What Do Homosexuality, Women in the Church & Home, Fornication, Divorce & Remarriage, Emergent & Hell All Have In Common?

There are some things in life which are not important until they are essential. One of these things is insurance. Another is a parachute. Another is a life raft. In ministry, one of these things is knowing where you stand on a hot-button topic.

I am convinced that the time to form an opinion is NOT half-way through a ministry posting, when a hot-button topic suddenly surfaces and threatens to wound hearts, destroy relationships, squelch spiritual life and tear the ministry asunder. This is absolutely not the time to be caught flat-footed, with no research and completely oblivious to the nuances and complexities on a certain topic. When you formulate an opinion before entering a ministry posting, one has leisure to study it fully and come to one’s beliefs in an honest and unbiased manner. In the heat of the moment, however, one has neither leisure nor objectivity. Most importantly, the decision becomes a deeply personal event: now you are not just making up your mind, but potentially condemning the actions of vulnerable, hurting peoples. This is the stuff of church-splits and scandal.

Convinced that I needed to come to conclusions on many of the main topics before entering full-time ministry, I have been slowly and methodically working my way through the major hot-button topics which confront the church in our day.

THE BACK-STORY

I had been working on several topics for a while, but the decision to work on them in a more public way happened rather unexpectedly. I posted my decision to cease calling myself emergent (see From Cool, Young Emergent to Boring, Old Conservative), and that received some very irate comments, and was linked to some other blogs, where it was disparaged. Unexpectedly, my readership shot up from around seven hits a day to around thirty. I tried to clear things up by responding to a comment somebody made: I had said I wanted to “step up to the plate” in my home. I felt like expressing myself very clearly on this point would clear up any misunderstandings, and soothe over tensions. Boy was I wrong.

That post got noticed by the kindly folks at the Council for Biblical Equality (CBE). I had five separate people posting very vigorously, and challenging my conclusions and beliefs on this topic. I continued posting and debating to try to defend my positions and come to a conclusion: in the meantime, my blog shot up to one hundred and sixty hits in one day, then leveled off around fifty a day. This was enough activity to bring me onto the google-radar, and the rest, as they say, is history.

WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP

The debate on women in leadership eventually came to an impasse. I said that I held the traditional view that the New Testament states that men should be the head of the home, and that men should lead and do the primary teaching in churches, etc. (note: obviously there is more to it than this: I am summarizing) but I was challenged as to my hermeneutics. Did I believe in head coverings (1 Cor. 11)? Did I believe that men had to pray with their hands raised (1 Tim. 2:8)? Did I greet people in my church with the “holy kiss” (Rom. 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Thess. 5:26)? If I decided that certain New Testament practices were outdated and cultural, how could I mandate others? I didn’t have a good answer, and so I ended my portion of this debate with a promise to find some answers to my own hermeneutical system, so that I would be able to come back at this topic with a fresh start.

That is about where I left it: although I have come to my own conclusions on this matter (which I expressed in a sermon that I hope to post sometime in this millennium), I have not posted on it again, simply because I have been scared off by the hermeneutical challenge.

FORNICATION

About the same time that I was debating women in the church, a young man I (as well as other pastors at our church) was mentoring referred me to some youtube videos which (I am glad to say) seem to have disappeared from the internet. He had been publishing under “Not Another Generation.com”, but this seems to have re-routed to another, similar site. The premise of this guy, at any rate, was that fornication was not forbidden in Scriptures. After all, times are much different now. “Fornication” back then was usually in a temple, with all sorts of weirdness associated. Nothing like good clean prostitution, or modern sex between mutually consenting adults. The guy really got my blood pressure up – not least of all because the person who referred this material to me was facing some serious temptations at the time, and someone fuzzing the lines really wasn’t helpful at all. I got all set to do a youtube video in response, but eventually did not do it for several reasons. First of all, I felt and looked ridiculous. That would describe about fifty-percent of the talking-heads on YouTube, but for myself…I just couldn’t bring myself to post something I produced in my garage, talking into a video camera. Also, other people were posting and were doing a much better job than I ever could. Most significantly, however, this antagonist was picking away at my Achilles heel: he was asking hard questions about how to read the Bible. In one post, for example, he loudly proclaimed, “Dude! Your Bible has a copyright on it!” This means, of course, that somebody is making money from selling you their translation of the Bible. And if they are making money, don’t you think they would have a bias!? How do I know what I am reading is accurate? The same is true (so he said) for the major concordances which are used by Churchmen: however, he had an obscure concordance which I had never heard of, but which was supposedly more accurate and not corrupted by the “church-bias”: according to this concordance, the critical verses were not translated to forbid fornication. He happily concluded that he could with a clear conscience fornicate to his hearts content, and still be a Christian. Other than mock him for being so arrogant as to boast that he alone (with no education whatsoever) was more educated and smart than the whole Christian church, I didn’t really know what to say to this guy.

