Patristic, Presbyterian, Puritan, Post-Modern, Pentecostal

I moved my blog

2006-10-01T20:44:00.000-07:00

This blog has moved. Please change your bookmarks to:

Believing Jesus

believingjesus.org

I will no longer be updating this site. I moved everything over to the new blog.

If you previously had linked to my site, please feel free to re-link to Believing Jesus

If you have not previously linked to my site and would like to, let me know. Or, on second thought, just go ahead.

More Aggressive Arguments Against Teetotalism

2006-10-01T16:35:00.000-07:00

I really don’t intend to attack any people in this post. I do have every intention of attacking ideas. This is the more aggressive side of the debate concerning alcohol.

In Colossians 2, the Holy Spirit inspired inerrant, infallible words penned by the Apostle Paul which forbid anyone judging another concerning alcohol. “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink,” (Col. 2:16). He goes on in verse 18 to warn his readers that heeding such rules and regulations concerning asceticism (denying the body) could result in their disqualification. Now, there is certainly quite a bit of debate as to what exactly is meant by disqualification, but we can all agree that it is not a good thing. So, if you won’t listen to me about all this, listen to Paul – “Don’t get disqualified!” We should follow our conscience, not a bunch of rules imposed upon us by others. If you think this issue should divide Christians, ask youself if you think that abstinance from alcohol is a sign of salvation. If so, please read Galatians 5. Those who seek to be justified by that law have been severed from Christ and have fallen from grace (v. 4). Please, don't disqualify yourself by asserting wrongly that alcohol is this important of an issue.

But, what about when these leaders who we look up to explain? They often teach, “It isn’t sinful to drink alcohol, but it is unwise.” Well, if you think this is a good argument, first you have to acknowledge, along with the leader who taught you this that you are, in essence, saying that, while Jesus might not have sinned, the Son of God did make unwise decisions. That sounds really bad, doesn’t it? Don’t think people actually say things like this in order to defend their ridiculous ethics? They do. I dont' want to name names right now, but if you check around on the blogosphere, it's not hard to find comments even more absurd than this. Thus, if you want to say that God incarnate was not homoousia with the Father in His omniscience and His wisdom, go your own way and be a heretic. But, if you want to be a Christian, stay within the bounds of orthodoxy and acknowledge that this might truly be a cultural issue.

But, your leaders warn you that alcohol is evil (i.e. - the Joshua Convergence Articles passed Sept. 25, 2006)). Well, as I posted earlier, that’s about like saying cars are evil. But the Apostle also addresses this topic in verse 23: “These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” (Col. 2:23)

Lastly, I’ll attempt to tackle the weaker brother argument. As we approach this subject, let’s keep in perspective who the weaker brother is. This argument is very similar to the “above reproach” argument. First off, we should recognize that the only reason the primary reason that there are “weaker brothers” is because we create them by continuing to insinuate that alcohol is wicked. Thus, when they see someone drinking, they “stumble,” not by getting drunk, but by judging the Christian who has learned to enjoy God’s gifts in moderation. But, when we take a closer look, those who advocate this argument often are bolstering themselves as the holier, more mature Christian. This is quite the opposite of the humble low road that someone who truly is weaker would have to take in making this argument. This is contrary to the verse principle the Apostle Paul appeals to in Romans 14 – the weaker brother passage. If someone wants to make this argument, then they necessarily call themselves the weaker, less mature brother. If they cannot get past this most basic part of the Christian life, they are certainly not qualified for leadership.

Quite frankly, it’s just high time that we acknowledge that what may have been viewed as a sign of piety in generations past, but it’s just not anymore. No one from generation X or Y thinks anyone is holier or more sinful on the basis of their responsible consumption of alcohol. Wait. That’s not true. There are some who think this way, but only those who have been previously exposed to the legalistic lies behind the so called “holiness tradition.” My point here should drive that last nail in the coffin in asserting that this incorrect, anti-biblical worldview is self-propagating in an effort to defend itself. Our culture has changed – embrace it to redeem it, don’t reject it to condemn it.

But what if you’re still not convinced? After all, these are your elders, and you really respect them. There is nothing wrong with this. Follow your conscience. If you think you shouldn’t drink, don’t. No one, not even me, is trying to force you to drink alcohol. But, in the same manner, other people should not be imposing regulations forcing other people not to drink alcohol, like the SBC has been doing since its inception.

Why legalism is so Sinful

2006-09-28T16:22:00.000-07:00

This was so good that I decided to transcribe the whole thing. Dr. Piper summarizes a lot of how I feel concerning the spiritual upbringing that I’ve had and how it relates to legalism.

If You Want to Love, You Must Die to the Law

If you wan to be a loving person, the way to pursue it is to die to the Law and to pursue a vital, all-satisfying union with Christ. Romans 7:4 says, “You also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.” Notice the exchange: die to the law and belong to the one who was raised from the dead, that is, Jesus. This leads, Paul says, to bearing fruit for God. And the preeminent fruit of the Christians life is love. Therefore the key to love is to die to the law and embrace Jesus Christ by faith as the Savior and Treasure of your life.

