I Am Far Too Premodern To Be Postmodern

As some of you know, I went through an “Emergent Phase” in 2008, then made a radical break with Emergent in ’09. (An e-book version of my blog during this time is coming soon).

Recently, I have been flipping through these old posts, wondering what it was that really triggered the break with Emergent? There were many factors which played into it – some of these factors were apparent to me at the time (see post, “No Longer Emergent“). However, as I recently re-read my blog-posts and journals from this time, I realized there was a deeper reason for the break.

Probably the most important post I have ever made, to date, has been the post “Taking My Education into my Own Hands.” In this short post (it’s worth your time to read it!), I expressed my belief that:

1) There is no end to the books being written on theology (Ecc. 12:12)

2) Most of these books are crap, and thankfully disappear without a trace

3) There are a select core of books which:

3.a) Have not disappeared

3.b) Continue to be read, interacted with, enjoyed, and highly regarded

3.c) Continue to influence and shape modern theology

I decided that it would be more important to master these ancient classics than to become an “expert” on the trendy, wispy theology of today.

I began my quest with Augustine. In the summer of ’09, I read Confessions, City of God, The Enchuridion, and excerpts from Letters. (Note: I found all of this free, in audio format at librivox.org)

As I later reflected in A Wise Shepherd of A Wandering Mind, to read Augustine is to be changed by Augustine. You cannot understand him without thinking like him. And to think like a person is to be changed (usually permanently) by that person.

The odd thing is that I actually disagree with Augustine on many significant points. For example, he was a neo-platonist which means that he tended to see matter as bad, and spirit is good. It’s his fault that we still think of heaven as a spirit-place, rather than a place where we have resurrection bodies (Rom. 8:11). It’s his fault that the church got tangled up in politics, and it’s his fault that it cannot become “untangled.” The crusades, witch-burnings, and religious wars are all due to the doctrine of “Just War,” which he pioneered. He also believes in infant bapitsm, and a host of other serious errors, including the belief that sex is always a sin – a doctrine which has lead to celibate clergy and a distorted view of marriage in the Catholic church to this day. Finally, the whole edifice of Catholic ecclesiology is built upon his belief and teaching.

However, even saying all of that, it is his mind and his use of Scripture and his deep commitment to, love of, and worship towards the one true God which held me captive, from the moment I began reading him. And in reading, I have been deeply changed. His blunt exegesis on Hell challenged me on my shallow and passive understanding of the topic (see “What if there is a hell?”). On re-reading him more recently, I made another very significant shift in my thinking, realizing that “Christianity is Not A Religion“

No doubt, if any educated Emergent folks happened upon my mature thoughts on Emergent (see “What is the Emergent Church” and “The Myth of ‘Post’ Modernity“) would think that I am too “Modern.” Influenced unduly by the successors of Hodge, Warfield, Finney, Spurgeon, Edwards and especially Calvin, I am too biased, to shallow, too trusting of what I learned in sunday-school and church, too bound to the near-past to break out into the light of the future, the next evolutionary step, the grand finale of church history which is the Emergent Church.

Now frail and shallow I may be – but Modern I am not. The truth is, I had read none of the above-mentined authors at this time. In fact, I have still read only snippets of Edwards, half of The Institutes, and nothing of the others. The true influence was Augustine.

After breathing deeply of the crisp logic, linear reasoning, solid exegesis and passionate spirituality of Confessions and City of God, I was never again really “at home” in postmodernity, or in Emergent.

True enough, in turning away from the Emergent/PostModern literature, I found my way home. I stopped focusing all my attention on pop-culture and the liberal/news-media culture (I used to listen to the news a LOT), and stopped trying to wrap my mind around contemporary deconstructionism and the like. I stopped listening to “The Relevant Podcast,” “The Emergent Village Podcast,” “The Phoenix Journal,” and even scaled back on listening to Bruxy Cavey quite so much.

But I didn’t simply run home to mommy. I found an old, a trusted, a deeply wise and personal friend who directed me, time and again, to a burning heart, a clear head and the Scriptures. It is through the agency of these working in harmony that I came to be bored, then indifferent, then skeptical, and now hostile to Emergent/Postmodern thought.

Rather than flee from culture, I believe I stepped back from it for a few months. With the aid of Augustine, I was able to become aware of the trendiness, the shallowness, and the hypocrisy of it all.

To put it simply: I just became far too premodern to be postmodern anymore – and that was the beginning of the new direction, which I am still walking to this day…

 

What I Believe: The Essentials

For a missions application, I was asked to “briefly” describe my convictions on a few key issues. Here is what I wrote.

In this section, please briefly describe your beliefs concerning the following questions.
1. What do you believe about the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the Bible?
	Scriptures are not the product of human opinion, but are the result of human writers being moved of God to write (2 Pet. 1:20-21). They stand apart from and above human thoughts and opinion (Jer. 23:28-29) and are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). I believe that the original writers wrote without error, but that some errors have crept in over the years through copyists mistakes. These errors touch only minor portions of the Bible, and do not affect doctrine. I do not believe that any modern version (e.g. KJV) is absolutely without error.
2. What is your concept of God?
	God is the creator. He is separate from His creation (He is “holy” or “different”), but He interacts in it in love. He exists and functions both outside of and within time. As a timeless God, He predestines and controls all of history. As working within time, He changes His plans to accommodate human free will, He is at times grieved by human sin, He repents, He relents, and He answers prayer.
3. What is the purpose of Christ in relation to mankind?
	Jesus is the Son of God (John 1), who has come into human history to conquer Satan, sin and death, to be the perfect human that Adam was not, and to thus create a new dynasty of life to replace the dynasty of death created by original sin (Rom. 5 ). In so doing, Jesus forges a “new and living way” to God (Heb. 10:20), by inviting humanity to become children of God by becoming sons (and daughters) of God (Rom. 8 ) through participation in the death and resurrection of Christ (Col. 1:22).
4. What are your views concerning the Holy Spirit’s person, ministry, and gifts?
	All Christians receive the Holy Spirit upon salvation, as a pledge of the full inheritance of redemption in Christ (Eph. 1:14). Through the Spirit, all Christians bear fruit (Gal. 5:22-23) in increasing measure, to the extent which they abide in Christ (John 15:5). In addition, the Spirit gives gifts for the edification (literally “up-building”) of the church (1 Cor. 14:12). I am not a “cessationist,” meaning that I believe that the gifts which were present in the Early Church are still available for the church today: however, Paul cautions that a focus on love is more important than a focus on gifts (1 Cor. 12:31). Although people sometimes receive special gifts or a new level of spiritual infilling at turning-points in their lives, or sometimes when elders lay hands on them and pray for them (2 Tim. 1:6), I do not believe in a post-salvation, secondary “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” and I do not believe that speaking in tongues is a special “sign-gift” authenticating a person’s supposed “spiritual infilling.” (Rather, the fruits mentioned above are the measure of one’s maturity, cf. Mat. 7:16-20) Although I have never been part of a church where prophecy, healing and speaking in tongues are regular parts of the service, I would not condemn churches who practice in this way. Only, I believe that the checks-and-balances (1 Cor. 14:27-29), and the procedures for testing which Scriptures mandate (1 Cor. 12:2, 1 John 4:1) should be applied, if the gifts are to be emphasized. I have never heard of any church which has done this in the way in which Paul mandated.
5. What is the condition of mankind?
	Humans are sinners by nature and by choice. Mankind is born into sin (Psalm 51:5) because of their association through birth with their Federal Head, Adam (Romans 5). Because of this sin nature, all humans will sin as soon as they are given the opportunity. Thus, all of humanity stands condemned already (John 3:18) and stands under the awful wrath of God (John 3:36) apart from the saving work of Christ (John 3:17). However, babies and children who have not yet reached the age of accountability seem to avoid the judgment which they would have incurred, had they an opportunity to sin (cf. 2 Sam. 12:23). This is because we are not judged for our father’s sins (Jer. 31:29-30): however, our father’s sins do incline us to sin, and in this way judgment passes on through the generations of the ungodly (Exod. 20:5).
6. What is the significance of the Church?
	The church is the visible representation of the invisible body of Christ (Rom. 12:5, etc.). The purpose of the church is to worship God, to equip and mature the saints (Eph. 4:11-16), to be a light to the world (Mat. 5:14-16), and to bring God’s message to the world (2 Cor. 5:20). In the same way that not all Israel was “true Israel,” (Rom. 9:6) not all who attend the visible church are true followers of Christ. This being said, one should not abandon the visible gathering of the “church” (Heb. 10:25). One of the main reasons for communal worship are Godly authority (Heb. 13:17) accountability (Jas. 5:16) and access to good teaching (1 Tim. 3:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Tim. 2:24).
7. What is the Christian’s responsibility to individuals and society?
	A supposed religion which is all talk and no actions is empty and potentially even counterfeit (Jas. 2:18). The “true” religion of a Christian must include compassion and care of needy and lonely people (Jas. 1:27).A Christian is to pray for their government leaders and those in authority over them (1 Tim. 2:1-3). Christians are to be in submission to said leaders in all matters which do not violate their consciences (Rom. 13:1-5). This includes matters which seem onerous, or unnecessary, or seem to be “needless red-tape.” A Christian should be “above reproach” in this matter, so as not to incur the shame of prosecution for breaking a law (1 Pet. 3:17).I do not believe that a Christian can serve in the military, police-force or any government role which has authority over these departments without violating Jesus’ message, especially in the sermon on the mount (cf. Mat. 5:39). However, I recognize that many sincere, devoted Christian people believe differently than me on this point. I do not believe that pacifism is a salvation issue. I have worked, and will continue to work with both pacifists and non-pacifists.
8. What are your beliefs about homosexuality and the church?
	Homosexuality is a sin (Lev. 20:13, Rom. 1:26-32, etc.). It is not compassionate to “waver” on this point, because to do so is to allow people to remain trapped in sin, and ultimately to bar people from salvation (1 Cor. 6:9).This is a water-shed issue in our generation, because it forces people, churches, missions and denominations to decide: 1) Where is truth ultimately found? (In Scriptures, or in contemporary science?) 2) What is the purpose of religion? (To worship the God of the Bible or to satisfy the cravings for self-fulfillment within the human heart?) 3) What is the purpose of ethics? (To satisfy the requirements of a Holy God or to make the greatest number of people as happy as possible?)I could not work with a mission with a weak stance on this issue.
9. Who can go to heaven and how can they get there?
	Only those who enter through the “narrow gate” (Mat. 7:13-14) which is Christ (John 10:7) can be saved. We walk the way to Heaven by coming to and through Jesus (John 14:4-6). It is my purpose in life to lead as many people as possible to do so, by right belief, right profession (Rom. 10:9-10) and the right-living which naturally flows from a true conversion (Rom. 6).When I was younger in the faith, I wrestled with the question “what about those who have never heard of Christ?” At the time I found great comfort in the solution of C.S. Lewis on this question, that although Jesus is the only way to God, perhaps God has other means of saving those who have not heard. Recently, however, I have been shocked, motivated (and a little bit terrified!) by the words of J. Gresham Machen. He asked, in effect, “What if it really is true that all those whom the church has not reached with the Gospel are going to Hell?” One could argue that God is unjust to place the eternal fate of one person in the hands of another. Perhaps. But, is this not exactly what God does with parents? And isn’t this just what Scriptures say? (cf. Mat. 16:9, 18:18, Rom. 10:14-15). Doesn’t God hold His servants accountable, when He commissions them to exhort to repentance, and they do not speak on His behalf? (cf. Ezek. 18) Listening to Machen rather than Lewis on this point has literally “lit a fire under me,” and caused me to turn from academic speculation towards evangelism, down-to-earth gospel preaching and now into missions.
10. Are there other convictions of significance to you?
	I am a complementarian, which means that I believe that God has called men to lead their homes and the church, through Christ-imitating servant-leadership. I can work with people who disagree with me, and would not be opposed to working under female leadership in most circumstances.

 

The Legitimacy of a Prayer-Retreat

It is almost never a waste of time for a leader to get away, get silent, rest, wait and listen carefully before the Lord.

Months, years, even decades and whole lifetimes of frustrations, fruitlessness, “Ishmael’s” and second-bests could easily have been avoided by a few days alone, undistracted, unfettered, unhindered – enrobed by supportive prayer and naked of soul – before the Creator, Sustainer, and Lord of all.

 

The Kindness of Critique

Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you,
Reprove a wise man and he will love you.
(Proverbs 9:8)

In academics, as in the church, as in business, as in the home, there is often no more kind word than a word of rebuke. Rebuke is almost always a sign of love: even if the primary motivation for speaking is annoyance, the fact that you are speaking to the person usually means that you believe that the person can and will change their behavior, so that your relationship can improve. You have not moved away from them in indifference, but towards them in love, seeking to reconcile through correction. This is even more true when our motivation are more pure – love and a desire for the best in another.

In academics, this is generally recognized: it is considered an honor to have one’s book, paper or article critiqued by others. A really, really good piece will be critiqued by not one or two, but several major authors – this is considered a real mark of respect. It means that people are actually reading your words. They think that your work is significant enough to warrant a response, which will in turn encourage more people to read the original piece. It means, ultimately, that another person thinks that your thoughts are important enough to, in some way (either positively or negatively) build their own thoughts on yours – because every review or critique is ultimately a chance for an author to spring-board off of the original piece, into exploring one’s own beliefs, whether they be in the complete opposite, or virtually the same direction, or someplace in-between.

[Of course, it goes without saying that there are also reviews which do not really engage the content of an important work, but simply sling mud and call names. Fortunately, however, these sorts of things rarely make it to print in serious, peer-reviewed journals.]

I have at times found that this appreciation for critical engagement is absent from the non-scholarly community, and I wish there were more of it.

This is probably especially true in the group of people who are trying to find new labels for themselves, now that “Emergent” is going out of style.

There has been a whole rash of people who have recently published new, cutting-edge books. They have stirred up real controversy, asked some tough questions, shot (and BBQ’d for dinner!) some precious sacred cows, kicked sand into the eyes of the “big kids on the beach,” and published best-selling books (earning, no doubt, a pretty penny in the process!). However, when the expected responses, criticisms, critiques and rebuttals came flooding in, said authors (I am not going to name names – if you are thinking of someone, I probably had them in mind too!) do not receive this attention as a compliment, nor do they attempt to defend their arguments with sound, solid, reasonable works such as were sent their way. Rather, many seemed to “play the martyr card,” run home to their congregations/families/mummies and cry about how “everyone is being so mean to me.”

Let’s just get one thing clear: if you are human, you will have your day in court (Heb. 9:27) where you will have to give an account of every idle word spoken (Mat. 12:36). If you are a Christian, you are subject to a stricter judgment, because judgment begins with the house of the Lord (1 Pet. 4:17). If you have the audacity and boldness to take on the position of “Christian teacher,” you are subject to an even higher judgment (James 3:1), because you are in some measure entrusted with the souls of those under your tutelage (Heb. 14:17). And what of those who presume to actually write books, publish articles, blog? We are presuming to not only teach, but teach those who teach – thus bearing the weight of responsibility not only for our own lives, but for all those touched by the ripple-effects of our words, in the decades and centuries to come.

Anyone who does not feel a crushing weight of responsibility, a certain holy dread, and an awesome fear of the Holy One when they pick up the pen or consider publishing has no business writing on behalf of God. Anyone who does feel this weight will ultimately love and appreciate those who critique, refine, discuss, or even outright reject their works, on solid, Scriptural grounds.

If the words are true, they will stand up when defended against the harshest of criticisms: if they are false, then who would want them to stand? They will be nothing but a source of shame to you on the day of judgment.

What better friend could be wished for, before God, than a solid, staunch critic who meticulously and judiciously sorted through what was written, amplified and proclaimed the bits of good here and there, passed over the mundane, and critiqued and rejected the errors? What better friend could one have? What better grace could one pray for than one who will refine and perfect your work through the razor-edge of their own intellect, so that together you can both be sharpened, as iron sharpens iron?

