not require a person to move to a residential location. In roughly two, one week onsite intensive courses per year, the student would be able to complete their residential requirement. However, a student would also be able to move to Marion to attend the seminary full time.
5. The program would be a 75 hour degree, which would make it one of the most compact MDiv degrees in existence.
The lowest number of hours currently accepted by the Association of Theological Schools is 72 hours. The typical student will complete this degree in a little over 4 years, although a full time student might finish it in a little more than 2. The Association of Theological Schools also allows for about 15 hours of such a program to be “excused” in the light of courses a person has already taken in undergraduate programs. We would further allow for a certain amount of “credit by assessment” if a student can assemble a convincing portfolio. These features will combine to make IWU’s degree highly competitive in a market that runs on convenience.
6. Finally, the program would allow for a 15 hour concentration in an area of specialization.
This concentration will fit hand in glove with MA specializations currently offered by IWU's graduate program in religion: Youth Ministries and Ministerial Leadership. These concentrations will no doubt proliferate. For example, a concentration in Biblical Preaching might accentuate skills of biblical interpretation and hermeneutics. Certainly Greek and Hebrew will be available as electives, as will a number of advanced theology courses. These concentrations allow a person to develop a specific skill set. Further, a student can take the concentration either on the front or back end of the program.
__________________
Here are the most general objectives of the Global Christian Mission course:
Description: This course is a comprehensive, integrative approach to missional Christianity, beginning with biblical foundations and ending with the tools needed to facilitate mission, church multiplication, and service in the church today. Topics range from the classical fields of evangelism, church growth, and global missions to volunteerism and service to the world in its economic and social dimensions. The course involves contextually appropriate missional ministry and so requires that a student currently be in an approved ministry setting. Prerequisite: Pastor, Church, and World.
Objectives: By the end of this course the student should be able to
1. Compare and evaluate the most effective ways to lead others to Christ and grow the church.
2. Compare and evaluate the most common and effective ways in which Christians can and should serve the non-believing world both locally and globally, in all the domains of life.
3. Be able to apply the theoretical principles of mission, church multiplication, and Christian service to one’s own ministerial context.
4. Be able to integrate Scripture, Christian theology, and Christian history with the conduct of mission and the multiplication of the church, as well as in the service of others.
5. Express the importance of the Great Commission and the Great Commandment of loving service to others in all domains of life.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
What's the Wesleyan Lineage?
This post from 1/23/08 has had so much buzz in the comments below, that I've decided to move it to the top for a couple days. I'll insert my Sunday and Monday posts below this one.
_________________
Some of us IWU religion faculty were in our Monday reading group and were talking about a footnote in James Smith's Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? Here he was mentioning his belief that Reformed theology represents the final working out of Christian orthodoxy.
In this conversation, a "Princetonian" perspective on orthodoxy was mentioned: The New Testament threw the ball to Augustine, who shuffle passed it to Calvin, who shuffle passed it to Barth, who ran it in for a touchdown.
So the question arose--what is the "lineage" of Wesleyan-Arminian theology--who have carried the ball through history. This led us to an important distinction in our minds. Our list is not so much thinkers, but individuals who have deeply experienced God.
Surely, one might make a line through Augustine, Calvin, and Wesley, but it is a somewhat bizarre line. It seems much more appropriate to draw a more affective line through the early ascetics and the medieval mystics line John of Damascus to Madame Guyon and Fenelon to the Moravians and Pietists to Wesley to (for the Wesleyan Church) Phoebe Palmer (whom Thomas Oden called the greatest American theologian of the 1800's) to the revivals at the turn of the twentieth century.
A visitor to our campus yesterday remarked that the danger about schools in the Wesleyan tradition is that they function on Wesley's principle--"If your heart is as my heart, then give me your hand." In this sense, while other traditions stand the danger of a faith without works, Wesleyan schools stand the danger of an experience without faith.
As the most distinguished theologian of the Wesleyan Church has remarked (I won't give the name, although ironically he's not Wesleyan :-), the Wesleyan tradition thus is in the awkward position of being one step away from liberalism.
In any case, it is no surprise that about 10 years ago when a Reformed consultant came to IWU under President Barnes, he warned Barnes of a religion professor (not me ;-) who he should watch out for. That was the most distinguished theologian of the Wesleyan Church at that time he was talking about :-)
Sorry Charlie. You don't understand our tradition. Go back to Reformed land and check off your cognitive list over a nice cold brewskie.