But this does not mean that the Law aimed at something other than love, Romans 13:10 says, “Love is the fulfillment of the law” (NASB). So it seems that death to the Law means something like: Stop using the Law unlawfully. That’s the way Paul talks in 1 Timothy 1. There are folks who want to be “teachers of the Law” but “they do not understand…what they are saying” (verse 7). What are they doing wrong?

Paul explains in 1 Timothy 1:5 that “the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and good conscience and a sincere faith.” So Paul’s gospel ministry aims at the fruit of love. People who love from “sincere faith” are in sync with the gospel.

Where does this love come from? He says it comes “from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” In other words, the way to pursue love is by focusing on the transformation of the heart and the conscience and the awakening and strengthening of faith. Love is not pursued first or decisively by focusing on a list of behavioral commandments and striving to conform to them. That is what we must die to.

Then in 1 Timohty 1:6-7, Paul describes some men who don’t understand this and yet are trying to use the Law for moral transformation. They are making a mess of it. He says, “Some men, straying from these things [that is, from heart, the conscience, and faith], have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand…what they are saying.” So their error is a misuse of the Law. They are trying to teach the Law, but they are turning aside from matter of the heart and conscience and faith. And so they are not arriving at love.

Is then the Law at fault? No. Paul absolves the Law, by saying in 1 Timothy 1:8, “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully.” The “lawful” use of the Law is to use it as a pointer to the gospel of the risen Christ, which awakens love. Paul confirms this in verse 9 by saying, “Law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless, rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners.” What does he mean? He means that the Law does not need to do its job for those who are united to Christ by faith and are bearing the fruit of love. It needs to do its job by confronting sinners with the fact that their lives are contrary to the gospel and that they must pursue “the gospel of the glory of the blessed God” and belong to the one who was raised from the dead.

Paul says, with a sweeping statement in verses 10-11, that the Law is for pointing out, and convicting people of, “whatever is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God.” This is very significant. Notice the connection between the Law and the gospel here. Who is the Law for? It is for “the lawless, rebellious, the ungodly and sinners,” that is, for those whose lives are not “according to the glorious gospel.” That is, for those who do not love. For love is the aim of Paul’s gospel (verse 5). The point is that the Law does not produce lives that accord with the gospel. Used lawfully, the law sends us to the gospel. That’s the point of Romans 7:4 – you must die to the Law [as a way of producing the fruit of love] and be united to Christ by faith “so that you might bear the fruit [of love] for God.”

In other words, according to 1 Timothy 1:5-11, the Law is meant to accuse and convict people of breaking the gospel! “The law is for…whatever is contrary to…the glorious gospel” (verses 10-11). The law of commandments is not the first and decisive means of fruit-bearing for the Christian. Rather the Law brings us to Christ so that, as Romans 7:4 says, “you might be joined to…Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit [of love] for God.” Oh let us embrace the risen Christ!

Life is too brief to waste it romancing the Law of commandments. That marriage will not bear the offspring of love. Make haste to Christ. Let the Law be, not the wife, but the humble matchmaker between you and Jesus. Don’t fall in love with, and don’t hate, the humble go-between. Die to the Law. Belong to the living Christ.

Open the eyes of our hearts, Father, to see the precious and limited role of Your Law in bearing the fruit of love in our lives. Lead us into deep and personal union with Jesus. Let this relationship with the living Christ transform our minds and wills so that we want what He wants and hate what He hates. Make us, by this union, radically loving people. In Jesus’ name, we pray, Amen.

It seems to me that we often makes law out of does and don’ts that have the appearance of wisdom, but are of no value in stopping the indulgences of the flesh (Col. 2:23). Furthermore, such unlawful, legalistic uses of the Law prevent us, and point us away from what really matters – Love. It seems to me that if we read Piper correctly as he exposits the meaning of “union with Christ,” he is talking about intimacy with Jesus. Instead of fighting against this teaching, it’s time we embrace it and allow Him to, not merely reform our behavior, but rather truly transform our hearts towards love, the very thing that is impossible to do with the law.

On the Foolish Ethics behind Teetotalism

2006-09-28T10:09:00.000-07:00

Right now, I really want to write an essay on the foolishness behind the anti-alcohol trend in the SBC. But I don’t have time. So, this may serve as an outline for me to do this sometime in the future, and will hopefully generate some good discussion.

First, the resolution states clearly in the title that it concerns alcohol use “in America.” If alcohol is as evil as the authors of the resolution insist (the SBC apparently agreed with this), why doesn’t it condemn alcohol worldwide? And why stop at today’s world? Let’s go ahead and say that alcohol has always been, and will always be, an instrument of the devil. Oh wait, that makes Jesus a sinner, and Paul the Apostle foolish and uninspired. I knew there was a reason.