Scholars know this. Wise people know this. It is time that the “formerly-Emergent” community starts realizing that solid critiques – when lived under the shadow of the judgment of Christ – is and should be viewed as a welcome and friendly action.

…and yes, since you asked, I am willing to live with, stand by and hear my own words.

Do you disagree with me? Do you think I am unscriptural? Do you think I am wrong?

Well, be nice about it.

But PLEASE tell me what you think! And if I ever publish a book, please, please – blog and discuss to your heart’s content, and the Father’s glory what you thought was profitable and edifying, and what was crap.

Time permitting, I will respond: if I still think I am right, I will stick to my guns and defend myself. If the discussion reaches a point where it is beyond my expertise, I will humbly say, “You’ve got me, I don’t know” and I may or may not research it further. If I am wrong, I will admit it and change.

The one thing I will not do is try to emotionally manipulate you into stopping the inquest, stopping the discussion, stopping the pursuit of truth, and “being nice to me.”

Truth is bigger than my emotions, and pursuing it will cost me more than a night’s sleep now and then. I struggle with a people-pleasing and man-fearing tendency, so I won’t lie – intellectual rejection hits me right where I hurt: but ultimately, the fear of God is the final corrective of the fear of man.

I want to have something to be proud of, and few things to be ashamed of on the Day of the Lord. If you, in your critiques, can help me arrive at the place that I want to be then I consider you a friend – even if, and perhaps because you are the staunchest of doctrinal opponents and critics.

If our hearts are striving together for the words, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” then we may embrace one another as “brother, sister, friend,” even while our minds wrestle valiantly, patiently, forcefully, and painfully for the truth which will set us free.

 

Is Liberalism the Same as Christianity?

Somebody on A Christian and An Atheist.com recently asked the above question. After reading through some of the comments, I added my own two cents. You can read my answer to the question here. Last time I posted on this forum I got slammed pretty hard: I’m interested to see how the response will be this time around. It should be interesting to read, at any rate!

 

Postponing Further Inerrancy Posts

If I really caught your attention with my two posts so far on inerrancy, and you are just dying to read the next ones, I apologize. They will not be coming out for a while. Although they are mostly written, they still require some editing, and the concluding posts have not yet been written. A few days ago when I decided to start posting on this topic, I thought I would be able to do my current studies and focus on this topic. However, I am falling behind my self-imposed goals in my Greek independent study, and so I have decided to “cast off everything that hinders” – as usual, that includes blogging.

In just two short weeks, I will be back home in Red Lake, and life will return to “normal.” This is probably when I should have raised this topic: it will be when I will postpone further posts on this topic until. Then I will have time to do the topic justice.

So, a short farewell for now. I’ll post the next article in the series on July 1.

 

Why I Can’t Work With a Mission That Denies Inerrancy

This post is part of a string of posts on inerrancy. Please read my first post in this series before reading this one. This post accurately conveys my starting point, before beginning a week of study on my beliefs on inerrancy.

The decision is made, and it’s non-negotiable: I cannot work for a mission without a firm stance on inerrancy.

It comes down to two things: the authority of Scriptures, and the slippery slope. The two are connected.

At the end of the day, Christianity is about the Bible. If that goes, it all falls apart. Or, more likely, some other belief system or god or petty tyrant will come in and set up shop. An idol to Baal will be placed inside the sanctuary. Or the “traditions of the elders” will be elevated above Scriptures. Or the word of a bishop, pope, pastor or dictator will be placed above Scriptures.

When Scriptures alone are not allowed to speak finally and ultimately, God alone is not allowed to speak: and that is – I believe – always the precursor to God removing His lampstand from a church (Rev. 2:5).

As much as people say that it is possible to honor the Scriptures as God’s word without holding to inerrancy, I just don’t see it happening. Perhaps if I could be shown an organization which had abandoned the infalibility of Scriptures say, fifty or a hundred years ago but was still otherwise conservative and “solid,” I would be convinced. As it is, even missions and teachers who abandoned inerrancy mere decades ago seem already to be slipping.

It’s not a salvation issue: you can be saved and not believe in inerrancy. However, when I think about pouring my life out with some mission, church or denomination, the one thing I am concerned with is permanence. How long will my contribution last? I don’t want to pour out my life into some seminary, for example, only to have my efforts be turned in the next generation into the next Harvard, Yale or Stanford – centers of learning, yes, but bastions of humanism. High places, raised up against the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). Failures. A complete betrayal of the intentions and sacrifices of the founders.

Therefore, as much as I have many questions unanswered about the doctrine of inerrancy, I am still committed to it. I want to build with costly stones and gold, not straw and wood – I want my work to last through the ages (1 Cor. 3:11-14). The doctrine of inerrancy seems key to ensuring permanence.

Therefore, in searching for a place to call my own and use my gifts, I am consciously dismissing out of hand any church, mission or denomination which does not take a hard stand on inerrancy.

 

A Week (or so) on Inerrancy

For years now, I have carried with me a dirty and terrifying secret: I did not believe in inerrancy. Not exactly that I didn’t believe, but I didn’t know what I believed. I had a lot of questions, and I listened to a lot of people who amplified those questions into full scale doubts.

It hasn’t come up because I haven’t had to sign any doctrinal statements. Until now.

With the application to a mission bearing down on me, the question of whether or not the Bible is inerrant – or, more to the point, whether I will believe that the Bible is inerrant – could no longer be avoided. I recently spent this past week intensely studying the issue, and can now in good conscience sign off on inerrancy.

Although I usually like to work my thoughts out while I am posting/writing, this is a really serious topic! I did not want to raise doubts and questions about the authority of the Bible if I had no answers to those questions. I did not want to “open that can of worms” until I had sufficiently settled it in my own mind, and thus could provide answers to the questions I would be posting.

I very much do not want to cause people to stumble: no millstone-neckties for me, thank you!

Now that the topic is settled, however, I am going to be writing these next posts as though I am still sorting through the issues, and discovering the facts. It would be boring to write six “this is what I believe” posts, and it wouldn’t accurately convey the long and complicated process which was involved in bringing me to this place.

So keep in mind that my questioning/searching/confused tone in these posts will be somewhat feigned, as I “pretend” to be still working through this issue, and write posts which describe the journey I took towards affirming inerrancy.

If you are going to read these posts (and there are some people, I know, who will just find the topic too unsettling, and I wouldn’t blame them AT ALL for skipping it), I would like to ask two things of you:

1) If you begin, please finish these posts. I will be laying out a mini-saga of the mind, and my whole point is describing my finished position. The journey is useless without the destination.

2) Obviously, please take all my posts in context: the point of this is that I now know what I believe on inerrancy. So obviously, don’t quote me from one of the earlier posts and come to the conclusion that I am still struggling on this one. In the concluding posts, I will make my final position clear.

Finally, I just want to credit and thank Tim for buying me Norm Geisler’s book Inerrancy. It was the book which arose our of the Chicago statement, and is the go-to source for this topic. I highly recommend it. Thanks Tim!

 

Looking for Home in a Post-Denominational Context

My grandparents were/are Episcopalian, Dutch Reformed, and Baptist. My Dad was saved in a United church, but received his early discipleship in a Brethren church. My mother is Baptist.

In my childhood, I spent time in a Brethren church, then (when we moved to a small town without a Brethren church) switched to a Baptist church. In my early teens said Baptist church split, and I – along with a handful of my friends – switched to a Mennonite Church. Later in my teens, I also spent time in a nearby Pentacostal church, which needed a bass player.

I earned my B.A. at the non-denominational Nipawin Bible College. In theory, they are non-denominational, but because the dean of education was Baptist, most of their education swung in that direction.

I am just finishing up my M.A. from Briercrest College and Seminary. They too are theoretically non-denomination. However, since their dean of education is resolutely Barthian, their education certainly leans in that direction.

[My wife was raised Baptist but has her own story of influence by Pentacostalism and Mennonitism. We are a good fit that way, although our beliefs don't always line up exactly.]

Through all my church and educational life, people have encouraged me to not just believe what others believe, but to search the Scriptures to find out what I believe on various topics.

This advice I have followed. Below are my present beliefs on a range of important topics. (Listed in approximate order of importance).

Inerrancy vc. Errancy: I am unsure where I stand on this doctrine. Because of its importance, I will focus on it next.

Pacifism vs. Just War. I think that Just War is a perversion of Christianity. Although I am still sorting it out, I think Pacifism is the truest expression of Jesus’ teaching. (see posts under “pacifism” under index of topics to the right)

Creation Science: I am not done researching this one. However, in the past I have tended towards old-earth creationism. (see here and here) [By the way, my wife is a staunch young-earth creationist.]

Calvinism/Arminianism: I will need to take some time, in later posts, to explain my beliefs. Basically, I think we need to balance both. I think it is a “matter of perspective.” If I were to look at the world from God’s perspective, I would be a Calvinist. If I were to look at the world from a human perspective, I would be an Arminian. Different passages of Scripture seem to speak from either perspective.

Eternal Security: I don’t think it’s as simple as saying, “One you ‘say the prayer’ you can’t lose your salvation.” We are secure as long as we are walking in fellowship with God. (posts to come on this in the future)

Hell: I believe in a literal Hell, which is a place designed for the Devil and his angels into which all who do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour will be thrown. This means that we must cut the chit-chat and start evangelizing ASAP. There is no mission, agenda, ideal or program as important as saving people from eternal conscious torment in Hell! (see posts under “hell” on tab, to right, “index of topics”)

Liberalism: After a battle which (without hyperbole) I can say to have been the struggle of my life, I have finally emerged from the clutches of academia, to hold a definite position on The Gospel, and the perversions of it in our culture, known as “liberalism” (see “what is liberalism“). If I joined a denomination or church which did not take a hard stance on this topic, I fear that I would quickly feel constrained to either leave or to split the denomination. I feel that strongly about these issues! This is the new heresy of our day: we need a new Paul and a new Epistle to the Galatians to give us clarity and focus on these topics!

Emergent: I sympathize with many in my generation (e.g. Mark Driscoll, Bruxy Cavey) who feel the need for a fresh, exciting new “relaunch” of Christianity, which includes dropping some of the baggage concerning peripheral matters like rock music, social drinking, dressing like we’re stuck in 1952, and being married to a certain order of service in church. However, I do not sympathize with people (e.g. Brian Maclaren,Rob Bell) who are using this push for a “new” Christianity to introduce ideas from Liberalism (see above) into Christianity (post to come on this soon).
So, to summarize: some would find me very “emergent,” some would call me “anti-emergent.” It depends on the topic, and who is doing the name-calling. (Note: Lord-willing I will be publishing a short e-book containing my blog from my “emergent phase”)

Ethics: I believe that God has concrete moral standards for humanity. Breaking these standards is “sin.” Like a spouse who says they are married to/committed to parter “A,” while living and sleeping with partner “B,” a Christian cannot remain in sin while claiming to follow Christ. Therefore, as much as we emphasize God’s free gift of grace, we also must hold to the concrete standards of “right-and-wrong” outlined in the Bible (see “sin lists and why we (should) love them“). Among the most important of these in today’s context are abortion and homosexuality.

Eschatology: I DON’T CARE about this topic! It annoys me. It puts me to sleep! It frustrates me! I THINK IT IS A USELESS AND DIVISIVE TOPIC!!! However, if I had to choose, I would likely say I am a post-trib, pre-mil rapture person. Meaning, I don’t believe in a Tim Lahaye-style rapture. I think the church will go through the tribulation, and be purified by it, just as the church has gone through (and been purified by) many, many such tribulations from its earliest days. I do not know when “the end” will come, but (just to counter-ballance others) I am tentatively leaning towards 3010 AD. We need to live our lives as though He may return imminently: we also need to live as though he may not return for another millennium – because nothing is saying that He can’t wait that long.

Israeology: This topic is, of course, tied to Eschatology and – to some extent – pacifism. I have not researched this topic as much as I need to. I do not know what I believe about the future of Israel, or how that will all work out. I have strong reservations, however, about the Evangelical push towards building a temple, and supporting the (secular!) state of Israel at any cost.

Environmentalism: The first commandment which God gave to humanity was to “rule creation” later, He told them to “care for and cultivate it.” Even though this world will eventually be destroyed, this mandate has not been revoked. We rich, materialistic Westerners need to repent of our attitude towards the environment, especially when we consider that this world may be around for another millennium. Where will our great-great grand-children be, if we continue to abuse the World at our present rate?

This being said, I still believe that eternity and souls are more important than trees and pandas. This issue is essential, but it is infinitely secondary when compared to evangelism and missions. (see here and here: more posts to follow)

Pentacostalism: I am part of what has been described as “the third wave” of Pentacostalism. Although I only briefly attended a Petnacostal church, I have been very influenced by Pentacostal ideas in books, music, literature and especially Scriptures. Although I don’t believe in a secondary “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” nor do I believe in so-called “sign gifts,” I do believe that speaking in tongues, prophecy, healings and the like are available to Christians today. I believe that God can and does speak to us – not just in Scriptures but through the internal witness of His Holy Spirit. (see post on “listening prayer“)

Complementarian: After a long and (sometimes bitter) struggle with the egalitarian movement, I finally landed on Complementarianism. (See posts here: a concluding/wrap-up sermon is to come!)

Philosophy: I follow Van Til’s Reformed Epistemology in as my basic philosophical/epistemological framework.

Karl Barth: I am not exactly sure where to put this, but I have also studied Karl Barth. Unlike most of the educated elite in our day, I have concluded that (while having some very good points on certain topics) the core of his theology is rotten. His thoughts are behind much of the “out there” beliefs of the Emergent church (for e.g. Rob Bell’s book Love Wins) So I would not be comfortable in a setting where Barth is seen as the answer to everything.

Now tell me, where do I “Fit,” considering my beliefs?!?

As you will no-doubt see, my determination to “just find out what the Bible says” has lead me to beliefs which are all over the denominational landscape. Especially difficult are my beliefs, on the one hand, in pacifism while at the same time appreciating and enjoying much Reformed and Baptist materials.

I used to hate denominations, feeling they are too constraining. Now, I long for one. Where can I call home? Where can I fit in? Where can I find like-minded people with which to do ministry?

It seems that whichever mission I choose, I will be constrained to forever be at tension with people on some points, while agreeing on others.

Perhaps there will be no “home” which will completely “fit” until we all “see clearly” at the end of time (1 Cor. 13:12-13)

 

Driscoll on Homosexuality

 

From the first time I saw this, I was blown away both by Driscoll’s grasp on Scriptures and his wisdom and tact in sharing it. How does one learn to answer (on the spot!) a thorny question like this in such a profound way?

¹⁶ All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; ¹⁷ so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Related Posts

The Campolos on Homosexuality

Reflections on the Interview, where Jennifer Knapp “Comes out of the closet”

Sin Lists and Why We (Should) Love Them

The “Homosexuality Issue” as a Litmus-Test of Orthodoxy

 

Enya or Jesus: “Spiritual” or “Christian”

I know the genre of post that you think this is falling into. I just got a new CD, and now I am horrified to find that the lyrics are not completely Biblically accurate. So I will write a flaming, angry post denouncing the author and inviting all those who read these words to rush out in a mad frenzy and join me at a mass burning of said author’s works.

I am sorry to disappoint: I am not going to do that.

One of the first things I did when I cracked open this new-to-me CD from Enya (“A Day Without Rain,”) was to check out her Wikipedia article. Apparently, she considers herself Catholic in a broad sort of way, and “spiritual.” Interesting. However, as I listened to her enchanting melodies, I began to pick out some very non-Christian sounding lyrics. They seemed to be emanating from the theology-laden song Pilgrim. Fascinated, I whipped out the lyrics pamphlet and began to read. Without even meaning to, I also flipped open my Bible, and began to compare.