HELL

The next topic I tackled was hell. I think it is important to note that I began talking about this topic as one which struck terror, shame and deep pain into my soul. I questioned “what if it’s really true?” What if, what if….if it’s true, it would have to change everything wouldn’t it? I started to become convinced that it actually was true that: 1) we really are a very very sinful race and 2) that God really is a holy, just, sovereign God, and 3) that this means that countless billions will suffer an eternal conscious torment of sufferings for the lifetime of sin which they have committed. Wow – just saying that…it is one thing to say, another thing to really process. Especially when one also believes that the only way to avoid hell is to place one’s full trust and confidence in the free gift of salvation offered in Jesus Christ, the son of God. He paid what we could not, so that we could receive what we do not deserve, but so desperately need – grace.

In Behold now…severity of God, I began to process this reality, and examine some of the ramifications. A friend from CBE began debating my literalistic interpretation of the verses. This post ultimately ended in frustration, but the underlying issue was again one of hermeneutics: I read the Bible basically like I read any other book. I read metaphors as metaphors, I read hyperbole as hyperbole, I read direct statements as statements of truth. It all seemed terrifyingly unavoidable and unambiguous. However, how could I prove that I was reading the Bible the right way? After all, I am not absolutely familiar with the original context – maybe the original writers would have heard something different than what I am hearing….?

EMERGENT

I wrote a lengthy review of Brian Maclaren’s “A New Kind of Christian” and Rob Bell’s “Velvet Elvis“, and I don’t want to get into the content of those books very much here. However, it was very interesting that hermeneutical considerations formed a bulk of their works. Echoing many things I had heard before, they both brought up: 1) how the Bible had been used to endorse slavery, crusades and abuse of women, 2) how there are difficult verses which most people don’t know what to do with, 3) that the Bible was written a VERY long time ago, to a different culture. Thus, they concluded, it was just too simple to say “the Bible has this answer to this question.” This opened the way to present their own version of the gospel, which – as I mentioned elsewhere – is really only deism, or Liberalism, or Unitarian theology (by the way, these are all the same thing) repackaged, and with flashy graphics, wide-brimmed glasses, and a wise and twinkling eye.

HOMOSEXUALITY

Most recently, I have also been looking at the topic of homosexuality. Surprisingly, hermeneutics have not come up in my online discussions: however, when I read Justin’s essay in defense of Christians in homosexual relationships (see here), I was struck with a sudden, overwhelming sense of de ja vu: after some not-so-convincing arguments in which he tried to dismiss the well-known verses on homosexuality (his attempts were similar to the Campolo’s arguments, see here), Justin then went on to deconstruct conservative Evangelical hermeneutics. After all, he said, Christians have used the Bible to endorse slavery, the subjugation of women, and even crusades. (Wait a minute! Haven’t I heard this before…?) The Bible was written long ago, to a very different culture (hm…sounds strangely familiar), and finally, in conclusion, God is all about love, right? So why would a God of love actually tell His people that it is wrong to do something? (Note: I am being a little bit trite in my review: I actually think it is a very well written article, worth more time than I am giving it here although of course I disagree).

It was in reading Justin’s essay that the lights finally came on.