So, what has happened? The older generation of the SBC is not in touch with reality. Maybe during their hay-day it was considered a sign of piety to abstain from alcohol. But our generation doesn’t. Instead, we’re smart enough to recognize these attitudes as legalistic, and not in agreement with the Bible. If we insist that the Word of God is the sole authority concerning faith and practice, why do we appeal to our own traditions? We have divorced the faith from culture in a bad way. As we look through Christian history, it is clear that “prohibition” has never been an important part of the Church’s moral agenda. In fact, we don’t even see this except from about 150 years ago. This was the hey-day of the SBC, thus, our denomination was born in an era of this kind of legalism. Hence, it is difficult for us to escape the generational curses that are upon us today. It would necessarily involve renouncing our heritage as unbiblical. Ouch.

So, let’s analyze briefly the ethical arguments behind teetotalism. 1) Alcohol can lead to drunkenness, which is sin, so let’s avoid it, 2) we must be above reproach, and 3) alcohol was different in the Bible.

1) No one really wants to follow this absolute ethic consistently. We might get upset at someone cutting us off while driving and loose our temper and curse God’s name, so we shouldn’t drive. In fact, cars are evil. By the way, car accidents destroy far more families year in-year out than alcohol. Even accidents that are alcohol related could be avoided if there weren’t any cars. Get rid of cars, we solve the problem. If you think this is stupid, then quit making the same logical argument about alcohol.

2) First, the only reason that alcohol (even in moderation) is viewed by some as sinful is because Baptists continue to tell people that it is. This lie is self-propagating because we don’t fight against it. Things like this are the reason that I’m sometimes ashamed to call myself a member of the SBC. Besides, most people don't view alcohol in moderation as sinful. Thus, it really isn't a matter of being above reproach at all. Second, when alcohol is enjoyed in a responsible, godly manner, the Holy Spirit is on display for the world to see (the fruit of self-control). How about testifying with your life to the goodness of God in giving good gifts to His children, and showing others how to enjoy them the way He wants us to? Third, the sin behind the idea of “above reproach-ness” is religious pride. While there are times and places that we do need to make sure that we have a good relationship with outsiders, and we need to avoid even the appearance of evil, alcohol is not one. To disagree with this statement is to assert your ethic as higher than that of Christ. I would not encourage this. Jesus ate and drank in such a way that the Pharisees called him a drunkard. He was not concerned about his reputation in this way, and we are all called to be Christ-like.

3) If the alcohol used in the Bible (wine) were different, we wouldn’t have the warnings to not get drunk with wine (Eph. 5:18). The same word here is used in John at Christ’s first miracle on record – turning water into wine to give to people who have already had too much to drink. Dr. Stein of SBTS argues that one glass of today’s wine is equivalent to about 28 glasses back then. Let’s round down to 25 glasses. It would take me between 3-4 glasses of wine per hour to get drunk. Why warn people not to get drunk with wine if they would have to drink 75-100 glasses per hour? That’s like telling people, “Don’t drink 2 gallons of water every hour.”

This is only part of what I’ve got on this. I’ll post the more aggressive stuff later. In the meantime, post you pithy ponderings in the comments.

Stuff other people found for me to post here

2006-09-28T08:52:00.000-07:00

These thoughts from Touchstone briefly summarize some of my concerns from the "Theological Hermeneutics" series. Great minds think alike :) (HT: Mere Christians)

Also, Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds has linked to someone who has done an amazing job detailing the importance of studying the Puritans. A++++++ on this stuff.

How to be a Legalist - Part 1

2006-09-27T09:02:00.000-07:00

As promised, I'm going to post a series on the recent on-goings within the SBC. Those of you from the College Station community will know what I mean when I say that this series may serve as a "theological sternum" - it may hit you in the chest. So, if you have a weak stomach, you may want to avoid this series. I'm attempting in this series to fight against the narrowing focus of the SBC, and against the poor appropriation of Christian Ethics in my denomination. Lastly, I'm also trying to show that we, as Christians, must learn to embrace our culture, interact with it, and, ultimately, seek to redeem as much of it as possible. This includes things that we condemn as evil becuase we viewed things with a bad perspective (i.e. - alcohol in moderation).

So, before we really get going, take some time to read SBC Resolution # 5 of 2006 (copy posted below). Leave a comment - let me know if you agree or disagree, and why.

Resolution No. 5
ON ALCOHOL USE IN AMERICA

WHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35); and

WHEREAS, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation's highways; and

WHEREAS, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and

WHEREAS, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal; and

WHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of "our freedom in Christ"; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.

RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.

How narrow will the SBC get?

2006-09-25T09:42:00.000-07:00

Here is why an eccumenical attitude must prevail.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well... are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant ? "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist" "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. (Emo Philips)

Raymond Lull: First Missionary to the Moslems - Samuel Zwemer

2006-09-25T09:22:00.000-07:00

Raymond Lull: First Missionary to the Moslems - Samuel Zwemer

Raymond Lull is my new hero of the faith, besides Jesus. Since being called into full-time Christian vocational ministry, I’ve struggled with what exactly my calling was. I feel very comfortable in an academic setting because God has gifted me with an intellect that I can use well, and a desire to educate myself an others. But the Lord has seen fit to place me in a missions organization (HGM) where academic theology is not stressed. So, I’ve had to ask myself, “Is there a place for an academician in the missions world, or do I need to change in order to fulfill my calling?” Then I read Samuel Zwemer’s biography of Raymond Lull.