Now, without denunciations or anger, I would just like to share with you the points of similarity and discontinuity between the concepts and ideas of Enya, and those of Christ. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether there can be any final harmony between Enya’s “Spirituality” and Jesus’ religion, called “Christianity.”

Enya:
Pilgrim how you journey, on the road you chose…

Jesus:
Come, follow me…

Enya:
to find out why the winds die, and where the stories go.
All days come from one day, that must you must know

Jesus:
I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. (Rev. 1:8, 21:6, 22:13)

Enya:
One way leads to diamonds, one way leads to gold…

Jesus:
The way is narrow which leads to life, and there are few who find it
The way is broad which leads to death, and many there are who go there (Mat. 7:13-14)

Enya:
One way leads you only, to everything you’re told
(Note: the line, “the road that leads to nowhere” – below – seems to refer to this way, which is based “only” on information which you are told)

Jesus:
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life (John 6:63): blessed are your eyes which see, and your ears which hear (Mat. 13:16). Go, therefore, and make disciples (students/followers) from all the nations, teaching them to obey everything I commanded you… (Mat. 28:19-20)

Enya:
In your heart you wonder, which of these is true?
The road that leads to nowhere, the road which leads to you?

Jesus:
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me (John 14:6).
(See also Proverbs 14:12: “There is a way which seems right to a man/woman, but the end of that path is death”)

Enya:
Pilgrim on your journey, you may travel far,
For pilgrim it’s a long way, to find out who you are.

Jesus:
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. ²⁹ Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. ³⁰ For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Mat. 11:28-30) He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him (3:36).

In my foolish, “Emergent” phase, I was deceived enough to think that so long as a person self-identified as “Spiritual,” I should welcome that individual as a fellow seeker of truth. I did not realize that the primary opposition to Christianity is not atheism, but non-Christianity. Atheist and Buddhist, skeptic and new-age, all the other belief systems worship either self or a false god. In worship of a false God, the attempt is made to gain things for self: so ultimately, all non-Christian worship is worship of self. It is believing the Devil’s lie “you shall be as gods,” (Gen. 3:5).

It really comes down to two options: will you serve the true God, the God who made you? Will you turn from yourself to listen to the God who has come in the flesh, who has revealed Himself? Will you leave your petty ambitions and fetishes and follow Him? Will you trust Him? Will you walk the narrow road of suffering which He has carved out for us? And will you seek to enter by that narrow gate which leads to life?

If you will do so, be assured that your walk will be decidedly counter-cultural. More than that, you will find yourself made disconcertingly vulnerable and dependent. God came in the flesh just once. His words were spoken to just a few people. These words were recorded faithfully and passed on in what we have received as just one book. This Bible is stewarded by just one community of faith. You must come. You must listen. You must read. You must submit, you must obey. You must identify yourself with the faithful, and suffer along with them – even if the only suffering you endure is boredom, and the irksomeness of putting up with other sinful human beings.

For Christ did not reveal many ways, but one – Himself. He did not endorse all human religious strivings, but condemned them all and mandated that all come only to Him. He has left His Spirit, His Church and His Word to guide the seeker along the path to Himself.

The “seeker” or “spiritual person” who does not walk this path, but wanders aimlessly listening to the ghosts whispering on the air, wandering down paths of autumn mists and wading in tides of swirling seductions with the ultimate quest of “finding one’s self” will eventually, unfortunately, find what they are seeking for. “For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened,” (Mat. 7:8). In finding their heart, they will discover finally that it is ”more deceitful than anything else and desperately sick, beyond comprehension,” (Jer. 17:9). Submitting to none but self, they will have none but self to call upon in the day of judgment: they will not stand on that day, but will be swept away like chaff (Psalm 1:5). Before the throne of God, human righteousness is like a filthy garment: those who rely on it for salvation will wither like a leaf in the blazing heat of His Majesty: their iniquities, like the wind, will blow them away from the one, only source of life (Isaiah 64:6).

So, now, my dear friends, consider carefully. Hear God as He makes His appeal through me (2 Cor. 5:20): “See, I have set before you life and death: therefore, choose life!” (Deut. 30:15). Read the Bible, recognize God’s standards. Submit to His authority and judgment over your life: recognize that by God’s standards you are a sinner. You can do nothing to better yourself, nothing to earn your salvation, nothing to repay your debt. Like a peasant before a king, with a billion-dollar debt on your head, your one, your only recourse is to beg for mercy.

“Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom,” (Jas. 4:9). Although you cannot earn your salvation even through tears, this is the one logical thing to do, it is the only sacrifice which a wretched sinner can offer to God (Psalm 51:16). He does not have to save you – but if He does not, know that you are completely lost, and completely deserving of your fate. For He is fully holy and just, and you are sinful and deserving of His wrath (Rom. 9:29).

But in this very moment of crisis, in this desperation of the hour, when you feel the heat of God’s presence weighting down on your sins, hear the crackle of Hell’s flames in your ears – in this very moment that you cry out for mercy, and for grace, you will find a shock, a surprise, an infinite delight. For this very God who has demanded justice has also worked it on your behalf!

When you were still God’s enemy, Christ died for you! The just for the unjust! making a way of salvation, of peace towards God! (Rom. 5:1-10). In the very moment you repent of your sins and turn to God, you will find Him not only willing, but over-abunding in love and grace, ready even to adopt you as His child (Rom. 8:14-17) and give you a gift of life which can never be taken away (Rom. 8:38-39)!

All that you must do is choose to follow! All you must do is walk in the delight of this new life!

Like the unfaithful bride, who has left her true husband to run after other men, we have all left God and wandered far and wide. What recourse does God have? He allows us to go our own way – even though this means absolute and devastating death to us, for He is the one source of all life (Col. 1:15-18). Lavishly, lovingly, without claim and without merit, God has made a way for us to return to Him. Return to the only one, true, pure, holy Divine Being. To do so, we must first turn from and renounce our former loves (other religions, other priorities, other loves, all other ambitions and dreams – all things and ways in which we sought to serve ourselves by seeking our own good). We must turn away from “the world” and all that is in it, and turn towards Jesus, trusting that He alone was the words of life. He alone is God, who can give life. In so doing, we will find the Salvation which He died and rose again to give us, and which is at the center of the Christian religion.

….but in wandering the endless path which Enya speaks of, we will only wander further and further from God, and cut ourselves off from the grace which He so freely gives!

Choose, my reader. Choose. Think carefully, and choose! On this choice, heaven and hell hang in the balance. Self or God? Which one will it be?

“Choose you this day whom you will serve. But as for me and my house, we will sever the Lord!”

 

To Be Fully Convinced in Your Own Mind

On the hot topic of meat sacrificed to idols and the inclusion of Jewish feast-days into Christianity, Paul prescribed a policy of “live and let-live.” Those who have strict rules do so to the glory of God: those who have lenient rules celebrate their freedom before God. We must accept and affirm our brothers and sisters on both sides of the debate on these non-moral issues, advises Paul (Rom. 14).

In the midst of laying out and clarifying this bit of advice, Paul throws in a line which I have always found fascinating and highly revealing: “Each person must be fully convinced in his (or her) own mind,” (14:5). The way in which our secular culture (especially under postmodernity) tries to keep the peace is to make sure that nobody believes anything too firmly: so long as everyone is provisional and tentative and “humble” in their beliefs, we will have no conflict. Paul’s idea (and, thus, God’s idea) is completely opposite.

Christians are to have firm convictions, even on issues which are not directly outlined in Scriptures. Although they are to be accommodating and tolerant towards those who do not agree with them, this toleration should not lead them to ambivalence on the topics themselves. Each person should be convinced in their own minds. In Paul’s case, this meant that Paul was basically prescribing the creation of sects or denominations or some similar sort of division within the Body of Christ. There should be the “pro-meat” and “anti-meat” groups. That is the beginning: the groups should be divided and firmly established, Each person should be convinced of where they stand. What is the next step? Next, each person must accept fully all the members of the opposite group. They are fellow-believers, joint heirs of Christ, even though they do not agree on this particular point.

No doubt the Body is to be built up and strengthened greatly as these two parties interchange and dialogue on many relevant topics.

I think we need to embrace and encourage this sort of interchange today. There are many topics which split Modern Christianity. But do they need to divide us? Some do, because they are real, Gospel-changing issues (as was the case in Galatians: a contemporary example of this is the topic of homosexuality in the church). However, a great many other issues are secondary. On these issues, people should research their beliefs and become firm in them. Then, they must accept and love the members of the opposing groups. Although they may choose to worship in a separate church from them, they should extend “the right hand of fellowship” and work together on missions and compassion initiatives.

I think that this Biblical standard of “full conviction, with a spirit of grace” is far more beneficial and useful model of unity than the non-Christian model of “indecisiveness, with a suspicion of anything which smacks of ‘certainty’.”

 

The Link Between Open Theism and the Prosperity Gospel

While talking to a friend recently, I realized that there is a built-in affinity between open theism (the belief that God doesn’t know the future) and the prosperity gospel. I was quite surprised when I noticed this connection, but the more I thought about it, the more unavoidable it seemed to become. The logic runs something like this:

1) As an open theist, I don’t believe that God is completely in control of the world.

2) Therefore, the bad things in my life come from Satan, who is sometimes able to “get the upper hand” on God. (This means that God is just as shocked, wounded, and confused by the tragedies in my life as I am. Some find this comforting…?)

3) Therefore, the good things in my life come from God, who is “on my side,” although He is not quite omniscient enough to give me all that I want all the time. (should I feel sorry for Him…?)

4) Therefore, God always wants good things (health and wealth) for me, while Satan wishes for evil (sickness and poverty). Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other wins.

5) Therefore, pushed to its logical conclusion, if I only pray hard enough, and fast long enough, and (in other ways) get enough spiritual energy together to help God conquer Satan, both myself and God will get our collective wish of attaining perfect health and wealth for myself.

Perhaps someone who is more familiar with open theism could correct me: but is this not where the logic leads?

Ultimately, the issue is “sovereignty.” If God is “Sovereign,” then God cannot be a health-and-wealth sort of God. The God of the Bible is far more concerned with His glory than with the temporal happiness of His people. (If you don’t believe me, ask Ezekiel, Job and Hosea!) What really matters to God is that His name is exalted in the earth, that all praise honor and glory is given to Him, and that a faithful remnant worship Him with their whole heart, soul, mind and strength.

He desires this, of course, not because He is a megalomaniac, but because He is God. For you or I to seek to have the universe revolve around is absurd, arrogant, and the very definition of “sinful.” However, for God not to desire to have the universe revolve around Him would be a sin, or at least it would be supremely unloving. To worship God is to live: to turn away is idolatry and death.

That is why the first commandment is to worship God: that is why the beginning of the Lord’s prayer has to do with worship and the Sovereignty of God.

When we lose sight of the God who is in control, who has a plan, who seeks to be worshiped and glorified in all the earth, who is willing to subject His children/bride to the harshest discipline and allow them to walk through the very shadow of death in order to perfect and complete them, and who is both willing and determined to finally judge all unrepentant sinners – human and demon alike – with a final and horrifying judgment. When we lose sight of this God of the Bible, who is so completely determined to be glorified, to be honored, to be held up in high esteem, to be the center of the universe, to be – in a word, “God” – then we invent a make-believe God who…who what?

Wants us to be happy? Walks with us? Cries with us? Stumbles along, does His best…?

But ultimately, is this the picture of God which the Bible presents to us?

For more on my thoughts on Worship, see Idolatry and Worship of the True God (Youth Lesson Plan)

Also, especially see Piper: “Behold now the…severity of God!”

See also:

Augustine on “Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People”

A Discussion on Justice, Hell and the Moral Uprightness of God

Does God Have A Right To Judge?

 

A (bad!) Poem on Procrastination

Here’s irony! While procrastinating on my Greek, I was flipping through old files on my computer, and found a poem I wrote while procrastinating on an English assignment in High School! It’s a stupid poem, but it’s funny in its own way. I think I jotted this down in five minutes flat, the morning it was due. I wonder what I ever got on it?

T – 4
Come, Procrastination –
Let’s go have fun.
Wake up, sleepy head!
The night has begun!

I still have Saturday,
then Sunday, Monday too!
Why work so quickly
When there’s better things to do?

T – 3
Do you want to hear a joke,
That I heard just yesterday
From some stodgy old bloke?
“Do your work first, then play;
your grades will never choke,

life will become less stress’d
And every minute will be bless’d!”

What a joker was he!
I’m not stressed one little bit
my life more blessed couldn’t be
Maybe he just lost it
He was quite strange, you see
Also, senile and old
And that’s worse, so I’m told.

T – 2
I suppose I should get cracking
But now in time I’m sadly lacking
The work I’ve done couldn’t fill a shoe
And tomorrow it’s due!

T – 1
Oh, gosh and golly.
My time’s all gone
Now I see my folly,
And where I went wrong!

But it’s too late now –
What’s done is done.
Teachers I’ll never wow;
With a poem so dumb.

And now I’m going crazy
And my brain is all hazy.
I wish I hadn’t’ve been
so very, very ______

…oh what’s the word?
Oh well. No time to think of it now.
I guess I’ll just have to hand it in as it is.
Maybe the teacher knows what word I’m thinking of.

 

Doubting the Skeptics: A Seminar Examining Secular Scholarship on the Origins of Christianity

INTRODUCTION: WHAT’S THIS ABOUT, AND WHY SHOULD I CARE?

If you go to a secular or Liberal-Christian university to study Christianity, you will likely be told that Jesus was not God but merely a man. Thus, the Gospels were not records of actual events, but evolved over time as peoples’ beliefs about Jesus evolved and amplified until this “Jewish Rabbi” somehow became “God in the flesh, fully God, fully man.”

This is a mini-seminar meant to survey and critique this understanding.

…but, you say, “I have never, nor will I ever, go to a secular or liberal university!” In this introduction, I provide five reasons why you NEED to know this information, including the ability to understand the Emergent Church engage with culture, and grapple with Islamic apologetics.

THE FATHERS ON THE GOSPELS

How did we get our four gospels? Why don’t we ask the scholars and church-leaders who lived within three hundred years of the actual events! Here is a run-down of the ancient, historic understanding of how the gospels were written.

For a written summary of Eusebius on the authoring of the Gospels, see here.

Please note that I am not saying that we simply accept Eusebius’ word on the subject, then consider the matter closed. My point is that we should bring these ancient sources to the table and consider them. These people are not uneducated or unintelligent, and they are living much closer to the events than we are. As C.S. Lewis says, it is pure “Chronological Snobbery” to believe that just because we are more recent, we are automatically smarter than these people!

THE LIBERALS ON THE GOSPELS

This is a summary of what you will hear if you take a class on Christianity in a secular or Liberal school.

For a definition of “Christian liberalism,” see here.

If you have never heard of “Q” before, this article may help explain what I am talking about.

For a more thorough critique of the “Q Hypothesis,” see “Ten Reasons to Question ‘Q’ ” or buy Mark S. Goodacre’s The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and Synoptic Problem.

THREE CRITIQUES OF THE LIBERAL CONSENSUS

When presented in a class, the secular/liberal perspective on Christianity is always presented as “the way” that “all educated peoples believe.” However, there are at least three major problems with it.

(note: The author/book which I cannot remember on the spot is Albert Schweitzer, “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.” Although an older book, the quality of the scholarship has made this work a classic which is still cited and interacted with in contemporary scholarship).

Please note that my purpose is not to DISPROVE their theory: only to prove the point that it is a THEORY, which is based upon beliefs. It is far from bullet-proof, and ultimately it is based upon “prior beliefs,” or “presuppositions,” just like Christianity is.

An excellent book, for more on this topic (from a highly reputable source) is Craig A. Evans’ “Fabricating Jesus” (book review to come shortly).

SON OF MAN, SON OF GOD

This is a major topic, which deserves to be examined by itself. If Jesus called Himself “The Son of Man,” why do we call Him, “The Son of God?” This is a major argument which will come up if you ever get into a conversation with an informed Muslim. It is also raised often by Liberal/secular scholars like Thomas Sheehan.