What do the topics of women in Christianity, of fornication, of hell, of emergent, and of homosexuality all have in common? Aside from being hot topics today, the glaring link between them all is that one side leans very heavily on a deconstruction of hermeneutics. The similarities are striking. Slavery came up in all of those topics. Abuse of women was next, followed by crusades. All of them found it necessary to prove, in one way or another, that the Bible could not be trusted. Ultimately, all of the people trying to pull their audiences away from the traditional view began with attacking the way most Christians read their Bibles, and ended by saying, in one way or another, “What really matters is that we all love one another, and love means agreeing with me, not with the conservatives.”

Now, I am not insane: I am not trying to debate all of these topics all at once. However, I have grouped these topics together for a reason: but I have realized something significant. Let me express it this way:

Let’s say that we were not Christians, but Muslims. Instead of trying to prove that our beliefs line up with the Bible, we are trying to make our beliefs line up with the Koran. Now, on one side of the debate are people who know the Koran inside and out. They are quoting passages, they are cross-refrencing, they are citing historical applications of the Koran, they are trying their very best to do exactly what Allah says is right on this issue, whatever it is. On the other side, a group of people is rapidly becoming experts in ancient studies, and in modern studies. They constantly challenge the “literalists” as being too shallow. They question whether the Koran can be understood on its own, as it stands. They draw many obscure “facts” (some of them real, some of them more questionable) to prove that the original context sheds all-important light on crucial passages. They point out that the Koran has been misinterpreted in the past, and strongly imply (although they never come out and say) that most of the Muslims, for most of the history of the religion have been wrong. They, however, are right. Oddly, the beliefs they seem to find the Koran teaching are exactly the same beliefs as their surrounding culture is teaching them.

Now tell me – which group do you think would be better Muslims? The group who read their holy-book and try their best to live by it, or the group who reads everything but the holy book, and tries their best to prove that their book does not actually say what it seems to say?

Let’s switch the metaphor again: rather than Muslims, lets’ invent a new religion – call it the Brittannicites. Our stated belief is that so long as we are true the the Encyclopedia Britannica, we will be saved. Now, which group is a better Brittanicite? The one who spends all their time reading commentaries about the original authors, the editions and redactions, and decides that after all, the Encyclopedia is not really very easy to trust and should be rejected? Or is it the group which actually reads the book, and does their level best to apply it to their lives?

This discovery has not really proven anything: however, the next time that someone begins, ends, or places a very heavy emphasis on the “okay, nobody knows what the Bible says, okay!? I mean, it was used to validate slavery for pete’s sake!” card, I will certainly be skeptical as to their real willingness to listen to God, as opposed to attempting to put words in His mouth.

 

Driscoll on Parenting Daughters

I thought that Mark Driscoll’s sermon “I Was A Wall” was a very excellent sermon on parenting in general, and parenting daughters in particular. For more on his view of dating, you can check out his sermon “Religion Saves and 9 Other Misconceptions: #3, Dating.” For more of Driscoll on parenting, you can check out the sermon “Pastor-Dad,” or download the free e-book also called “Pastor-Dad.”

All really solid materials!

 

Letter To A Bartian Professor

I originally wrote this letter to one of my “Bartian” (aka followers of Karl Barth) professor in my seminary. I am still hoping that he gets back to me eventually: in the mean time, however, I would like to also send my probings out onto the broad, wide seas of the world wide web, in hopes that someone out there will have some helpful thoughts or resources to send my way!

Mostly, I am hoping to get the other side of the debate, since I feel that my iTunes U class (“History of Philosophy and Christian Thought,” by Dr. John M. Frame, especially lectures 21-23), has argued strongly against Barth, and I don’t know who to read, for a voice championing his cause.

The traditional answer is for me simply to “dive into” the original documents, to read deeply of Barth from his own words. I am stuck with the dilemma, however, that if I were to do this at this point in my life, my thinking would likely become siginificantly shaped by Barth for life. Before I can ethially do this, however, I need to know whether Barth is on the level, and whether I should entrust my feeble, wandering mind to his tutolage. (Read more about my thoughts on this in “A Wise Shepherd of a Wandering Mind.”)

My solution is to read lightly of Barth and heavily of the second materials at least until I am able to see the major flaws in his thinking, so that when I do finally plunge in, I will know what to look out for.

If people have educated opinions to share, or pertinent resources – audio resources are highly prized!! – I would be very appreciative!

*****

Dear Dr. X:

Hello there!