The man lived in the lat 13^th and early 14^th centuries. Living before the Reformation, Lull was ahead of his time. Though he certainly was, to some degree, a product of his environment, his theology was more catholic than Roman. The ecumenicalism his life was encouraging to read, and gave hope to me for our present age. In fact, the only things that Lull pushed in his dogmatic theology in apologetic debate with the Muslims were the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, and the love of God. What a crazy idea! He focused on the essentials of the Christian faith in seeking the conversions of Moslems.

But that’s only part of what I find so amazing about Lull. His theological arguments were indestructible. His arguments were rational, based on incredibly precise philosophical points of view from a pre-modern paradigm. Lull wrote extensively on philosophy, theology, medicine, and language. Not impressed? His works number greater than 4,000, and he wrote in three different languages: Arabic, Catalonian (a version of Spanish), and Latin. Truly, this man was a genius.

But it gets even better. Lull founded numerous missionary training centers and mobilized monks of the Franciscan order to be missionaries to the Islamic world. The same idea of Boot Camp that God has called me to found in Bryan, TX is what this colossal intellect did all across Europe. When I visited with my boss about what God was showing me through this biography, he encouraged me by “giving me permission” to be who God has created me to be – an academic missiologist. Lull, one of his heroes as well, is the kind of academic theologian this world needs today – one who takes his findings to the ends of the earth.

So, am I going to be the world’s next Raymond Lull? Probably not. I’m not that smart. But, by God’s grace, love Jesus more everyday with all my heart, all my soul, and (like Lull) ALL of my MIND. I’ll use every bit of what He has given me to glorify Him where I am and see His glory spread across every part of the world, as the waters cover the seas (Hab. 2:14).

Great thoughts from people other than myself

2006-09-24T21:36:00.000-07:00

SBC Outpost has posted some great, pithy comments concerning the current SBC controversies. Personally, I think the precepts behind his statements are very applicable to our community in College Station.

After that, take some time to read Rachel Holland's thoughts concerning the SIN of gossip. A question: How is this sin compatible with the requirements for biblical leadership found in 1 Tim. 3? Discuss.

Thoughts on Aesthetics

2006-09-24T13:51:00.000-07:00

There is something distinctly Christian about beauty, even though beauty can seem relative. How can this be since “beauty is in the eye of the beholder?” Because there is something evil about ugliness. When we really take a look at things, there are at least some universal principles when it comes to identifying something as beautiful. To truly analyze this requires more time than I want to take, and more philosophy than I know.

But, why does this matter anyway? I was struck in reading a devotional passage from John Piper. Consider this thought provoking paragraph.

“The other reason I say that imagination is a Christian duty is that when a person speaks or writes or sings or paints about breathtaking truth in a boring way, it is probably sin. The supremacy of God in the life of the mind is not honored when God and His amazing world are observed truly, analyzed duly, and communicated boringly. Imagination is the key to killing boredom. We must imagine ways to say truth for what it really is. And it is not boring.”

Right on! I think this is going to prove more and more important as we move further away from modernity, and more towards a post-modern culture. People will listen if there is something beautiful about what we have to say, and Christianity is beautiful because Christ is beautiful. Consider: love is a beautiful thing, and so is the end of world hunger, racism, and hatred. Death being destroyed is a precious thought. Living forever with God in supreme harmony is a joyous, happy, wonderful, beautiful thought! We’ve got to learn to appeal to people’s sense of beauty when we talk about Christianity. To fail to do so might be sin.

Through the Dust - Denny Gunderson

2006-09-24T13:31:00.000-07:00

Through the Dust – Denny Gunderson

This book kicked me in the teeth. Gunderson’s commitment to Christology provided a rich examination of the model of the Savior, and a strong critique of modern “leadership.” The author repeatedly points out how modern Christians often look to Nehemiah or Joshua for examples of leaders in the Bible, but continually overlook the servant leadership of Jesus. Every chapter paints a picture in which, based on the wisdom of the world, it would seem that Jesus should have responded in a manner differently than He actually did. I took two months to read this book (one chapter per week) so that I could really digest what I was reading. Taking the extra time allowed me to truly examine my own heart, and the leadership structures that I’m familiar with based on my upbringing in the Christian church. I am thoroughly convinced that we need nothing short of another Reformation to deliver us from the ungodly methods that have been modeled for us.

However, where many have read this book and have rejected institutional Christianity en total, I have not. Instead, I have desired catholicity and accountability in the worldwide Church to fight against the problems we see running rampant in so many fellowships today. Furthermore, even though I loosely hold to a lay/clergy distinction, I firmly hold to the idea that both laity and clergy should serve together on a board of elders in governing a church. Thus, reading this book has convinced me that single elder/pastor led congregations are going to have certain problems that can be avoided if alternative forms of church government were chosen (i.e. – Presbyterianism). More over, the Reformation that I (along with Jesus) am calling for concerns orthopraxy (right practices and actions) and orthodpathy (right feelings and motivations) more than it does orthodoxy (right doctrine and theology). Read this book. Read it slowly. Examine what you’ve seen and heard. You’ll be convinced that much of what is called “Christian leadership” is little more than power-mongering territorialism. I know that I’m bringing my own bad situations into my reading of Through the Dust, but I’d be surprised to learn that I’m the exception. Hopefully others will give this book a read, and some beneficial, edifying conversations will be generated in the body of Christ.