CONCLUSION: IT ALL COMES DOWN TO BELIEF

As I say several times in this sermon, the point of my talk is NOT to disprove the Liberal understanding of the Gospels. It is merely this: to give an overview of it, to provide a few critiques of it, and then say, over and over, “It’s just a THEORY!” The conservative belief is ALSO a theory. Neither are in the realm of hard science: at the end of the day, you must simply choose to believe what seems the most plausible to yourself.

Most importantly, I want you to understand that both of these theories come down to basic beliefs: do you believe that miracles can happen, that God answers prayers, that God is “Emmanuel – God WITH US”? If so, then there is no real reason to doubt the historic understanding of the Gospels. If you DOUBT this fundamental belief, however, then historic Christianity is impossible. Then you will be forced to adopt something like the secular version of the gospels.

It may at times seem that “everyone” believes the secular version of the Gospels, which includes the belief that Jesus was not God. Indeed – I will agree that “most” scholars believe this. However, this doesn’t really shake me. Why? I recognize that most of the people studying Jesus are not Christians. Most of them are skeptics, agnostics, atheists and adherents to other religions such as Islam. Considering this starting point, it is not at all surprising that they have come to these conclusions: they flow naturally out of their naturalistic beliefs.

They have begun with the assumption that miracles cannot happen. Thus, the records which show that Jesus walked on water, fed thousands and rose from the dead must be false. …so they decide beforehand that they are false. Then they have done all their research from that starting point, and ended up with the conclusion that “no miracles happened here.” Tell me – where is the mystery in this? Isn’t it obvious that their conclusions are based upon their presuppositions?

Christianity has always been based on the fundamentally “foolish” concept of miracle, and of a resurrection. This concept has always caused us to be mocked (Acts 17:32), and it has always made our religion basically “foolish” to the educated elite of society (1 Cor. 1:23).

Nothing has changed. Today, as 2000 years ago, the person who wishes to follow Christ must decide whether or not they are willing to rise, pick up their cross of shame, and FOLLOW Christ, no matter what the world believes.

This is what I would like to encourage and empower you to do, even as you go on to study in higher education, and may be presented with beliefs just like what I just presented here today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History. c. 330. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890). Available for free on newadvent.org (click on “fathers,” or see here)

Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels . Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008) (Review coming soon!)

Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1923, reprint 2009. (buy here, or access for free electronically here)

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. 1906. Edited by W. Montgomery. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2005.

Sheehan, Thomas. The Historical Jesus: How did Jesus of Nazareth, who never claimed to be Christ or divine, become the Son of God? Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 2006. (You may download Syllabus, and/or take class on iTunes U for free)

RELATED POSTS

How Machen Helps Me Sort Out Wacky Jesus Scholarship

What is Liberalism?

What is the Gospel? A Response to Liberalism and the Emergent Church

Modernity and the Roots of Classical Liberalism

The Man Who Wrote “Liberalism and Christianity”

Deconstructing the Modern Man Part 2: Immanuel Kant

Deconstructing the Modern Man, Part 1: The Enlightenment

 

What Does Eusebius (300 AD) Say About the Gospels?

Eusebius of Caesarea was a Church Father who lived about 250-300 years after the death of Christ. Commissioned by the Emperor Constantine, he wrote the first history of the Christian Church. Below is a summary of what he wrote as to the authoring of the canonical gospels:

Matthew written by disciple Matthew in Hebrew, to the Hebrews (Bk III, Ch 24, v. 5)

Mark was written by John Mark in Rome. Mark was a disciple of Peter, and this book was based upon his sermons. Peter did not originally request Mark to write the book, but he verified that it was accurate.

• Not written in strict chronological order (Bk II, Ch 15, vv. 1-2)
• Mark was written after Matthew (Bk VI, Ch 25, vv. 4-10)

Luke was written by Paul’s associate Luke, as he interviewed eye-witnesses of the events and also relied on Paul’s testimony (Bk. III, Ch 4, v. 7)

Matthew, Mark, Luke written before Paul’s letters: When Paul says “my gospel,” he means Luke (Bk III, Ch 4, v. 8)

John was written at end of John’s life. John was familiar with the other gospels, but wished to speak more of Jesus’ divinity, and the events of the beginning of His ministry: that is, events before the imprisonment of John (Bk 3, Ch 24, 7)

This account is based on 1) a careful reading of Scriptures with 2) reference to some traditions and accounts from the Fathers. Most accepted it until the 1900’s.

Although I am not advocating a full acceptance of Eusebius’ beliefs, based solely on his antiquity and his position as a Church Father, I DO think that many people discount and disregard his witness too quickly. We must remember that he lived a mere two and a half centuries after the events, in a highly-developed society. It is quite likely that his information is more reliable than we give it credit for. Perhaps it is even more reliable than the reigning Liberal scholarship on the topic today.

 

Is the “Emergent Church” Dying?

(This is a chart, representing how often and when the words “Emergent Church” were Googled)

Now that my schooling is done, I am all set and stoked to publish my short e-book, writing on my experience (back in 2008) experimenting with and finally rejecting the Emergent movement. However, as I consider this graph, I wonder, “by the time I get my e-book out (sometime mid-summer) will anyone even care?” Does anyone care about the Emergent Church anymore, or is has “Emergent” become as passe`?

What is your experience? Do you think the Emergent movement is the “wave of the future” or the “next evolutionary step for Western Christianity,” or is it already phasing out?

 

What the Young Can Learn from the Old on Personal Piety

I think that the one decisive issue for young Christians — especially those of my generation — is personal piety. Everyone wants the “old faith” — but we try to find it in new ways. Who does not want to live in a simple dependency and expectancy of light continually touched by God’s presence, as are Fathers and Mothers did and do? We want the results, but who wants the work?

Perhaps there is some other way to achieve it? Perhaps another denomination, or and other religion has a new, better path? Perhaps it is not possible or necessary to work so hard at personal piety. Good things will come (without any effort!) to those who wait!

The most important discovery of my young adult life is that if I truly desire the faith of my Fathers, I must follow the path of their personal piety. There really is no alternative.

I must read my Bible, yes, read it. I must pray — throughout the day, yes, but also in long stretches of concentrated prayer in the evenings and mornings — preferably on my knees or on my face. Sin must be ruthlessly identified and eliminated. When serious enough, there must be confession and at times a protracted relationship of accountability with stronger Christians. For there is no doubt that there lies within each saint a wicked sinner. We need the friendship and support of our brethren, to conquer this enemy within!

Yes, and we must at times fast. Fast from pleasures, fast from media, fast from sex, fast from food. It weakens the enemy, and sharpens our appetite for holiness.

And we cannot stop meeting together with the Saints — for with all their warts and sins, they are Christ’s body as much or more then we are. Above all we must not lead a “counter-church alternative” — in example or in teaching — for God will destroy those who destroy His body (1 Cor. 3:17). And we must not judge the church as hypocritical — for those who judge will be judged, and who could bear to have all their hypocrisies and hidden sins rooted out, amplified, exposed and condemned with the same ruthless honesty with which my generation scrutinizes the church (Mat. 7:2)?

But all of this, you say, smacks far too much of moth balls and dust, of ancient body odors, of trembling hands, of wrinkled skin. Do we not need a new and relevant and exciting faith for tomorrow?

But consider for a moment the quiet power, the simple faith, the overflowing joy which lies just behind that failing body which you so despise. Consider with what patience illness is faced, with what courage they smile on the very face of death, with what prayers end abundant love they bear the apostasy and rejection of children, and with what grace and perseverance the isolation and decline of age is met. When a young man, full of energy and vitality, fairly floating in the gushing effluence of life dances and yells on a stage, you rise with acclamations and applause, even call him a great leader, a sage, a saint. But where is the great talent in this? It takes no great skill to meet numbers “20″ and “30″ with energy and perseverance. But show me a woman or man who can walk glowingly through the ominous progression of “60,” “70,” “80,” “90,” and I will show you a saint and a warrior, who is worthy of emulation, and worthy of praise.

If you feel that true piety has been the domain of the elderly and infirm, then you must change that. That is up to you, my young friend! Is the baton of holiness clutched exclusively by the “uncool” hands of the elderly? Then you must take it! Give it a new face! Have the elders carried it too long? Then show us what a young person — in the very prime and flower of youth — can do with this simple, quiet faith!

Imagine what your life could be like, if you did not merely end  your life, but began it with the simple, eloquent, old and life-giving faith of our Fathers?

The feast is laid out before you — will you not eat? The membership has been paid — will you not exercise? The kindling is about you — will you not ignite the flame?

If you will not, there is one thing for sure: there is none that you may blame your boredom, your lack of spiritual power, your confusion, your detachment from Christian community, your lack of intimacy with God. Who can you blame but yourself, you pampered child of the West, ungrateful recipient of a hard-won heritage? How many thousands died, so that your bible could gather dust on your shelf? And your soul languishes, mere inches from the bread of life. There is none to blame but yourself for the coldness of your heart, the paleness of your God, the iron-clad grip of sin, the powerlessness of your prayers.

Do not be surprised that you who had been so indolent in training are now useless, and even vulnerable — yes, even slain and taken into captivity — on the battlefield life!

For if you want the faith of your Fathers, you must walk their difficult but beautiful road of personal holiness. There simply is no other way!

 

From Doubt to Faith, Part 2

In this post, I am providing the prayer-journal entries which lead up to the post “From Doubt to Faith, Part 1.” I would recommend reading that post before reading this one.

January 30

(after a very powerful exposition of Ezekiel 7)

Lord God, I can read your Word, I can write in the quiet privacy of my journal – but how can I tell anyone of this? How can I tell the educated, self-made man that a reality which he does no see is the ultimate reality, against which he will be judged?

Lord God, if this is all really true, seal thy words on my heart. Engrave them on my heart as upon a stone with a diamond-tipped pen: “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand!”

If I really believed that, (believed it as surely as I believed that seat-belts save lives) I could preach it, and many would hear and believe. But how can I go unless I am sent? Here am I – send me!!

March 26

Lord, I am wrestling with 1 Timothy 1:5. I believe I have a pure heart and a good conscience – but what is this “sincere” or “unfeigned” faith? Last night my Father in Law (a Baptist Pastor) gave a simple exposition of the gospel call. I pretty much believe that. I mean, that is the simple, clear meaning of Scripture. And I do believe that the bible is Your Holy Book. So yes – the simple, true Gospel must be right (with all of the horrible implications of Hell along with it!)

But I confess to you that my faith is rather cerebral, superficial, hypocritical. I preach the Bible because it would be dishonest to preach anything else in church. But do I believe it? Finally? Unreservedly? Without hesitation or question?

Oh, how I wish I could answer “yes!” to that question!

God, how can it be expected of me to believe fully, simply, completely? I am not a simple man, and you have made me to think, and to question. My schools have honed my critical skills to a fine art, and I have studied many of the major skeptics and critics of Christianity in our day: how can I help but hear their voices in my head when Scriptures are being read?

Is not simple faith simplistic, anemic, shallow, useless, childish?

MY GOD! FAITH IS A GIFT! WHAT EVER COULD I DO TO EAR IT, TO MANUFACTURE IT, TO PERFECT IT?

….please, please, please, would you give to me a faith unfeigned?

Jesus: “Do you love me?”

(with many tears) Me: “Jesus, you know that I love you.”

Jesus: “How can you doubt the existence of one that you love?”

April 24

Today’s sermon was on false teaching. It was based upon the women who saw the empty tomb, and “preached” to the disciples that Jesus had been stolen. They saw the facts, but came to a wrong conclusion which lead to false teaching. Then, even when Mary saw Jesus, she did not understand. The pastor (my Father in Law) really emphasized the fact that even though Mary was speaking to Jesus, she spoke not as to the Son of God, but as to a Gardener. She down-graded Jesus to merely another human, just a laborer, just a gardener.

Something about this really stuck.

The Pastor said, “Then Jesus said, ‘Mary!’ One word, that’s all it took! Then real faith set in. She believed. And she responded, ‘Rabbi!’ “

I remember feeling the Spirit so strongly there was almost a light in the room before me.

“Josiah!”

“I hear you, I believe in you!”

“Would you let me be your teacher?”

I have been pondering this question all day. Let Him be my “rabbi”? What an exhilarating thought! ….yet something holds me back.

On the one hand, I wonder “If I were a disciple, with Jesus on earth, what would He have taught me?” Likely confronted my sin, taught me to love, opened my eyes to secrets of the kingdom, introduced me to the Father, commissioned me and sent me with power.

So what of this is available to me, today? All of it. I am even given an extra blessing, because I have “not seen, yet believe (John 20:29). This is all available to me through Scriptures, which were written that I may believe (John 20:31). Although I have not seen Him, I love Him, and rejoice with joy inexpressible (1 Pet. 1:8).

On the other hand, I wonder, “But can I trust Him?” How do I know He will not lead me astray?

[This latter question, which I left hanging in my journal, has gradually faded away as I have been learning to walk with increasing joy and confidence in simple obedience to Jesus these past weeks.]

Yes, Jesus, I wish you to be my teacher. Lead on, Rabbi!

RELATED POSTS

Seminary: Was it Worth It?

(see also…)

Seas of Confusion

Seven Years in Arabia (About the Author)

Frustration at Christian Academia

Taking My Education Into My Own Hands…

 

Your Opinion Requested on Francis Chan

In my immediately-previous post, I responded to only the second resource which I have heard from Francis Chan. So far, I am completely hooked! I love his honesty, and I love especially the way that he allows his emotionsnot to rule him (as Rob Bell does) but to guide his intellect. Although I love Mark Driscoll, his resources are perhaps too cerebral: Chan seems to be a good correction to that. Also, I love his humility and vulnerability before the Scriptures. I am not sure I would have valued or comprehended this a few months ago – but this is the direction God is leading me now, and I very much long for more teaching in this direction.

I wonder: what are other people saying about Francis Chan? Before getting into Mark Driscoll, I asked for some feedback, and (quite predictably, as I see now!) got some angry responses (see here). Although I was taken aback and distrustful of this feedback (knowing the sorts of people it came from), I see now that it is at least part of the picture about Driscoll, and it was worth my time to ask the question.

And so I ask it now on behalf of Francis Chan. Are you a fan? Have you listened to his stuff? How much? What is your impression of him? Why? Where does he come from? What is his background? What are his strengths? Are there weaknesses to his teaching? If you had five minutes with him, what would you ask him? What do you think people will write on his tombstone?

Please share! I have heard a lot about him, and want to get into him, but am first just very curious about what people would have to say about Francis Chan!

 

Francis Chan on Hell

I was just listening to this video (thanks, Tim Johnson!) by Francis Chan.

In so many ways, I feel that Chan has hit the nail absolutely on the head. How can Hell be secondary? How can we avoid it? If it is real, we need to make it primary, and live as though people are really going there, unless we do something about it. Hell quite literally “lights a fire” under people – Christian and non alike. It forces the non-Christian to make up their mind. It forces the Christian to get out there and give people the option of making up their mind.

If you believe in Hell, passivity and non-evangelism is the worst form of sin!

I loved especially what Chan had to say about being humble enough to believe that God knows better than you.

The section where Chan speaks of all the things which God said and did in the Old Testament that “I would never think to do or say” was fascinating. What I found really interesting here was that Rob Bell has a section almost identical in Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith – only he leverages the section for the exact opposite use. (Note: because I read this book in audio, I don’t have the direct quotation in front of me, but see my review of Velvet Elvis Here) He basically says, “Look, there’s lots of stuff (e.g. the Israelites slaughtering the now-helpless citizens of Jericho after their walls fell down, or the slaughter of the Amalekites, etc.) which we as rational, moral Westerners just can’t stomach. So if we can’t stomach parts of it, why do we trust any of it?” Then he goes on to talk about how we need to “repaint” Christianity for our own generation, etc.