It has been a while since we talked in person, and it will be a while until we talk again, since I am hoping to take most of the rest of my seminary by correspondence. There are some things which I am really struggling with, however, and you seem to be the natural person to talk to about them, since they all tie back to Karl Barth.

Would it be possible to schedule a meeting by phone in the next few weeks, to talk about some of my questions? …

I know that your time is limited, and so I have chosen to write this rather long e-mail to maximize efficiency. In this way, you will be able to skim quickly over a concise presentation of my thoughts, rather than listening to my faltering attempts at verbal precision on the phone.

*****

I had never heard of Barth until I entered seminary, and since that time, it seemed at times like I was hearing of no-one else! Naturally, this lead to a desire to know more about this man. Because there did not seem to be classes at (my seminary) which studied Barth as an objective subject, I looked online – specifically at iTunes U – to find some scholarly voices on the subject.

Those who seemed to have the most to say about Barth were Reformed “VanTillian” thinkers. You will probably not be surprised that these people had more critiques than affirmations when it came to Barth. Some of the material is beyond me, but in what I understand, I am feeling myself siding against Barth. I am hoping that you can present the other side of this debate, or at least point me to some names and titles which can speak in favor of Barth, as I continue to grow in my understanding of 20^th century theology.

OVERVIEW OF MY EMERGING THOUGHTS

I am beginning to see Barth as analogous to Brevard Childs. As I understand him, Childs was a man who excelled for years at Liberal (secular?) hermeneutics, but eventually felt a distinct lack when he realized that the theology which he was practicing was different from the faith of the Reformers and left no room for the faith which he cherished in his own heart. The rest of his legacy could be described as a monumental striving to bridge the impossible gap between the historical-critical method and the Christian faith.

I mention Childs not to say that I have formed a final opinion of the man, but by way of illustration: Increasingly, I am seeing Barth’s legacy in a similar light – as a monumental attempt to bridge an impossible gap.

BARTH’S OBSTACLE: LESSING’S UGLY DITCH

It seems to me that Barth is stumbling over that same obstacle which Kierkegaard and others struggled with – Lessing’s ugly ditch. If I can put this problem into my own words, Lessing understands that history as based ultimately on sensory data, which is flawed. Also, in no time or place does anybody have a “God’s-eye-view” of events, and so it is impossible to draw true applications from the disparate events of one’s day. Finally, the transmission of data from one generation to the next is flawed. The upshot of this is that we cannot know with absolute certainty exactly what Matthew originally wrote about what he thinks he saw, even if we were to trust his words (which we should not): or, in Lessing’s words, “If no hostorical truth can b demonstrated, then nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truths,” (Gotthold Lessing, Lessing’s Theological Writings, trans. Henry Chadwick, London: A & C Publishers, 1957, p. 55).

By the time Barth comes on the scene, the Liberal wing of the church had become quite comfortable setting up shop on “their side” of the ugly ditch, redefining Christianity around various systems of human perfectionisms through morality, romanticism, etc. Famously, Barth found the “faith” of Liberalism to be crushingly inadequate in view of WWI and the rise of the Third Reich in his native land of Germany. His solution is to engages in a thorough deconstruction of Liberalism (which I approve of), and then to spend the rest of his life trying to bridge Lessing’s ditch for himself, through existentialism (which I am not so sure about).

BARTH’S SOLUTION: EXISTENTIALISM

I find epistemology to be an ironic discipline, because while it is supposedly the study of “knowing,” those who spend too much time formulating a comprehensive epistemology almost inevitably end up with a system which warps all of knowledge around only one aspect of knowing. Thus, philosophers seems less in touch with reality, more inclined to insanity, and less able to function in the real world than their contemporaries, who apprehend reality in a more ad-hock fashion.

Existentialism, as I understand it, is an epistemological system which interprets all of reality around human experience. The old question, “If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, did it really fall?” seems to be a watershed question: an existentialist would answer “no:” since no human had an experience of a tree falling, it did not occur.

Barth seems to tip his hat to Lessing’s ditch in his discussion of “Historie,” then builds his theology of “Geshichta” around a basically existential understanding of God: we know God because we experience Him.

How? When? Where do we experience Him…?