Learning to Love People you don’t Like – Floyd McClung

2006-09-23T11:15:00.000-07:00

Learning to Love People you don’t Like – Floyd McClung

This was a difficult book to read. Not because it was dry, and not because I disagreed with what McClung has to say. In fact, it was just the opposite. I was struck to the core over and over again as I read story after story that revealed my sin to me. By God’s grace, this conviction led to godly sorrow, and that to repentance many times over. This book, along with the other book mentioned below, aided me in reevaluating my paradigms for relationships and leadership. This book is highly practical and immensely beneficial to those who will take the time to pray through what the Holy Spirit reveals. Devotional in nature, the theological precepts of this book are simple: God has given us a command to love everyone – our friends, our neighbors, and even our enemies. This book should be required reading for all Christians when they join a church, or at least for clergy. If anyone has ever had a clash with someone, they should read this in order to learn what godly relationships can look like, even with people who you don’t like. Please don’t mistake this short review to communicate that this book isn’t important. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, view the brevity as me not wanting to spoil the fruit that will be born in your life by reading it. Furthermore, I can’t adequately describe how much this book helped me. Move this book up in your reading list. Read it slowly, and devotionally (one chapter a week, or something). It will be worth your effort.

Regurgitation

2006-09-23T09:08:00.000-07:00

Sorry that so much of what I have to say is secondary these days. I guess I think others have said it better than I can. Hopefully, I can serve as someone who can direct others to valuable reading that they otherwise might not encounter.

In light of not-just-a-few discussions I've had about my post linking Peter Leithart, please read the following. It might help clear up what I dislike modernity so much. I'm actually a little bitter that it has not, and cannot, deliever the goods that it "promised." Read Michael Sawilowsky on Soren Kierkegaard on removing the offenses of Christianity.

Next check out Alistair Adversaria on N.T. Wright on Infant Baptism. It's long, but worth the read. I've never taken the time to think about how much modernity (read individualism) has influenced my view of this particular ordinance/sacrament. I'm still holding to a creedal baptist position, but, if A.A.'s representation of Wright's position is faithful ( and I think it is), then he (Wright) has a lot of good things to say that we (Baptists) need to appropriate somehow in our theology of baptism. How? I don't know...

The current problems

2006-09-23T07:31:00.000-07:00

Everyone should take a look at Steve Camp's post "You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you, don't you? Don't you?"

He's right on about much of the evangelical world. What hits close to home is how much I have done the very things he condemns, and called it discernment and discipleship. But what I'm talking about is not just our group, but American evangelicalism in general. Take this quote for example:

There are no “Protestant Popes” (despite the supercilious stature of some evangelical leaders) who think that when they speak, we must obey with unquestioned "amens" and blind loyalty.

Now couple that with this:

What’s very disappointing, is that when you do question some of "them", they will not just disagree with you, but they want to hurt you.

I'm actually surprised that Steve Camp shares my feelings on this. I'm guessing that the critical spirit of this age has caught up with him and his friends. It really is sad. The way that I've lived out this sinful, critical lifestyle is by seeking to undermine those with whom I disagreee. Somehow, if my audience will think less of my opponent via my speaking evil of him/her, then I gain credibility in comparison to them. What pride! Can we not see that this strife is sown by still comparing ourselves with other people? (thanks to Ryan Wayson for this insight)

I'll just remind everyone to go re-read what my friend Michael said in one of his lists at Missions Blog. It's not okay to:

1. When you share something and people think it is strange and don’t like it, call it conviction. When someone shares something you think is strange and don’t like, call it discernment.

2. Assume that someone’s lust/gluttony/cursing problem is worse than your unlovingness/unkindness/just generally being a jerk. God is willing to overlook your sin because you hand out tracts, the good kind.

3. If something bad is happening to someone else assume it is because of sin. If something bad is happening in your life assume it is spiritual attack or persecution.

4. If you ever disagree with anything someone says, make sure to write off the 90% of good stuff they are saying. After all, a little leaven leavens the whole loaf. I don’t care if their book did point out a bunch of stuff I needed to hear.

5. Use the word heretic all the time. Don’t worry about whether it is true or appropriate. People need to know you are serious. Get really mad at people that call you one.

6. Establish a million extra-biblical rules. Make sure that everyone serves Jesus out of fear and “responsibility” and never cheerfully with grateful heart. You may be robbing people of their joy, but they can suck it up.

7. Preach the Bible as completely inspired and authoritative, but make sure to never talk about the verses that people “abuse”. Verses like “my burden is easy, my yoke is light” and “learn from Me because I am gentle and humble of heart” turn people into slackers. Don’t even get me started on Jer. 29:11.

8. Always believe the person that speaks the loudest and with the most certainty about their views. Become this person.

9. Always preach about the sins your not involved in. That way you can be really ungracious about it and not feel like a total hypocrite.