Perhaps I am over simplifying his nuanced language: but he was basically saying, “we believe this, the Bible presents that. We win, the Bible looses. We get to edit Scriptures.” Chan seems to be saying, (and I so agree!) “the Bible says this, we think that. The Bible wins. We need to learn to think like the Bible thinks and, if this is impossible, sometimes we just have to admit defeat and say, ‘God, your ways are above our ways. We commit to learn from and obey you, without arrogantly judging or attempting to edit your Word!’ “

I like it. I like it a lot. I think I will start getting into Francis Chan in a big way, very soon!

 

Mark Driscoll on May 21 and Harold Camping

Well, it has come and gone, and the rapture didn’t happen. I think this is a good opportunity to pause and reflect on the fact that in the very passage where Jesus spoke about the end-times, He also says, “Nobody knows the day or the hour.” Whether it is at Jesus’ second coming, or at your own death, your meeting with your Creator is unavoidable, and it will likely surprise you like a thief in the night: we must be ready constantly.(see related post, “I am coming, cawed the raven“)

However, we need to be cautious of being too arrogant about our ability to predict precisely when Jesus will return. Many pastors are gloating over Harold Camping’s wrong prediction – but are they much better, when they say, “The signs of the times are everywhere! Jesus will return within our lifetimes!” This is also a prophecy with specific claims, and it is also a prophecy which people live according to. Is this claim any less arrogant, or dangerous, or misguided than the claim made by Harold Camping?

For entertainment purposes, I recommend Mark Driscoll’s thoughts on the topic. No, we don’t know the day or the hour. No, we should not try to guess. No, it does not matter whether we have a chart. The bottom line is “be ready!” That is all.

 

Blessings on the Ministry of Keith and Jenni!

Today I have been reflecting on a recent conversation with Keith, my home-town pastor. In preparation for a big decision, I was in conversation with several people we consider to be wise and invested in our lives. Because he was/is our pastor, I also gave him a call.

The advice from all our counsellors was unanimous, and we now feel that we have a fairly clear direction to walk in. However, Keith’s talk has especially been sticking in my mind.

Unlike the others, he not only shared his wisdom with me, but also went deeper. He poked and prodded, challenged me to consider my heart, my secret vices and sinful motivations, to consider my pride and self-seeking. How did he know to poke around in all those areas? He was right, so right! I feel like I have just been to the chiropractor – with pokes and prods and cracks, the things out-of-joint were pushed back, and I have been challenged to holiness again, as only a pastor can do.

But still I wonder – how did he know to do that? Even when talking to some older people, some who likely have more time in the Bible, more life experience, and some who know me much better – it was Keith who knew to go deeper, and he had an almost spiritual intuition into how to do so.

“You may have many tutors in Christ,” wrote Paul, “but you only have one Father,” (1 Cor. 4:15). This is how I feel today. Why did God chose to speak specially through Keith? Why only through Him did the deep conviction, revealing of my heart, and spurring on to holiness come? It was because he is my father, my pastor. I have many tutors, but one who has been specially appointed to “watch over my soul, as one who must give an account,” (Heb. 13:7).

…and as I read the first part of that verse, I do not wish to neglect the rest of it: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”

Whether I appreciate it or not, whether I receive it or not, I know that Keith is watching diligently over my soul. And for that, I affirm and bless him.

Thank you, Keith and Jenni for all that you do, and for all the small and massive ways in which you are spending and being expended, (2 Cor. 12:15), and are pouring yourselves out as a drink offering on the sacrifice and service of our faith (Phi. 2:17). I wish to publicly affirm and endorse your ministry. I wish well on you, and pray that God would expand your borders and make the works of your hand to prosper. In Christ, I love you and bless you both!

Now, it is your turn. I have loved-on and blessed my pastor. I wonder, would you like to do the same? Take the time to write out a letter or note expressing submission, commitment, love and gratitude to your pastor. They are looking after your soul: may they not do so with sorrow, but be encouraged in the task!

If you feel so-lead, I would love it if you would honor your pastor publicly here, by also posting your words as a comment under this post.

 

From Doubt to Faith, Part 1

God cut it out. God healed me. Of this I am certain. But what was it? And how did He do it? I am intensely grateful, but curious. How did He do it?

Like Adam, I woke up groggy-eyed and confused a few days ago to stumble onto the computer. I did not suspect anything had happened until I ventured upon the now-viral post entitled “The Last Post” by Derek K. Miller. It is the final memoir of an atheist, who is trying to scrape together all of the dignity, purpose and eternity which his worldview can afford, in order to give his family hope and meaning in the wake of his untimely passing. It’s moving stuff.

…but it didn’t make me mad.

I didn’t even realize this until a few moments later. I read it, I posted it to my facebook, I read it again, I pondered it, I breathed a heavy sigh for Derek and even (although this is nonsensical, since the time for mercy is over, Heb. 9:27, 4:7, etc.) prayed that God would have mercy on his soul. I prayed for his family, that they would find Jesus. Then I spent time pondering my own death, wondering how long I still had and whether I was loving my family and serving God the best I could with the time I had.

But I was not mad. I was not mad.

When God secretly took a rib from Adam, He then presented him with Eve – a living, breathing counterpart “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” When He secretly took something from me, however, I lost a counterpart, a voice, a frame of mind. And I knew suddenly that it was gone, because I was not mad. I felt love, sadness, zeal-to-acition, and melancholy: but no anger.

Here is how it usually works. I hear Dawkins or Hitchens or a talk-show-host who is loudly proclaiming an anti-Christian doctrine and my stomach instantly ties into knots. I feel as though they are personally attacking me. The anger is immediate. The more convinced they are of their beliefs, the more intense my reaction. The more creatively and elaborately they weave their intellectual framework, the deeper sinks the bundle of turmoil within. I will mull for weeks and months over things people have said, and I try desperately to untangle the web of their intellectual fortifications against Christ. In the process, I find myself filling their shoes. I find myself saying, “Okay, if I believed what they did, how would I reason my way back to Christ?” Usually, the path is long and arduous. Sometimes I barely make it back. There is a sort of usefulness to this process, I suppose, because sometimes I am able to catalog my return-home-journey (as, for example, in the posts “Does God have a right to judge?” and “A Discussion on Justice, Hell and the Moral Uprightness of God”) However, what is the result of this? I spend most of my time angry, doubting, speculating, barely able to make my way back to Christ. Although I have already answered all the questions I need to for myself, I go out and wrestle with other people’s questions. As a result I was continually boiling and thinking and working and pondering and doubting.

But not now. Now, the anger is gone.

Perhaps it is because I no longer feel threatened. Derek is wrong. I know that. I feel for him, I pray for him. But he doesn’t threaten me. I still have my old ability of being able to step into his worldview, to think about how I would reason my way to the cross from where he is standing. I realize that the journey is impossible. He is firmly convinced that God does not exist. This is not a reasonable position, it is a faith position. He believes that God does not exist just as firmly and as irrationally as I believe that He does exist. What needs to happen is for God to work a miracle, to prove Himself to be real to Derek (or, hopefully, to the living members of his family). I cannot do this, despite my best intellectual abilities. It is God’s job. But more importantly, I am not feeling unsettled, insecure and, yes, angry. This is the really amazing thing!

As I reflect, I think I am realizing that all this time, my interest in apologetics has actually been a “cover” for my own spiritual insecurities. Outwardly, I preach and post with confidence: inwardly, I doubt. Outwardly I present answers, and triumph over “the questioning skeptic”: inwardly I am the questioning skeptic, and I only barely am able to overcome my logical difficulties, to reason my way back to Christ.

I have been thinking back carefully over my prayer life in these past few weeks, to try to figure out what made the difference?

Just now I have gone back and read through my prayer-journal. I was going to add three journal entries to the end of this post, but, since this post is already getting long, I think I will make a “part two.”

But to conclude, to answer the question: how has God removed this fear, this anger, this turmoil within? He has taught me (really, truly, from the heart) to “fix my eyes on Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith” (Heb. 12:2). I know that Jesus exists. How? I love Him. He speaks to me. I pray to Him, He hears me. He is real. I worship Him. I love Him.

And now, finally, I am beginning to trust Him.

Trust Him that His Word is the right way. Trust Him that He is the only righteous judge of our souls. Trust Him that His plans are best for our family. Just trust Him.

And when I trust, I do not fear. When I do not fear, I can rest. And when I rest, I am not angry.

 

What if Mark Driscoll is Right?

Here is a sermon-clip (8 min) worth listening to carefully, and re-listening. Don’t dismiss him immediately: listen and ponder – what if he is right? How would your world change if Driscoll is right? If you disagree with him, have you done sufficient research to be absolutely sure that he is wrong?

I think we can agree this is no secondary issue. You must make a decision, make the right decision and live accordingly. There simply is no ethical, safe, sane alternative.

 

The Serpent’s Song

Come and let us reason,
The crafty serpent said
My wares are but a trinket
You will not fall down dead!

I see you’re in dilemma,
And I am there as well:
For I must meet my quota,
And you can’t think of hell!

My deal is very simple,
My plan is plain as day
Just speak not of the wrath of God
Or of the narrow way!

Only speak of God as “Father,”
Never “Judge” and never “Lord”
And beware to read no further
Than this precept will afford.

Then all men you may call “brother”
Of all faiths and walks and ways
Speak of love for one another
And from all you will hear praise

Your “messiah” you may keep of course
But only just His life
Ever afters and befores
Will only cause you strife

In His journey we find solace
In His living we find life
And his dying is one instance
Of man’s triumph over strife.

He was such a gifted teacher!
Doing what all men should do
Trying better, doing harder,
And I tell you – “So should you!”

For you see, we are all equal
In this great, eternal plan
And His life was but a prequel
To the majesty of man.

Now a heaven we may build here
On this firm terrestrial ball
Faiths and fellows all may draw near
‘Round the goodness in us all!

Then a statue tall and glor’ius
We may shake up to the skies
Built within us and without us
In our image, it will rise!

Only listen very closely:
For this God of theirs is dead
Only make believe and stories
Spun within the human head.

And if humans are the writers
Then their gods are but their own
And their teachers are but paupers,
Speaking what they do not know.

For their make-believe and magic
Could be useful if they knew
That it lives to build an ethic,
And it never once was true.

Would you come away and whisper
Of the world that we could make
Of a forest richer, greener -
Of the kinder, gentler Snake.

Only would you leave off whining
Of this “Just, Eternal Lord”?
Don’t you see the sun is shining?
Don’t you feel Him in your core?

Only listen – can you listen?
No you can’t – I see the flaw.
For you think it must be written
And all truth must bind as law.

Listen deeper and within you
To that heart of purest stone
For within you is the all-truth,
In all majesty enthroned.

And if only you will listen
You may read what you will read
Only let the Lisper glisten
Over stalk and rock and seed.

And just let no-one seduce you
To that narrow, deadly gate
Doing what those babblers do,
You may partake in their fate.

For you know we are the owners
Of the world, the Soul, the skies,
And you know we are the rulers
Of our own, our brief demise.

So now follow me my children,
Come along just for the ride
For you see me – I have bitten,
And you see, I haven’t died!

And just think you’ll be a grown-up
Fin’ly knowing right from wrong
Only follow me and eat this up,
And now sink into my song…

Now at last you see my cunning
In this last and dreadful day.
For saw not Hell coming,
And I have got my prey!

RELATED POSTS

What is the Gospel? A Response to Liberalism and the Emergent Church

The Man Who Wrote “Liberalism and Christianity”

Review of Rob Bell’s “Velvet Elvis”

Reflections on MacLaren’s “A New Kind of Christian”

What is Liberalism?

Modernity and the Roots of Classical Liberalism

(See also posts under “hell” in “index of topics”)

 

WELCOME TO MY NEW BLOG!!

Five months ago, when I decided to shut down my blog for a season, I was heart-broken. Today, however, I realize it was worth it. In this time, I have completed all but one of my classes for my MA in Theology. The amount of work which I completed would likely have taken me over a year and a half to complete at my previous pace, and dropping the blog was one of the necessary components of my recent study-break.

However, I am back, and the pause has wrought some beneficial changes which I would like to share with you all:

1) Fresh Categories: I have cleaned up and organized my categories, so that it is easier to navigate. (see on right)

2) Index of Posts: I have created an index of posts. Now, you can see all of the posts on a certain topic in order by date. This will make it much easier to see the evolution of my thoughts on one particular topic.

3) Best Posts: I have created a page with all my best posts, so that newcomers can skip straight to the “good stuff” without having to wade through so much of the “not-so-good stuff” to get there. Also, on the “Index” page, I have also identified my best posts for the same reason.

4) New Content: I have added about fifty previously-unpublished posts, cataloging my thoughts from the past year, especially as I wrestled long and hard with Karl Barth. You may use the calendar widget on the right to navigate to my older posts: the new content begins at about November 16, 2010 with the posts “Early Musings on Barth” and “What if Christianity is not a Religion?” You may also access this content through the “Index” tab, to the right.

5) Intellectual Journey: For those interested in the turns and twists my intellectual journey has brought me on, you can now see that all in one place. Simply go to the categories drop-down, and select “About me –> Intellectual Journey” You will want to scroll back to the oldest ones, to see how my thoughts have progressed.

6) New Theme: And, of course, I have a new theme. Yup. It’s brown. And Red. Veeeeeery cool.

I never know what the future holds, and I have learned to refrain from making promises on my blog, because I usually cannot/do not deliver: however, here are a few things I would like to do (Lord willing!) on this blog in the future:

1) Research & Position Papers: I hope to polish up and publish most of my research papers on all sorts of topics, including Christian gender-roles, the TNIV, Christian Environmentalism, divorce and remarriage, Pacifism in the Early Church, The Gospel According to Karl Barth, and many many more

2) Examine New Topics: I would like to work through my beliefs on a number of issues I have been avoiding, such as Eschatology, Creation Science, Hermeneutics, and Eternal Security.

3) Publish Kindle Book: I would like to publish my previous blog — in which I became Emergent, tested things out from the inside for a season, then realized the problems and left, then understood and refuted the tenets of Emergent Liberalism — into a Kindle-book. My first draft of this book will be ready soon, and I am looking for a small group of volunteers who would receive a free copy in exchange for some honest feedback and editing.

4) Critique Emergent: Drawing on my own experience and my research, I would like to write some clear and concise definitions on the Emergent Movement, which would affirm what is Biblical and good, while refuting what is unBiblical and bad in the movement. At the top of the list is writing a review on Rob Bell’s latest book, Love Wins.

5) Produce Bible-Studies and Devotions: I am finally, by the grace of God, emerging out of the fog and confusion of School. This has happened not by studying more theology, but by spending more time in God’s Word. I am finding great joy in producing Bible studies and devotionals, and will post some of these as well.

6) Sermons Podcast: Finally, I have been recording all of my sermons and will continue to do so. After a few more things fall into place, I hope to be able to publish a sermons podcast, and perhaps a video channel on youtube.

Well, that should be enough to keep me busy over the summer. I wish you all well, and hope you will enjoy catching up on my new blog!

Take care and God bless!

 

Basic Beliefs (Youth Study Plan)

I wrote this lesson for a night when we had quite a large and very hyper group. I wanted to just go through the basics of the gospel, in a way which invited participation but was not too lengthy.

My lesson consisted of handing out the following sheets and assigning groups of youth to each set of questions. (Download in PDF Handout: Gospel Overview, or see bottom of post) Try to select groups with at least one person who is churched, or is able to navigate through Scriptures well.

After giving the youth about ten minutes to circle the appropriate answers, I regathered the group and we watched the following video:

After the video, I said, “This video has talked about a set of beliefs. Beliefs are important! They dictate the way that we live. We are just going to take a few minutes to see what beliefs the Bible presents to us, on some of the major issues of life.”

I then invited each group to read their verse, then I asked them, “so, what does the Bible say about…?”

When we actually did this lesson, it went far too quickly and my assistant-leader took the opportunity afterward to recap the gospel, and do a small sermonette. I think it tied it off quite nicely.