First, we must understand that God is timeless – He is eternally present to us all, in Himself. Even as we rush through time, He is always near us, in the present. His entering into history seems historical to our perspective: however, to Him all of His intrusions into calendar-time are one – they all happen in “Geshichta,” in God’s special “time-space bubble,” if you will. God intruded into this world by setting it in motion, by talking to the patriarchs, by coming at Pentacost, by revealing Himself in sermons, etc. – but all of His intrusions are echoes forwards or echoes backwards to His prime revelation of Himself as Christ on the cross. The prime experience of God with this world was that moment when “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself,” (2 Cor. 5:19): that is, the moment at which the “being” in God overcame the “non-being” in God. All other events participate in that one event, but they are subordinate to it.

How is Lessing’s ditch bridged, then? God meets with His people ultimately in Christ, who is mediated through Scriptures and through preaching. These encounters are momentary from our perspective – but they are true existential occurrences of meeting with the divine. It is in these events – and in the fact that they are mediated only through Scriptures and Christian preaching (most definitely not through natural revelation!) – that a Christian may/must place their faith and trust.

Thus, Barth sees Scriptures as fallible, in agreement with Lessing and the Liberal camp: however, he sees God’s use of fallible Scriptures not as contradictory, but as an example of His great grace. The God who could speak through Balaam’s donkey, can also speak through such a book as Isaiah – a book written by three authors, handled roughly in transmission, and redacted beyond recognition by who-knows-who. (At least, that is what the Liberals believe)

IS BARTH BIBLICAL?

I am not sure whether I am understanding Barth correctly: I would very much like to know whether my brief sketch above is accurate!

If my sketch is accurate, I would tend to see Barth as “the best option, considering a poor starting-point.” If one accepts Lessing’s presuppositions, I suppose that Barth’s solution to the problem is among the best out there: but isn’t Lessing’s ditch the unique problem of a modern/scientific/empirical worldview?

LESSING’S UGLY PRECIPICE

I mentioned that Lessing has some dangerous presuppositions. I believe that the chief of these is one that runs deep to the core of our modern/scientific worldview: the belief that until science has spoken, there is no truth. No herbal remedy or folk cure should be trusted until “the experts” have done their job. Likewise, no text or document should be trusted until the experts have combed over it and sorted out the truth from the errors.

Here there is a problem, however. Although pop-scientists talk often about “facts” and “proven realities,” the fact is that the scientific method is a method of skepticism. Even something as basic as the boiling point of water is only likely to be at a certain temperature, given the known variables. Nothing is know for certain – there are only probabilities. Also, every few generations, the established norm is overthrown for a completely new paradigm. We can know nothing for sure.

For this reason, the most logical stance of a scientist is “skepticism.” Until a thing is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it should not be believed. Even when it is believed, the thing must be held loosely – there is no such thing as unquestionable fact.

I do not debate at all that Lessing’s ditch exists: however, I find it significant that it did not become a problem until the modern era. The ditch is not the problem: it is standing within the modern/scientific worldview which creates the problem!

TOWARDS A SCRIPTURAL HERMENEUTIC

According to Scriptures, there is no ditch. Rather, the Biblical writers predicate their words on accurate sensory-experience (1 John 1:1). They write their accounts guided by inspiration (1 Pet. 1:21, 2 Tim. 3:16), and bequeath their testimonies to “faithful men,” (2 Tim. 2:2, Col. 4:16) to be held to and expounded from (2 Thess. 2:15) without dimunition or alteration (2 Pet. 3:16, [Rev. 22:18-19?]), as an enduring and accurate possession of the Church and foundation for faith (John 20:31).

No bridge must be built from our side: God has already built one from His side, in the holy writ of Scriptures.

Of course this doesn’t make any sense to the modern scholarly community…but whose approval/disapproval do we fear in the end?

RETURNING TO BARTH

In reading Childs and Barth, I kept feeling like they were working very hard…but I had no connection with the enemy against which they fought. At the end of decades of hard-won ground, it seemed they had returned again (and barely!) to the level of my Sunday-school teacher. Finally they were able to speak of a God who communicates to us through Scripture, who died for our sins, who loves us and who made a wonderful place for us to be with Him after death. Although I greatly admire their wisdom on some points, and stand in awe of their monumental careers, I cannot help but wonder: have these theologians spent their lives climbing out of a hole which I could just as easily walk around?