10. Preach a standard even you can’t keep. Preaching a standard twice as hard as you actually want people to keep will produce the results you’re looking for. People typically compromise and will only come halfway. Don’t worry about the condemnation they feel for the other half.

11. Never let people see you aren’t as spiritual as you portray. Don’t let on that you are feeling sad/depressed/stuggling with sin. This could cause people to stop esteeming what you have to say. You can suck it up and hold it together until Jesus comes.

So, everyone, just STOP IT! (HT: Nick Terry @ Shaking the Gates) Let's get back to Biblical, New Testament Christianity.

"Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations - 'Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch,' (referring to things that all perish as they are used) - according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." (Colossians 2:16-23)

I'm going to write a expositional sermon in the next few weeks about this passage. When it's done, I'll post it. In the meantime, more concerning this stuff is coming down the pipeline. The very things condemned in this passage are the very things killing the SBC today, especially in my community.

What's coming up

2006-09-22T13:23:00.000-07:00

Over the next few days, I’m going to be posting a number of things. First, be on the lookout for lots of reading log info. Most of what I’m writing is what the Lord has been showing me as I read these devotional books. An academic book requires an academic review. However, of late I’ve been spending a lot of time reading less than academic works in order to take time to slowly read a number of devotional type, character development books. Please let me know what you think.

Also, I’m going to be posting some stuff about this year’s Southern Baptist Convention. These posts will primarily revolve around ethics, and how we have been taught wrongly what it means to live an aggressive Christian life.

These posts will lead me into a more academic discussion regarding the sufficiency of Scripture. I hope to type out some provocative thoughts that should stir up quite a hornets’ nest. Tune in to find out what tradition is mandatory, and learn the impossibility of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

He's a genius

2006-09-22T09:58:00.000-07:00

Peter Leithart is one of my favorite people right now. You can find his blog at Leithart.com. Check out his post in which he appropriates pre-modern thinking in relation to the debate concerning pluralism, which is currently plaguing the church.

What you’ll find is that this debate eventually reduces to what is really knowable with exact certainty (or Cartesian certainty). I find that little of Christianity can be “proven” beyond any shadow of a doubt. Thus, the need of faith, and the ability to listen to those who disagree with us, even though we don’t accept the validity of their claims.

This post of his on hermeneutics is also highly beneficial.

Though highly academic, Leithart is worth the read, if you can follow. Understand where he's coming from. He's a high presbyterian who likes catholicity. He's part of the Federal Vision project. I'd recommend coming to the table with a working knowledge of ancient thinking, modern thinking, and an idea of what post-modern philosophy is all about. Right now, I've been doing my best to find a book to recommend to those who are not aware of how much they've bought into modernity. If anyone has any ideas, let me know.

What could possibly be more important than Theological Hermeneutics? WE HAD A BABY!

2006-09-20T18:32:00.000-07:00

We had a baby! Abigail Annelise Arbour was born at 4:29 on Monday. Weighing in at 7 lbs. 3 oz., she was 20 inches long. Mom and baby are both well. Wesley and Dad are adjusting rapidly to the changing environment. Thanks everybody for your prayers! We'll keep everyone informed as more develops.

Theological Hermeneutics # 7 - Conclusion

2006-09-15T08:13:00.000-07:00

Getting Beyond the Basics

Based on what you’ve read in the last 6 posts, hopefully you realize that we need to find more advanced Christian methods of Biblical interpretation. Sadly, Christian leaders reinforce bad principles with their off the cuff comments. Remember Lig Duncan’s remarks about interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12?

If you can get Paul’s statement “I do not permit a woman to teach” to say “I do permit a woman to teach” you can make people believe anything.

Well, Rev. Duncan, I’ll start interpreting this verse strictly based on historical/grammatical hermeneutics (as you seem to advocate in the quote above) as soon you stop arguing against the miraculous gifts of the Spirit and start greeting people with a holy kiss just before you wash their feet.

I am still a complementarian. But the way that I arrive at these conclusions is very different. More and more, I’m convinced that it’s not just the destination that matters: it’s how you get there. The hermeneutic is just as important as the interpretation and application. There are many reasons for this, but most obviously (as I’ve pointed out all week), we must be consistent. Another reason is that we miss out on a lot of our rich Christian heritage and tradition when we don’t bother to ask why things matter, particularly with the two questions I propose: 1) Who is God to this issue, and 2) What harm is done to the Gospel if we get this issue wrong?

I’ll just speak from my own experience for a minute. I love the doctrine of the Trinity. I love God, who exists as a Trinity. I understand that anyone who does not believe in the Trinity is not a Christian and will ultimately perish. I know why this doctrine is so central to Christianity. Without it, nothing makes sense. But to explore this here would be too far off subject. Anyhow, by this doctrine we can interpret significant portions of Scripture. If we don’t learn to do this, we build a glass ceiling for ourselves over our hope of “climbing the ladder” in terms of our walk with God. We will ever be trying to glean more from the Bible, but it will be impossible.