BASIC BELIEFS HANDOUT

GROUP ONE: HUMANITY

1. Humanity (Ecclesiastes 7:29):

a) Was created good, and remains good

b) Was created upright, but turned away

c) Was created bad, but evolved towards goodness

2. How many people are good? (Psalm 14:3)

a) No one is good.

b) Some people are good, some are bad.

c) I am good: everybody else is bad!

GROUP TWO: THE AFTERLIFE

1. What happens after death? (Hebrews 9:27)

a) We are reincarnated many times

b) We die once, then we are judged for our lives

c) We die and that is just “it.” There is no afterlife.

2. What can we do to pay for our sins? (Isaiah 64:6)

a) We can do less bad things, and more good things.

b) We can give lots of money to charity, and not swear.

c) Our righteousness is worthless, so we’re hooped.

GROUP THREE: JESUS

1. What has Jesus done for us? (Romans 5:6)

a) He did nothing for us

b) He lived perfectly, to make us feel bad.

c) He died in our place.

2. Why does this matter? (Isaiah 53:6)

a) Because God put our sins upon Him.

b) Because otherwise we wouldn’t have Easter!

c) I have no idea.

GROUP FOUR: SALVATION

1. Are there many ways to be saved? (John 14:6)

a) All religions have a valid path of salvation

b) Jesus is the only way to be saved

c) No religions save: you must look inside for help

2. What must I do to be saved? (Romans 9:9-10)

a) Believe that Jesus died and rose for you

b) Confess that He is Lord (or “the boss”) of your life

c) All of the above

 

Idolatry and Worship of the True God (Youth Lesson Plan)

Introduction:

- Read Exodus, 20:3-4, Deut. 5:7-8, 1 John 5:21
- What is an idol? (expect to get responses referring to stone images, etc.)
- Does this commandment have any relevance to us today? (expect to receive answer “no.” Do not discuss, but leave question hanging…)

Watch movie:

(note: preview and hide screen for first 5 sec.)

Discussion Questions:

[Note: when I did this, I printed off sheets with the questions, but no answers. I instructed the youth to find the answers by paying attention to the video. Then, when I began asking questions they had already been thinking about them.]

“What is an Idol?”
- Something that occupies the place of God in your life
- Takes priority, precedence, prominence
- It is the most important thing
- It is where we go when we are:
- Grieving
- Happy
- In trouble
- Gives hope for the future
- Gives purpose in life
- (e.g. alcohol)

“What idols were mentioned? Can you think of some idols in your school?”
- Madonnah, movie stars
- Michael Jackson
- Starbucks
- Body image
- Justin Beiber

“Why do these idols always disappoint? Can you tell a story of someone disappointed by an idol? How did it make that person feel?”
- Aren’t perfect
- Don’t live forever
- Not continually faithful
- Twilight? M. Jackson? RPG’s and video games? Dating relationships? Substances?

“What does it mean to ‘worship’ an idol?”
- Make it known to the world that you worship (e.g. starbucks)
- Sacrifice your time, health, energy (e.g. work)
- Devote your emotions to your worship (e.g. Jackson)
- Find fulfillment and identity (e.g. working out)

“What would it look like to worship God?”
- Make your choice known to the world
- Sacrifice time, health, energy
- Devote your emotions to God
- Find fulfillment and identity in God

“Why God, not other idols?”
- He is perfect
- He lives forever
- He is faithful
- He will not disappoint you

* Most of all, you were made to worship God, and you will have a hunger inside which is not satisfied until you truly learn to worship Him with your whole heart.

Take a moment to carefully consider the following questions:
1) Do I have idols? What are they?
2) Are they satisfying my needs and desires? Will they disappoint me?
3) If I were to worship God, what would it look like?

 

Evil Robots (Youth Study Plan)

This is a youth Bible-study lesson. It was fun and worked well! The theme is explaining that God is Creator, and laying the foundation for understanding Hell and the Gospel.

Preparation:

- Find several tubs of Lego and dump them on a central table, with chairs around.

- Modify chart at the end of this post to suit the page numbers in your pew Bibles. Hand it out and ask for volunteers to read “passage one,” “passage two,” etc.

Activity: Tell youth that they have fifteen minutes to build a Lego robot to 1) help them with a task, or 2) save the world. At the end of this time, they will introduce their robot to us. They will tell us 1) the robot’s name, 2) what it “does.”

After each person has introduced their robot, ask the following:

SECTION ONE:

1. So, who is in charge – you or your robot? Why?

2. Who gives the orders – you or your robot? Why?

3. Who is served by whom? Why?

(Note: you will sense a theme developing – the “creator” has rights over the “creation”)

SECTION TWO:

4. So, let’s just say for a moment that your robot went evil. What would you do?

(Note: you are looking for the answer, “I would destroy it!” If this answer is not given immediately, ask the following:)

4.a) Like, what if it didn’t obey you, and always ran away and malfunctioned?

4.b) Or if it started destroying your stuff and terrorizing your dog?

4.c) Or went completely psycho and started killing people?

(Answer: I would destroy it)

SECTION THREE:

5. But, are you sure that you have a right to destroy it? Doesn’t the robot have rights? (Answer: again – ‘I made it, I can destroy it’)

SECTION FOUR: BIBLE STUDY

Turn to the previously-handed-out chart. The verses will lead you through a discussion. Ask a person to read, then discuss as follows:

Genesis 2:7, 21-22

…so, you see that God has created us.

Genesis 1:31

…so you see that He made us “very good.”

Genesis 6:5-6

…you see that only a few chapters later, something happened and now humanity had “gone evil” on Him. Rather than going through in detail what happened, we will turn to the following verse which summarizes it:

[Note: when I did this, our discussion got derailed on the fact that God "regretted" making man. So we talked at length about sovereignty vs. free-will. The youth were really into it, and so was I! However, if you aren't up to this, you may consider skipping this verse]

Ecclesiastes 7:29

…so you see that God made humanity good, but humanity exercised free-will and turned away from Him into sin. Or, they “went evil.”

(Potential lead-in to discussion: You all said that you would destroy your robots if they went evil. What do you think God should do with humanity?)

Psalm 36:5-8

…in spite of how evil humanity is, God still provides for, shelters and protects us. However, because He loves us He does not want to just let us go our own way. He has a rescue-plan in effect to reverse the evil wiring inside us.

Ezekiel 11:19

We saw in Genesis that “every intention of the heart was evil” – but here God is talking about a plan to take out that heart and put in a new one. This is God’s rescue-plan for humanity.

2 Peter 3:9-13

This rescue plan is serious business. Like you said, the way to deal with a bad creation is to destroy it and start over – which is exactly what God is going to do. However, He is making a way of salvation for us all. He would rather repair His “evil robots” than destroy them!

Acts 4:12

It is in Jesus Christ that this salvation is to be found.

2 Corinthians 5:17

When we come to Christ, the old things pass away, and all things begin to be made new. This process doesn’t happen over night, however, the rebooting process can begin the moment we accept Christ as our Saviour.

Segue: “Now, to illustrate this, I would like to call on brother x, to talk about how Jesus changed his heart…”

(Ask someone who has a “before Christ” and “after Christ” testimony to tell about the difference which Christ made in their heart. Prep. them beforehand: the “testimony” shouldn’t be long, but should just emphasize ways in which their heart changed. Did they begin loving their parents/spouse in a new way? Did they suddenly desire to pray/read their Bible? Did sin lose its appeal? etc.)

After this brief testimony, pray and dismiss.

VERSES TO LOOK UP
One	Genesis 2:7	Page 2
Two	Genesis 2:21-22	Page 2
Three	Genesis 1:31	Page 1
Four	Genesis 6:5-6	Page 4
Five	Ecclesiastes 7:29	Page 468
Six	Psalm 36:5-8	Page 391
Seven	Ezekiel 11:19	Page 583
Eight	2 Peter 3:9-13	Page 843
Nine	Acts 4:12	Page 758
Ten	2 Corinthians 5:17	Page 803

 

Materialism and the Weeds of Worry

I am not sure why I got this parable wrong all these years.

Today I was reading the parable of the Sower in Matthew 13. You know the story: the sower (aka the preacher of the Word) sows the word (the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and the new life we can have in Him) all over. Although some seed falls on the good soil and produces much fruit (aka it is received with joy and a person begins an exciting and powerful new journey), most of the seed does not produce fruit. Some falls on the road and never sinks in at all (hard-hearted people), some falls among rocks and springs up quickly but dies because the roots don’t go deep (shallow people), and some falls among thorns, which rise up and choke out the good seed. It is this last group which I had misunderstood.

I had thought that it was referring to temptations and bad influences. In my mind, you could almost put a wicked little smile on these little dandy-lions, with a beer in one hand, a cigarette in the other: then perhaps there would be the “weed” of pornography, and one of greed and, well, you get the picture. How many times have we seen Christians dragged away by these “weeds”? After all, “Bad company corrupts good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33)

But hold on a second: where does it say that these weeds have to do with carnal temptations? The weeds here are “the worries of this world (or age), and the decietfulness of wealth.” It says the same thing in Mark’s account. This reminds me of another passage by Jesus:

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other You cannot serve God and wealth. For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” (Mat. 6:24-34)

This is not the only passage where Jesus talks about money. Elsewhere, Jesus said that knowing how to handle your finances is one of the main things which will determine whether God will bless your ministry or not (Luke 16:11). Proverbs tells us to “know well the condition of our flocks and herds (the agrarian version of our “know well the condition of your bank accounts, investments and assets”)” (Prov. 27:23). We are instructed to consider the ant, who stores up resources for times of want (Prov. 6:6-9). The wise woman does not fear cold weather because she has already prepared warm clothing and food for her family (Prov. 31:21).

This is why it is so important to not just read on passage of Scripture and stop there. You would not do this with any teacher or book: you must balance what is said in one place with what is said in another. When you balance Matthew 6 against the rest of the Bible, you realize that God is not telling all Christians to be wandering, peniless hippies living out of a van, not thinking beyond tomorrow, making the peace sign lots and in general not having  a clue about anything. God wants us to rule our finances well. But herein lies the catch: as the saying goes, money makes a great servant, but a poor master. And the real difficulty is that he turns from servant to master so very quickly!

You know the scenario well. They went to Bible school. They were oh-so-committed to the Lord! They almost went into full-time ministry. But then they thought they would take a year or two off first to establish their marriage and family. Then he got a great job, and she bought a big house. Then there were expensive toys in front of the house, and in the house. Now he had to work double shifts to pay for it all. Then they bought a bigger house, and debt settled around them like a smothering blanket. Now they both work a full-time week and then some. They still dream of doing ministry someday, but for the time-being they barely have time to raise their own children. They show up in church pretty regularly but have little time to contribute and no money to give. Other than church attendance, there’s not much to differentiate their lives from the lives of non-Christians around them.

Okay, now the hard part. It’s easy to see it in somebody else. But does all this apply to you?

Here is the ideal: some Christians serve God full-time, while others work full-time, are “missionaries” in their home communities, and give generously so that the church can go forward. Perhaps this was how it started for you: but is this where you are at now? Are you stewarding your finances wisely, to have enough for yourself and plenty to give, or are you surrounded, choked out, ensnared, barely able to breathe, with those wicked weeds of financial worry and care encircling you, monopolizing your assets, and nearly strangling the joy out of your life?

And so I would encourage you, dear reader, to take a moment and consider the following:

1) Am I aware of my finances, or is my money like a flock of sheep, wandering in the open pasture without a shepherd?

2) Am I ruling over my money, or is my money ruling over me?

3) Ten years ago, what did I think God wanted me to be doing with my life? Do I still have the same call? Is poor money-habits  keeping me a captive from doing God’s will?

4) Many of us tell ourselves that “there is just not enough money,” or “living expenses are too high here!” or something like that. But others make far less than you, and are doing just fine, aren’t they? Ask yourself very honestly: “Am I being held captive to ‘the worries of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches?’ “

The church of North America has all the money that is needed to fund world evangelism and compassion initiatives: the only problem is that those whiley weeds of materialism have so tied up our resources, that so many can barely pay their own bills, never mind helping others. (Christians are to work not just for themselves, but in order to give to those in need, Eph. 4:28)

It is time to change this trend, my friends, and break free from the weeds of materialism!

 

How Machen Helps Me Sort Out Wacky Jesus Scholarship

J. Gresham Machen, (1881-1937)

In his exceedingly helpful and insightful book Christianity and Liberalism, J. Gresham Machen writes, “the issue in the Church of the present day is not between two varieties of the same religion, but, at bottom, between two essentially different types of thought and life. There is much interlocking of the branches, but the two tendencies…spring from different roots.” (Machen, 266-267). Machen goes on to explain that the differences can be contained in a single word: “naturalistic” and “supernaturalistic.” From these divergent roots spring two completely separate systems of thought.

Read review of Liberalism and Christianity here: buy the book here.

I cannot begin telling you how helpful Machen’s simple insight has been in my latter seminary days.

Recently, for example, I was writing a paper on The Gospel of Mark when I stumbled across an author (actually several) who believed that a (hypothetical) document called “Q” came first, then The Gospel of Mark, then the others and finally John. These authors claim that Jesus was originally just a simple carpenter with some pithy sayings but by the time a generation had passed, he became God incarnate in John. This theory falls apart on numerous levels – not least of which is that Mark begins his Gospel with the words “This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” – but why even bother deconstructing it? Simply by looking at what these authors have said, I can see in an instant that they are writing and thinking from a naturalistic point of view. That is, they do not believe that God exists (atheism) or, if He exists, then He does not usually interfere with human life (deism) or, if He interferes, His workings cannot be known (agnosticism). From the vantage point of naturalism (that is, Liberalism) the one thing which could not have happened is for God to become incarnate, live, work miracles, die for the sins of humanity, rise again, and send the Holy Spirit from on high to inspire an accurate account of all these goings-on. By definition, miracles Do. Not. Happen. And it doesn’t get any more miraculous than God becoming incarnate, etc. In the tightly ordered universe of a naturalist/Liberal, the Gospels simply cannot fit. And so many scholars are busily at work trying to explain: “If it is not true that Jesus really came as the Son of God, etc., (because, of course, our presuppositions rule out such a possibility) then exactly how did the Bible come to be?” Most of the books and articles coming out of Liberal scholarship on the Gospels seems to have been written to answer just such a question.

Now, before I read Machen this stuff really troubled me. For example, when you read pages and pages of people who are saying, “well, this verse obviously belonged to this earlier manuscript, and that verse was added to combat this particular sect, and this passage was added to prop up the early church’s idea of God and that verse was added to censure the Jews” one certainly begins to wonder. What is it that these scholars (most of which have more degrees than I will have in a lifetime) know that I don’t?

Now that I have read Machen, however, I can simply smile and read on. Everyone has their perspective: it just happens that these poor unfortunate people have a very flawed perspective. They do not believe that miracles happen or that God can intervene in human affairs. Why these people are in Biblical studies is beyond me: but no matter. Such people tend to be rather diligent and attentive to details. So long as I understand where they are coming from, I can follow along in their works without any intellectual struggle, looking for the occasional pearl or insight, all the while knowing that the only reason they are going to so much work, and straining the evidence and their intellect to such herculean measures is because they have ruled out from the beginning the possibility of a miracle.

But this is no problem for me. I am a Christian. I believe in miracles. The whole tree of Liberalism withers from the roots up the moment you make that simple statement.

 

Rob Bell, Are You On A Journey, Or Just Plain Lost?

In this post I am returning to ideas and concepts laid out in A Decision to Remain Undecided. I would recommend this post to those wanting a more measured and thorough treatment of this concept.

One day when I should have been doing something else, I stumbled upon this youtube video, where the interviewer really gives it to Rob Bell hard on his new book Love Wins.