Any thoughts?
_________________
Some of us IWU religion faculty were in our Monday reading group and were talking about a footnote in James Smith's Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? Here he was mentioning his belief that Reformed theology represents the final working out of Christian orthodoxy.
In this conversation, a "Princetonian" perspective on orthodoxy was mentioned: The New Testament threw the ball to Augustine, who shuffle passed it to Calvin, who shuffle passed it to Barth, who ran it in for a touchdown.
So the question arose--what is the "lineage" of Wesleyan-Arminian theology--who have carried the ball through history. This led us to an important distinction in our minds. Our list is not so much thinkers, but individuals who have deeply experienced God.
Surely, one might make a line through Augustine, Calvin, and Wesley, but it is a somewhat bizarre line. It seems much more appropriate to draw a more affective line through the early ascetics and the medieval mystics line John of Damascus to Madame Guyon and Fenelon to the Moravians and Pietists to Wesley to (for the Wesleyan Church) Phoebe Palmer (whom Thomas Oden called the greatest American theologian of the 1800's) to the revivals at the turn of the twentieth century.
A visitor to our campus yesterday remarked that the danger about schools in the Wesleyan tradition is that they function on Wesley's principle--"If your heart is as my heart, then give me your hand." In this sense, while other traditions stand the danger of a faith without works, Wesleyan schools stand the danger of an experience without faith.
As the most distinguished theologian of the Wesleyan Church has remarked (I won't give the name, although ironically he's not Wesleyan :-), the Wesleyan tradition thus is in the awkward position of being one step away from liberalism.
In any case, it is no surprise that about 10 years ago when a Reformed consultant came to IWU under President Barnes, he warned Barnes of a religion professor (not me ;-) who he should watch out for. That was the most distinguished theologian of the Wesleyan Church at that time he was talking about :-)
Sorry Charlie. You don't understand our tradition. Go back to Reformed land and check off your cognitive list over a nice cold brewskie.
Any thoughts?
Sunday Hebrews: Preaching Notes on Hebrews 1:5-14
What might someone preach or teach on this contrast between Christ and the angels?
A more basic question is when would one preach or teach about angels in general. Christians believe in angels, so it only makes sense that at some point you would preach or teach about them. Hebrews has a piece of the angel puzzle.
First, Hebrews talks about angels as messengers for God. In 2:2 we will be reminded that they are mediators of the old covenant. It is doubtful, however, that many in our churches today will be struggling with too high a view of angels in relation to Christ or in thinking that Christ himself was an angel.
There might be other "mediators" that a person might have too high a view of, however. It seems unlikely these days, but it is of course possible that a Catholic or Orthodox person might let a saint or icon come into competition with the intercessory role of Christ. I personally find this highly doubtful in this day and age.
Certainly there is much to celebrate about Christ here, to be sure. He is God's Son, the appointed Messiah. If the angels worship him, how much more must we! Christ's authority in relation to the creation is also a part of this passage. Finally, we see that the angels are sent to minister to us as we await salvation.
Do you have other thoughts on sermons and lessons you might do from Hebrews 1:5-14?
A more basic question is when would one preach or teach about angels in general. Christians believe in angels, so it only makes sense that at some point you would preach or teach about them. Hebrews has a piece of the angel puzzle.
First, Hebrews talks about angels as messengers for God. In 2:2 we will be reminded that they are mediators of the old covenant. It is doubtful, however, that many in our churches today will be struggling with too high a view of angels in relation to Christ or in thinking that Christ himself was an angel.
There might be other "mediators" that a person might have too high a view of, however. It seems unlikely these days, but it is of course possible that a Catholic or Orthodox person might let a saint or icon come into competition with the intercessory role of Christ. I personally find this highly doubtful in this day and age.
Certainly there is much to celebrate about Christ here, to be sure. He is God's Son, the appointed Messiah. If the angels worship him, how much more must we! Christ's authority in relation to the creation is also a part of this passage. Finally, we see that the angels are sent to minister to us as we await salvation.
Do you have other thoughts on sermons and lessons you might do from Hebrews 1:5-14?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