If we’re honest, we’ll admit that Biblical interpretation is a lot more of an art than we like to confess, and a lot less like a science than we try to make it. We must quit acting like it’s so black and white, and, above all, we should educate the laymen and quit speaking pedantic language and “pretend” like we’re helping them by oversimplifying the issues. The reason we don’t actually teach people is because we have a “cookies on the bottom shelf” mentality, which, in effect, ensures our own power. We don’t tell the truth because it inhibits our ability to be dogmatic and divisive.

Consider this brief synopsis of St. Augustine on interpretation, taken largely from On Christian Doctrine (Teaching). His ideas are sometimes referred to as the hermeneutics of love. Because Scripture is difficult to interpret, it requires wisdom. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. The fear of the Lord also produces holiness, necessarily. Thus, holiness, or love, is a prerequisite to interpretation. As a side note, I like this because it means I don’t have to listen to pagans.

In conclusion, I just want to say that historical/grammatical exegesis is a great starting point, but a terrible finish line. Arguably, this method is the best to determine what the author was trying to say to the people to whom he wrote. However, historical/grammatical hermeneutics are useless in determining the meanings and applications of the Bible for Christians today. I hope you will take the time to read this short article from Peter Leithart. Remember, because Leithart is like beer, enjoy responsibly. (HT: proecclesia) He summarizes my position quite well. As a little brain candy, consider his concluding sentence:

“To put it provocatively: Grammatical-historical exegesis is the exegesis of simpletons.”

He is not using “simpleton” as a synonym for stupid. He is saying that the simpletons are “third graders,” if you will. There are more advanced methods of interpretation which yield richer treasures to devout students who are willing to put in the effort and take the time to dig a little deeper. Often times, historical/grammatical exegesis points to the object, but never reveals a deeper, symbolic meaning.

Theological Hermeneutics # 6

2006-09-14T12:48:00.000-07:00

The value of Theological Hermeneutics – egalitarianism and complementarianism

I want everyone who is reading what I have to say about theological hermeneutics as they pertain to the complementarian/egalitarian debate (and why they are better than historical/grammatical exegesis), to first read this outstanding post by my friend Michael Sawilowsky at proecclesia. In it he explains the various kinds of egalitarians, that is, how they arrive at their conclusions. You won’t be able to follow my refutation of their misappropriating trajectory hermeneutics on this issue unless you first understand the position of what Michael calls “Hermeneutical Egalitarians.”

Now that you have that out of the way, we must answer the question, “If we don’t have to take the Bible literally, what parts do we have to submit to?” We’ve already analyzed many New Testament commands and understand that everyone applies a trajectory, cultural hermeneutic in one place or another. But when is it okay, and when is it not? In order to answer this question, we have to come up some type of standard to evaluate each individual scenario. I propose true “Theo-logical hermeneutics.” We must ask, “Who is God as it pertains to this question?” or, “What is God like?” Another way to look at this is to ask, “What harm to the Gospel is done if this issue goes one way or another?” This is essentially the same question since the Gospel is distinctly Trinitarian. While not academic in nature, John Piper reminds us of these truths in his wonderful devotional book God is the Gospel.

Before we take on the serious, controversial debate concerning women in the church, consider this simple example of Theo-logical hermeneutics. James 2:1 tells us, “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.” Is this command only culturally relevant? No. Why? Because God is this way; He shows no partiality, and He doesn’t change. Thus, neither should this command change or be disregarded. God transcends all times and cultures, and so does this command. Furthermore, from a canonical-linguistic hermeneutic, or a narrative theology approach, we see no budge on this issue, even inter-testamentally. The Old and New Testaments both continually denounce the sin of favoritism and showing partiality.

Are you seeing how this will play itself out in the complementarian/egalitarian debate? It’s not quite as simple. We do see movement within the canon as to women’s leadership roles. Also, there is the watchword of all egalitarians in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all on in Christ Jesus.” If we argue that this does not provide a basis for egalitarianism, then we must also be consistent in stating that this verse cannot be used to show the moral evil of slavery. To argue against slavery morally, we must appropriate an ethic not found in the New Testament (ref. The Moral Vision of the New Testament – Richard B. Hayes). However, most complementarians denounce such an idea.

So how can we be consistent? I believe the way we can is through theological hermeneutics, not historical/grammatical exegesis. Ironically, this is not what is being heard by the laymen in the pews. The preaching from the pulpits of the most dogmatic complementarians is filled with warnings that not obeying the strict teaching of the Bible on this issue will result in apostasy from the Gospel, but they never say why. Tragically, the very thing that can save them from their own inconsistency is one of the things that they (read fundamentalists) often fight against.

But, there is hope. If we understand the doctrine of God from a more eastern, Cappadoccian perspective, we can articulate why complementarianism is the way of God that transcends all time and cultures. God the Son is eternally submitted to God the Father, yet these two are of the same nature (homoousia). Thus, women can submit to men, even though they are equal in nature (equality of essence) because God is that way. He doesn’t change, so neither do these principles.

We must learn to value the Gospel above the Bible. The Gospel was around before the canon was completed. I’m not saying that we don’t need it, or that we shouldn’t cherish the word of God. What I’m trying to articulate is that faulty hermeneutics have to go. Proper interpretation should be rooted in who God is, and based on the Gospel, which is itself based on God Himself.