No doubt this book will be the topic of upcoming posts, once I get more schooling done. For the time-being, however, I was fascinated by one comment of Bell. He said that he was on a “journey” to understand these things. And he wanted to give people the “gift of not knowing,” so that others could journey along with him.

…but let’s be clear. Bell is not on a journey. Journeys have agendas, itineraries, road-signs and destinations. If you never arrive at your destination, you have failed at correctly “journeying.” I would highly encourage anyone to go on a personal quest to discover what they believe about Hell, the afterlife, abortion, homosexuality, and a host of other relevant, important issues. I want you to go on a journey because I want you to understand what you believe and own your decision. Sooner is better than later, but take the time that you need to know what you believe: that would be the gift I would like to give to you as a teacher and writer.

However, the “gift” which Bell seems to be giving is the gift of endlessly wandering. Never deciding. Never arriving. Working hard, but making no progress. “Always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth,” (2 Tim. 3:7).

Lost.

And who will deny that this is a “gift”? Once one arrives as a firm, inflexible belief in Hell, their whole world turns upside down. Suddenly AIDS seems like a cold, global warming like a mild rash, pop culture like a flicker in the night. What matters is getting people saved. After all, what difference does it make how comfortable people are in these short years, if they will spend eternity in the conscious eternal torments of Hell??!

Thinks about that one for a moment. Read over that last paragraph slowly. Think of what would change in your own life if you started living like Hell was real?

wow.

No wonder a whole generation wishes to endlessly defer the verdict on this question.

(In this post I am returning to ideas and concepts laid out in A Decision to Remain Undecided. I would recommend this post to those wanting a more measured and thorough treatment of this concept.)

(See also the post, “Review of Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis)”

 

The Purpose of Christian Education is…Love!

As I complete my MA in theology, I am left wondering “what is the point of it all? What is Christian teaching supposed to accomplish?”

1 Timothy 1:5 gives the answer: when done right, Christian teaching produces genuine, solid, loving, caring people. This is the “goal of our instruction.”

I hope you enjoy this video, where I explore this theme.

 

Seminary: Was it Worth It?

This is an excerpt from my journal, written on a particularly dark and confusing day. Although the issues I am grappling with are real and pertinent, please understand that I am writing with an air of hyperbole. The phrase “my professors” does not accurately represent all of my teachers, and this post does not represent my final opinion of Briercrest Seminary. 

Wouldn’t it be horrible if I graduated from seminary with some sense of certainty? If, for example, I knew what and how to preach, knew how to tell right from wrong, or felt confident in discerning thorny biblical problems? What if my confidence was ill-place? What if my confidence — ill placed or not — let me to pride?

This result seems to be hideous to the professors of my school. Determined to shatter any sense of certainty, they have “exposed” me to every wind of doctrine, while severing my anchor of certainty. I have been hurled headlong into the blustery, foggy, miserable dark night of the soul!

I am humbled, is true. And, thank God! I am not in danger of proclaiming a terrible, short-cited “certainty” on anything. But tell me — am I any good to anybody?

me, who does not know where Scriptures can be inspired, whether God can be trusted? me, who spends hours lost in clouds of speculative theology, but is unable to give a struggling teen clear direction on a pressing ethical question? me, detached, intellectual, bookish, “relevant”?

I have been taught to douse the flames of Sinai and plant roses on Golgotha – but where is that lamp, that once shone at my feet?

It is certain that that scholars will not call me stupid, or — horror of horrors — “anti-intellectual” — but what of the faithful? Will they welcomed me again into their midst? Or will I have become to them a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

For all my work, and all my tears — have I become only an old and worldly wise philosopher? Am I destined to spend the rest of my days watching little children and old wives singing joyously, laughing freely, living simply, all praying freely and sharing openly this faith which gave me birth, but to which I have been made a stranger? They are so certain in what they believe — but me? The strands of doctrine and thought and Scriptures seem like a spider web, wrapped around the end of a teacher’s yard-stick. Who can untangle that?

have I gained or have I lost?

am I lost or am I found?

may I help, or do I need help?

Was it worth it, was it worth it?

Have I learned, or have I doubted?

Am I faithful or apostate?

Have I become dangerous?

Was it worth it?

Was it worth it?

Who are you, Lord?

Would you smite me off my horse?

Would you blind me, yes, and cure me,

Would you knock me off my course?

Would you teach me, yes and teach me to suffer to be used

And in dying to be faithful, for this is the path I choose.

 

Still Awaiting a Barthian Response to Van Til

In my first post on Barth, in 2008, I was excited and interested in him, with no real reservations. By the time I posted on him again, (see here) I had had time to listen to Cornelius Van Til’s critique of Barth. The contrast perplexed me. I trusted my teachers, especially the dean of theology at Briercrest, Dave Guretzki (see blog, or facebook). Because they all recommended Barth, I trusted Barth to some extent as well. However, Van Til’s critiques sounded very tight, and really made a lot of sense. So…whom should I trust?

My usual approach in dealing with a monumental intellect (for example, Schleiermacher or Kant) is to read the competing sides of scholarship about the author. So, first I listened to all the Christian, anti-Kant stuff, then read some pro-Kant stuff, and then dipped into some of the materials myself and after that felt I had a bit of a grasp on his thoughts (See post here). Naturally, I wished to do the same with Barth. I had already heard the “anti-Barth” side of things from Van Til and John Frame. In an e-mail, I requested for Guretzki to refer me to “the other side” of the debate. He did not, but told me he would be presenting a class on Barth. Fair enough.

Then, in class, I learned the following about Van Til and Barth:

1) Van Til is a major interpreter of Barth. His influence has shaped the English-speaking response to Barth, especially in the previous generation.

2) This was validated in the fact that more than one other class-mate (there were only about ten of us) had also read extensively of Van Til’s critiques of Barth

3) Guretzki spoke of once visiting Van Til’s library, and noting how worn out his copy of Church Dogmatics was. Guretzki affirmed that Van Til had engaged in a very thorough and reasoned critique of Van Til.

However, even though Van Til seemed to be such a major voice (for good or ill) on Barth, Guretzki explained that the class was on Barth, not on his detractors. And so after a courteous mention, we zoomed on past the fiery Dutchman and continued with more of Barth.

For class, Guretzki assigned Tim Perry’s article, “Is Barth the Bad-Guy after all?” (Didaskalia 13.2, Spring 2002, 25-50). Between Perry and Guretzki, the following cavils (one cannot really call the critiques) of Van Til’s treatment of Barth were presented:

1) Van Til was embroiled in the Fundamentalist/Modernist (or “liberal/conservative”) debates of the early 20th century. (I wrote a detailed paper on this topic, see The Man Who Wrote “Liberalism and Christianity”) Due to his involvement in that conflict, he (erroneously) painted Barth with the same brush as he painted the Liberals.

This cavil was given, but not really explained. It doesn’t seem to hold much water. After all, later in the class it was noted that while some interpret Barth as being postmodern, others interpret him as being hypermodern. Or, they see him turning back to 19th century Liberalism, to re-pristinize it for a new generation. There is a touching story in the introduction of Dogmatics in Outline where Barth relates lifting a bust of Schleiermacher out of the rubble of his bombed-out school after the war, to place it in a place of distinction. For all his anti-liberalism in The Epistle to the Romans, how far did the apple really fall from the tree? I am not so convinced that the case has been made, that Barth is not a Modernist/Liberal, if anyone is even seriously attempting to make this case.

2) Secondly (and primarily) Guretzki complained that Van Til’s primary objection to Barth is an epistemological objection, rather than a theological one.

This objection seems to hold water until it is examined closely. Tell me, what is the difference between theology and epistemology? If one begins with just a few wrong assumptions (drawn from secular philosophy), isn’t that going to ruin all of the beliefs built upon it? Specifically, if one begins (as Van Til accuses Barth of) with Kant’s division between the “physical” and the “spiritual” – a division which was amplified by Kierkegaard - then one is beginning with a very flawed view of God. So then everything which Barth says about God being “unknowable” has little to do with the God of the Jews and everything to do with the philosophy of 19th century continental Europe. I am not saying that Van Til is right or wrong on this point. Such a question is – to borrow a famous expression – “above my pay-grade”: However, this is not an inconsequential question. It should have been dealt with seriously, if Barth can supply a serious answer.

3) Van Til takes Barth out of context. I was told that there were several works noting the inconsistencies in Van Til’s treatment of Barth – although Guretzki was kind enough to say that Van Til was reading and critiquing Barth immediately as his works were coming out (he published Church Dogmatics over the span of several decades) and so he did not yet have the full picture.

This critique is annoying and useless. So what if Van Til did not quite dot the “i”‘s and cross the “t”‘s quite right? The issue is not about one or two revealing quotes, but about the grand sweep of Barth’s theology. Van Til has read thoroughly of Barth. He was a very educated and smart man. He responded with some very poignant arguments which have made a deep and broad impact.

Now, then, I ask all you Barthians: “Where is the Barthian response to Van Til, which rises above mere cavils and stereotypes?”

Because no such work seems to exist, what else can I conclude but that Van Til has some very solid points, which the dedicated Barthian simply cannot cope with?

 

Barthian Ethics: He Can Negate – But Can He Mandate?

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic. If you have an objection or answer to my thoughts here, I would be hugely grateful for your input!

The entire thrust of contemporary Christian ethics seems to be negative. Whole churches, denominations, and Christians will define themselves against certain doctrines and ethical standards: not patriarchal/chauvinist, not sexually repressive, not homophobic, etc. The only positive all-out it seems to be that of friendship to the world: “open to gay/lesbian/bi/queer (GLBQ)”, “open to feminists,” etc.

Can a church really be “biblical,” however, if it teaches nothing that culture does not teach? Perhaps it is true that our society is perfect, and requires no reproof. What is that? You disagree? On what grounds? Not by playing off “conservative” versus “liberal,” for this is basically subjected. We need a voice of authority. We need a stable compass-point, to keep us from being blown around by every wave of doctrine. Where can we find this?

We all agree it is in the Bible.

However, Barth does not seem to be aware that simply saying that we must live in a matter corresponding to our redemption is meaningless. Britney Spears whereas (or wore) a WWJD bracelet: apparently, her message and lifestyle were compatible with her conception of Jesus. And this is precisely wherein is the rub: the fact is that we each construct an (idolatrous!) Jesus of our own imaginations. But, you object, Scriptures correct us!

Do they? Do they really? How many people do you know who are blatantly living in sin, while reading the Bible day by day?

Usually, sins only get dealt with when we are confronted by them. But if you remove the possibility of propositional revelation, you have removed any ability of Christian brothers and sisters from correcting in love the sinful party. Or, put another way, you have gagged Christ.

If I had a dollar for every time somebody said “I can’t ignore Jesus’ clear teaching on ask (usually marriage/sexual ethics) because ‘the Jesus I know wouldn’t have a problem with what I am doing…’ ” I would be a rich man, or at least would have my school debts paid off.

“Christocentricity” Which supersedes Biblical orthodoxy reduces inexorably towards and unaccountable “spirit of prophecy,” such that we are in danger, as Luther accused the Zwikau Prophets of, of “swallowing the Holy Spirit whole, feathers and all!”

Let another way, Barthian ethics seems to lead simply and directly to end a list and unaccountable subjectivity.

In practice, it is likely limited by habits and Christian culture: but who will stem the flood of antinominalism among our youth and new converts without some real, concrete commands of God?

 

Nihilism and Postmodernity

A question worth answering: How many erudite and snobbish “post-moderns” are really just nihilists in denial?

 

Creation Science: Two Options

I am still working through my beliefs on this topic. If you have an opinion you would like to share, or resources you would like to link to (audio resources are especially valued), or you would like to interact with my thoughts, I would very much like to hear your opinions.

In studying the question of Christianity and creation, two options present themselves.

First, we may surmise that what we mean by, “God, the Creator” is virtually identical with what we mean when we say “Frank, the carpenter,” or “Sally, the engineer.” That is, we may assume that God interacted immediately and simply with the creation as He formed it. He “set” the earth in place, he “flying” that stars in the sky, he (physically) knelt down and made an Adam out of the dust of the earth, etc. This reading has the advantage of being closer to the plain meaning of the texts of Scripture: this is probably this sort of thing which the original writers and writers of Scripture had in mind. This reading, however, is virtually incompatible with modern science.

A second possibility is that God initially infused this world with light, energy, matter and power, creating “something” out of “nothing.” This form is and raging wasteland he then over-shadowed with His spirit, and spoke order and life into it by His invisible Word, operating through the unseen power of His Spirit. Thus it is that we find the universe to be such an ordered place that we cannot speak long of it without speaking of laws — and who will not and then look upwards to the Law-Giver? And we find this powerful and beautiful and fragrant and invisible force also at work — breathing life and healing and richness and order into the most chaotic of wastelands. And will we not look up and look in, to see if this Spirit is not knocking at our hearts door as well?

This latter reading is not what the original writers had in mind: however, their words do break out of the mold of an anthropocentric cosmology, and point to some greater reality beyond the clear and simple. It is not a great stretch, but rather an enrichening and filling of Scriptures to read and thus. Most importantly, it distances Christian faith from one specific cosmology, allowing it to flourish within not one, but several times, ages and intellectual frameworks. Then, the debators of this stage may go about their business, without the inpatient intrusion of faith into discussions quite foreign and entirely beyond its expertise and proper domain.

 

How Barth “Actualized Chalcedon”

In studying Barth, I have often heard it said that Barth “actualized Chalcedon.” However, I have not really understood what this mean. During a recent class on Barth, my teacher explained this concept to me, and I would like to share it with you all.

I. Of being and actingTraditionally, we have been accustomed to thinking of the essence of personhood as “being.” That is, you are a human because you are a human “being.” A thing that is. You have certain human characteristics, a human “essence.” To look really closely at this idea, we would see that it originates with the Greek thinkers around the time of Christ: and it is not really compatible with modern scientific discoveries. We now know, for example, that as far as our “being” or “essence” is concerned, there is only a very minute (almost non-existent) difference between human “being” and animal “being.” We are both made out of the same living tissue, molecules, similar DNA, etc. What really differentiates human and non-human (animal) is not so much being but action. Thus, humans are humans in that they act humanly.
.Thus, it is more common today (in academic, philosophical circles) to speak of “actions” of “actors” in approximately the same way that we may be used to thinking of “beings.” Thus, a human “being” would be referred to as a “human actor.” Or, more correctly, we would not speak of the human “being” at all, but only the “action.” In acting humanly (for example, in crying or loving, or doing a distinctly human action) this one is, or becomes human. One cannot neatly devide between being and action: it is in acting humanly that the essence of “human” is attained.

This is known as “actualism.”

II. Chalcedon

The essence of Chalcedon is that Jesus was “fully God, fully man – without division or confusion.” Traditionally, this has been understood through Greek “being metaphysics.” Or, to put it in plain English, people have thought of Jesus’ divine “nature” as being united with His human “nature” in the incarnate Jesus.

Barth, however, takes the new philosophical “advances” (whether there is actually anything new, or better, in actualism is not the point of this article, nor am I really able to comment on that question) and applies them to Chalcedon. So Jesus “acted” humanly, and also “acted” divinely, and so was both God and man.

“But,” you ask, “how could Jesus have acted as a human without sin? Isn’t the essence of humanity sinful?”

III. Christ as the New Adam

To understand Barth’s Anthropology, we must understand his Christology. You see, although Jesus was born in the middle of human history, Christ was still the quintessential, or archetypal human. In a sense, Barth’s Christ fills a role which is traditionally reserved for the “first Adam.” Humanity is patterned after Christ, not Adam: thus, “Adam” becomes rather insignificant, as only “the first human, who happened to sin,” rather than the father and federal head of us all.

How then were we patterned after Christ? What is the essence of humanity, the image of God (imago Dei) which is the basic essence of humanity? Here, Barth “actualizes” humanity by saying that to be human is basically to “act” in a right relationship with God. It is, in short, to “worship” God. A human which responds to God in worship and gratitude is a true human: a human which responds in idolatry and ingratitude/anger is not a true human. Thus, the only “true human” is Jesus Christ – this is the God-man who incarnated in the midst of time, to perfectly exemplify the quintessential humanity.