A TENTATIVE WAY FORWARD

Evangelicals, of course, solve Lessing’s problem by saying that the Bible is “inerrant.” I like it that this provides a quick and easy path across the ditch, but it seems to be a bridge of glass. This is saying, in effect, that Scriptures have passed all of the tests of science, before and in spite of any evidence to the contrary. As soon as someone comes in contact with Liberal scholarship, or one error (no matter how tiny or inconsequential!) the entire system shatters. Also, it affirms the critical flaw with the whole system – it allows Science to set itself up as judge and jury over God’s word.

My thoughts on this are very tentative: however, perhaps what must be done is to begin with God, and allow every man to be a liar. What do Scriptures say? They begin with a God who is, and a God who speaks. He is the judge of all the earth, and none judge Him. The grass withers, the flowers fade – but the word of our God stands forever.

In ancient Greece, the cross of shame and “folly” was a crucified Lord, and a bodily resurrection: perhaps our cross of shame in this day is a Bible which demands that we hold it above the opinions and preconceptions of the ever-shifting scientific consensus…?

SOME FOCUSED QUESTIONS

I have touched on many things in my words above: when we talk next, I hope that these focused questions will help to guide our discussions:

1)    Do I have Barth nailed, or am I seeing him too much through the lenses of the secondary material?

2)    If so, where can I go to hear the other side of the perspective?

3)    Do I have Lessing, the ditch, and Liberalism somewhat figured out?

4)    Do you agree with me that there may be a way to circumvent the ditch, by abandoning some aspects of modern/scientific thought?

5)     Do you see a thesis in here somewhere, or should I just do this research on the side, for my own benefit?

I look forward to our conversation!

Thank you and God bless!

- Josiah

SOME ADDITIONAL MISC. POINTS, JUST IN CASE THERE IS EXTRA TIME

1. I have also heard that Barth conflates the person and work of Christ, by saying that Christ is the work of God. This makes sense in an existential framework (I am my experiences, as I progressively reveal/discover who I am by making free choices which lead to new experiences), however I don’t see it borne out in Scriptures, where the Father and the Son and the Spirit act – at times simultaneously, in harmony but distinction. (e.g. who was speaking in Mat. 3:17? Who was coming down from the Father, and resting on Jesus?)
2. Barth says that when we meet with God, it is instantaneous, and we are immediately left with only memory and longing. This, to me, places Barth exactly where he started – trusting faltering sensory data and memory/memory-transmission. If there is an ugly ditch separating us from Matthew, how can I trust Barth – or, for that matter, my own memory – when relating a more recent occurrence of “Geshichta”? The difference between trusting your own memory and trusting the gospel accounts is not a difference of quality, but of quantity: you still must blindly place your trust in potentially flawed systems of data-recognition and information storage and transmission…right?
3. In “Evangelical Theology,” Barth says that the love of God comes before the wrath of God. How does this fit with the teachings of Scripture that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”? Also, when Peter preached on Pentacost, he started with the bad news. Once people were “cut to the heart” over their sin and the wrath to come, he shared the gospel. Barth seems to have things backwards here…
4. Perhaps tied to the above comment…I have heard that Barth talks of sin/salvation/redemption as all occurring within God. This is the moment when God’s “non-being” is overcome by His “being.” How does this fit with the Scriptural teaching that “there is none righteous, no, not one,” which would seem to imply that the problem of sin is in us humans, not in God? Also, there is that tired out accusation that Barth can’t seem to free himself from….isn’t Barth being a universalist here? I heard that in one of Barth’s books (a collection of sermons), Barth reveals that his sermon which he preached to convicts in prison was that, “You are already redeemed – now live like it!” Is this a misrepresentation? If not, isn’t this promoting works-righteousness, and false security? I have also heard that Barth’s theology on this point has dramatically reduced the desire and effectiveness of missionary work in the 20’th century. Again…just wondering how much of this is true, and looking forward to some answers or hints towards resources. Thanks a bunch!