Christ is fully human in that He worships God. He is fully God in that in the very act of worshipping God, He also redeems and saves humanity. Thus, actions which only God does and only humanity do come together in this God-man, Jesus Christ.

CONCLUSION:

Thus, when it is said that Barth “actualizes Chalcedon,” what is meant is that he replaces “being metaphysics” for “action metaphysics.” Rather than seeing essential nature as “being,” he sees it as “action.” Jesus is fully God and fully man in His actions, not in His essential nature, or “being.”

 

Is Jesus Wrathful?

Here is an exercise worth doing. Read Lamentations. Do it quickly – it’s a short book, you have time. Now, read it again. Ponder it a bit. Think about what it tells us about God, His attitude towards sin, His wrath towards man.

Now, here is a question worth asking: “What if the God of Lamentations is Jesus Christ?”

If it is this God who is coming to “judge the living and the dead,” as the Creeds all say, then we do indeed have a message to proclaim (but quickly!) and a life of careful holiness to pursue (cf. 2 Pet. 3:11-13).

 

Barth in Conversation with a JW

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic. If you have an objection or answer to my thoughts here, I would be hugely grateful for your input!

Jehovah’s Witness: “What do you have to offer that the Church does not?”

Barthian: “I do not merely teach dead creedal orthodoxy. I strip down barriers and walls. For me, theology is fresh and alive, a living breathing object rather than dead orthodoxy.”

Jehovah’s Witness: “How so?”

Barthian: “I believe that theology is all about Jesus.”

Jehovah’s Witness: “I agree.”

Barthian: “I mean, the Jesus of the Bible.”

Jehovah’s Witness: “I agree.”

Barthian: “I mean, the Jesus of the Bible as interpreted by the historic creeds.”

Jehovah’s Witness: “Sounds like ‘dead, creedal orthodoxy’ to me!”

 

Foundationalism is not “Modern”

Does anyone seriously wish to make the claim that foundationalism*  built upon propositional** truth was invented only in the last two centuries? Are these not constitutive of normal human mental ability and function? It is true – and who will deny it? – that previous generations have over emphasized the ability of the mind to create systems and decipher all of the secrets of the cosmos and (in theology) of God. As most of us (New Atheists excluded) know, this is impossible. There are limitations to human mind. Rationality will not solve everything. We need some humility – as in physics, so now in metaphysics. However, what we do not need is a full retreat from the pursuit of truth along foundational, propositional lines.

Yes, we may never be able to hit squarely the bull’s eye of “True.” However, in aiming for it, we will likely miss “worse” and strike at “better,” avoiding “worst” altogether. And the effort will have been worth it!

When emptied of foundationalism and propositional truth, one is left only with art and poetry. Although nice as decoration, only a fool would prefer art to science in architecture, in politics, in medicine, in theology.

* Foundationalism: the process of reasoning where you begin with things which are known, then work upwards and outwards to construct a rationally coherent worldview

** Propositional Truth: “Truth which can be communicated in the form of a statement in which a predicate or object is affirmed or denied regarding a subject” (Jack Bartlett)

 

Barth: Postmodern and Christian?

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic.

Perhaps there is a way to speak Christianly within every epistemological/philosophical framework.

Is it possible to be a Christian Platonist? I certainly hope so – otherwise Augustine is “out.”

Can one be a Christian Aristotelian? If so, Thomas Aquinas certainly was one.

Can one be a Christian “Post-Modern” (for lack of a better term)? If so, then Barth shows us the way, if we wish to follow.

 

Barth: Ever Learning, Never Understanding?

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic. If you have an objection or answer to my thoughts here, I would be hugely grateful for your input!

How can “the kingdom” the open to children if even mostlay-people are unable to engage in the costly art of “dogmatics,” those whodoengaged can do so only by reading all of Barth, and even Barth was only provisionally successful at finding any real information about God, his requirements of humanity, the mechanisms of salvation, and our eternal destiny!

I used to believe that we simply read the Bible, applied to our lives and live it. However, Bart would have us believe that the solution is:

1) Exegesis, exegesis, exegesis…

2) …in the context of the whole tradition of the church…

3) …in dialogue with culture…

4) …continually starting again at the beginning.

No wonder he saw dogmatics as an “impossible possibility.” This approach leaves no time for anything but endless study, which produces no real results. (2 Tim. 3:7).

At the end of the day, is Barth really any closer to understanding God then at teen in awe, staring at the heavens and saying, “Wow!”?

 

Barth: Influenced, but not yet Convinced

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic. If you have an objection or answer to my thoughts here, I would be hugely grateful for your input!

It would be disingenuous to say that I am untouched by Barth. Directly and indirectly, I have basked in the glow of his raging intellect. I am tanned from his radiation. Whether or not I have become or will become similarly irradiated, however, is the question under consideration. At any rate, might options are radical detox, or radical emergent: simple avoidance is no longer an option, if it ever was.

 

Of Genius and Insanity

The difference between genius and insanity is often that most elusive, arbitrary, and subjective factor: success.

 

My Barthian Breakdown

The first two days of class were an absolute blur for me. Having spent over two years pondering this topic, and several months intensively pondering it, the moments were almost frosted with an aura and a glow, as I realized “I am finally here! This is finally happening!” After the first day, I told my wife, “I know for sure I want to be a theologian!” My excitement level was electric. I was jogging everywhere, not even taking time to eat. Reading, listening, thinking, writing, preparing, thinking, listening. Go, go, go! I was in my element!

Towards the end of the second day, however, the strain began to catch up to me. Having already decided that I did not trust Barth, I refused to simply sit and absorb his thought (if you haven’t already, please read, A Wise Shepherd of a Wandering Mind). I wanted to listen critically, and retain my own identity as a thinking individual, rather than simply becoming subsumed into Barthianism. In the terms of the above-mentioned post: I refused to enter the labyrinth, but wanted to take it all in from an aerial view, understanding without becoming overcome.

It was all too much. After putting energy into a poorly prepared presentation (time, alas, was not on my side!), my energy levels began to lag early in the afternoon on the second day. The mental strain was becoming unbearable. My head began to pound terribly, I felt what little food I had eaten begin to churn and tie my stomach in knots. Determined to get my money’s worth, I resolutely soldiered on, but finally had to call it quits: I set up my computer to record the rest of the lecture and whimpered off to bed.

My head hit the pillow at 4:00 and I descended into a dark and dreamless place until about 10:30. When I awoke I stumbled around to find food and a pen. In desperation and despair I scribbled these words out to the Lord:

“God, I really, really feel like just throwing in the towel.

“God, is it really as complicated as all this? Is all this stuff really helpful? Do we really need to be theologians after all? What is the point of this?

“On the other hand, can I really retreat into a non-theological teaching ministry? Can I pretend that the Enlightenment didn’t happen, or that Barth didn’t live?

Jesus: “Do not retreat – ride forth, mighty warrior and conquer”

“But a lifetime would not be sufficient to learn, to conquer, to master it all!

“My hope is in you, Jesus – please, please make all this clear!!”

I fell back into sleep and the next morning awoke refreshed. A decision had been made, although I don’t remember making it: I would simply give in. For the remainder of the week, I slowly allowed myself to be sucked into the vortex of Barthian thought. I did not resist. I began to understand. I made a beginning of letting myself think like he did. By the time I was ready to drive home, I was wondering what my problem with Barth had been after all? I even apologized for my candor in critiquing Barth in my assignment “Quotes from Barth.”

Sometime on the road, about 40 miles from Caronport, I began to emerge. I poked my head out of the rat-race, climbed up on top of the cage and scampered back to my Evangelicalism. I spent the next two months intensively deconstructing Barthianism and reconstructing Evangelicalism in opposition to him from Scriptures.

The result of these labors is the paper, “The Gospel According to Barth.”

 

Barth Class

Well, it is finally here! After pestering my teacher twice (see here and here), Dave Guretzki (see blog, or facebook) has finally offered to teach a class specifically on the theology of Karl Barth. That I am excited about this class is an undstatement of epic proportions. For better or worse, Barth is the most important theologian of the last century, and perhaps since the Reformation. Guretzki has written a major book on Barth (Karl Barth on the Filioque) and is an emerging leader on Barthian studies.

What better topic to pour my energies into? And who better to do it under? I am pumped!!

With his permission, I have included the syllabus from the class: BT859 Theology of Karl Barth January 2011.

For those following my journal posts, please contextualize my thoughts on Barth by noting which come before, during, and after this class, which stretches from January 3-6.

Yahoo!! I am so excited to begin!!

 

Pre-Class Questions for my Barthian Teacher

Before class, Dave Guretzki (facebook, blog) asked us to prepare a few questions, to guide our class-discussions. I think I went a little over-board. I created and e-mailed the following questions to him. I also printed these questions and – although we did not have time to cover all of them – I jotted down the answers which I believe are appropriate under most of them. (You can see the word document Here) I will answer my own questions in an upcoming series of posts entitled, “Some questions for Barth”

 

WHAT ABOUT BARTH?

 

Josiah Meyer

 

“Questions I have for Barth”
MAJOR GOALS FOR CLASS:

 1. Understand Barth’s central message. If Barthianism is a real system, I want to be able to comprehend it well enough to enunciate at least the basic tenets of it. If Barth wrote a gospel tract, what would it contain? When I go home, my pastor will ask me, “So, what does Barth teach?” In under five minutes, I want to be able to answer him.

2. Understand Barth’s Christology. Everybody always says it is all about Jesus. From hippies to fundamentalists, from Mormons to Liberals, from Marcionites to Muslims, everybody says they are “Christ-followers.” To say that one’s theology is “Christocentric” is about as useful as saying that it is “good.” I want an answer to the question of the ages: “Who does Barth say that Christ is?” I hope the answers are very specific, and get into the nitty-gritty details, where we all know the Devil is lurking.

 3. What in the world does Barth mean: “I have actualized Chalcedon”? It’d just be nice to know what he means by this phrase.

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CLASS

General Questions

What is “Dogmatics”? How does it differ from “Dogma” and from “Systematics”?

1. Is Barth arguing for a minimalistic systematic theology, an open-ended systematic theology, a non-systematic theology or some other option…?

Scripture

1. If Scriptures do not deliver propositional information, how do they reveal Christ to us?

(e.g. no existential meeting of one person with another will be completely devoid of propositional information. Personhood is more, not less, than propositional information: generally, the more complex the individual, and the deeper the relationship, the more facts one will learn about the other)

1. If Scriptures are not inerrant, by what cipher can we “edit” out the less “human” portions?

Doesn’t this editing demonstrate that some other filter (e.g. the human mind, science, “the scholarly consensus,” etc.) is the actual, normative norm to which we are forcing Scriptures to submit?

1. If Scriptures are not inerrant, is it not arbitrary to say that Christ meets us only here?

1. Did miracles happen: 1) in the events recorded, and/or 2) in the act of recording them?

(e.g. did Moses really see a real pillar of fire, which hovered over his camp, and did he really speak to God face to face, and receive real information about events long since past and some events yet to come – e.g. his death – and was he then guided by the Holy Spirit to write these events down inerrantly?)

1. Or, conversely, did God in some way inspire the writing or redacting of various “opwards-questing” human authors?

(e.g. were the writings of the Pentateuch the result of some over-zealous Babylonian captive, desperate to create some sense of national identity, who pasted together Jewish, Palistinian and Babylonian myth, along with some fallible histories and folklore, thus creating the Pentateuch?)

1. Is there a difference between the historicity of the OT and that of the NT?

1. How does the OT testify to the NT?

• Is it fluke? (I assume not)
• Is it revelation? In that case: a) how can the OT be part of the upwards-questing religious attempt of Judaism? b) why did God reveal His will imperfectly?

1. Where does Barth get his propositions from?

(e.g. How does he know the details of the Trinity? Also, where does “the command” come from, in his doctrine of gender? Gollwitzer, 194-229)

1. Since Barth gets propositional information (from “somewhere”) why does he object so strongly to systematics?

Orthodoxy

1. 1.      Barth often speaks of “orthodoxy” and “heterodoxy:” against what concrete standard are heretics called out, since all Christian heretics (by definition) use Scriptures?

Soteriology

1. Is there now any distinction between the “saved” and the “lost”?

(if not: 1) why does God through the prophets/apostles call people to repentance? 2) in what way is the Church called to be, and actually considered to be hagios? 3) in what way is the church given the keys of the kingdom, or actually made the agents of reconciliation in the world?

1. Will there be, in the future, a distinction between the “saved” and the “lost”?

(If not: what is the point of all our costly and at times brutally disastrous missionary ventures? Also: 1) what do we make of all the “hell” and “wrath” passages, 2) what do we do with the reward passages? 3) in what way do we tell people that choosing God now will be a “good” choice, even if it means immediate torture and death in this life? 4) in what way will the righteous be “vindicated” over the unrighteous in the final judgment?

1. Rob Bell seems to utilize Barthian concepts, and draws his line of distinction between Christian and non basically as a distinction of works: what would Barth say to that?

(Bell describes salvation as sitting in a restaurant and being told by the waitress that your bill has already been paid. One must not live in the reality of believing that the bill still must be paid: they must live in the new reality that it really is paid. How do they do so? Be a good person. Don’t be a bad person. As he summarizes: “Heaven & Hell are both full of people God loves and died for. The difference is how they lived their lives.” Because this system has no real place for repentance – and thus faith – the pull towards a works-based salvation seems to be virtually irresistible)

Anthropology

1. 1.      If God did not redeem all mankind (as Barth repeatedly claims he does), would He still be just and loving? Barth seems to say that He would not be as loving, and perhaps not as just: but does this not imply that humanity is in some sense loveable and deserving of mercy?

 

1. Yes, technically Barth is orthodox. But practically speaking, isn’t he saying that all will be saved in the end? Isn’t this universalism? Why, then, the run-around: “just come out and say it, why don’t you!”
2. Isn’t Barth conflating and confusing the “two Adams”? Functionally, the first Adam seems to have been completely replaced. What is his real use or function today?

Christology

1. What is “the Christ event”?

1. Who was/is the historical Jesus?

1. What is the relation between the Johannine doctrine of “Logos” and the Greek notion of “logos”?

1. Who was/is the second member of the Trinity?

1. Who was the first Adam? ______________ Who was the second Adam? ____________

How are the two related to: 1) each other, 2) the human race?

6. How are all these persons related to one another? Specifically:

• In what manner was Christ pre-existent?

• Did the man, Jesus, contribute a separate volitional mind, or only a physical container for the divine substance?

• Where is Christ now?

• How does Christ impact us/speak to us now?

• What is the living Christ’s relationship with the Christ of paper?

On Preaching

1. What does Barth do with the many conversion stories, of people who experience/hear from God only with Scriptures, without a preacher present?

1. Doesn’t Barth place preaching/prophecy over Scriptures, rather than (as he should) placing prophecy/preaching under the scrutiny/power/norming influence of Scriptures?

Eschatology

1. In God Here and Now, as well as in a few other quotes, Barth seems more than a little agnostic about the actual events of the eschaton, specifically on judgment, etc.:

• Does this agnosticism flow (as Van Til posits) from a Kantian division between nominal and pneuminal (inherited through Kirkegaard, and thus through Hegel and Kant, and flowing ultimately from Descartes)?

• Barth leaves the possibility of real shock and surprise open: do you think (this question is subjective) Barth has really wrestled with the question of “what if eternal, conscious torment is really meted out on all who make no profession of faith in this life?!” This question haunts my dreams, and ignites my prayers.

• What does he do with the Scritures on Hell/fiery judgment?

• What does he do with the passages motivating us to sanctity, perseverance and mission, based explicitly on the judgment? (e.g. 1 Pet. “since all these things will be consumed in this way, consider what lives you should live…”)