Theological Hermeneutics # 5

2006-09-13T13:37:00.000-07:00

Today I want to attempt to show the absurdity of relying on historical/grammatical exegesis and hermeneutics as the final explication of Scripture from two different angles. First, I want to show just how ridiculous this is by showing how the Bible becomes truly meaningless if we are consistent with this method. Secondly, I want to show where the blind spots are within evangelicalism are by considering texts in the New Testament that we apply a Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic (RMH) or a trajectory hermeneutic.

Take a Pauline epistle. This exercise will work with any letter, but as examples I’ll use Colossians, and then 1 Timothy. All that will be necessary is the greeting passage, and your agreement to adhere strictly to a literal historical/grammatical interpretation. Consider “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: grace to you and peace from God our Father.” (Col. 1:1-2) Buckle your seatbelts – here we go. First, who is speaking? (Paul the Apostle) To whom is he speaking based STRICTLY on the text? (Male Christians who lived during the first century in Colossae) Can I find myself in this demographic? (No) Therefore, this epistle has nothing to say to me and reading it or interpreting it for my life is going beyond the Bible. The second that anyone objects to this involves a departure from pure, literal historical/grammatical exegesis. It can be argued (weakly), while still supposedly (falsely) adhering strictly to historical/grammatical exegesis that Paul was actually writing to all Christians, including future believers, thus my argument is faulty. However, based on what text do we derive these ideas? This argument doesn’t stand up at all when we consider one of Paul’s personal letters. “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, to Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” (1 Timothy 1:1-2) This one is written not to a group of people, but rather to an individual. Thus, to interpret this epistle (or any other in the New Testament written to a single person [Luke, Acts, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 3 John {maybe 2^nd John}]) is to do something theological, going beyond the Bible and any specific texts therein, and obviously involves some type of departure from historical/grammatical hermeneutics, at least in the purest sense. Further still, we can dogmatically say at a minimum that application of the New Testament as relevant to people today cannot be done with historical/grammatical hermeneutics as the final explication of Holy Scripture. This leads me into a discussion of the impossibility of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, but I’ll wait until next week to being exploring this thought.

Now we’ll explore another angle of the same larger issue. Those who speak evil of RMH are oblivious to the fact that they apply similar trajectories in their own explanations of problem passages for today’s culture. Not you, of course. You’re not okay with ignoring the commands of scripture on cultural grounds. But when was the last time you rebuked a woman for having braided hair, or pointed out how evil it is for a man to have long hair? (1 Pet. 3:3, 1 Cor. 11:14) How about the last time the women in your church covered their heads when they prayed? (1 Cor. 11:2-16) Or men in your church instructed slaves to be faithful to their masters? (Eph. 6:5-9) Anyone washed another’s feet lately? (John 13:14-15)

So, if you come from a community similar to the one in which I’ve been discipled, you might be prepared to say things that I used to say (I no longer hold these positions. “Slavery isn’t necessarily morally wrong, women should wear head covering, men are in sin if their hair is long, and foot washing should be an ordinance.” But there are still areas which even we (the elite holy club [yeah, right]) don’t observe. Don’t believe me? When was the last time you greeted someone (other than your physical family) with a holy kiss? It’s a command in 5 epistles (Rom. 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Thes. 5:261 Pet. 5:14) thus, not cultural, but to make an argument of culture would already involve departing from strict historical/grammatical hermeneutics. How about drinking wine (alcohol) instead of taking Pepto-Bismol? (1 Tim. 5:23) I’m pretty sure the SBC just passed a resolution ensuring disobedience of this command. Sold all of your possessions and given the money to the poor lately? (Matt. 19:21) Or healed the sick, raised the dead, and driven out demons? (see the Gospels) And we haven’t even touched the OT yet! (HT: proecclesia) What ever happened to obeying the commands of the Bible?

So what am I really getting at here? Biblical interpretation is an art, not a science. Things are more complicated than they seem. Let’s learn to be a little more ecumenical. We need to quit being so dogmatic about things unless we can do so by other means (theological hermeneutics). More on this tomorrow.

Theological Hermeneutics # 4

2006-09-12T22:44:00.000-07:00

On to the “Theological Hermeneutics” of Eph. 2:20 and 1 Cor. 13:8-10

Many scholars will deny that they are going beyond the Bible in their cessationist conclusions. Instead, they frequently cite two passages to defend their beliefs – Eph. 2:20, and 1 Cor. 13:8-10. Let’s take a quick look at what is actually going on here.

Before I refute the supposed historical/grammatical argument for cessationism, a premise must be understood. Just because Scripture is involved does not mean that a conclusion is based on these Scriptures. Take the following example: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (1 John 2:15, ESV) It would be ridiculous for me to draw the conclusion, based on this verse, that “No Christian should watch any movies, even if they are rated ‘G,’ because all movies are ‘of the world,’ and if I watch them, I will lose my salvation, because the Bible says that this means that I love the world, and God doesn’t love anyone who loves the world.” But this happens all the time. This is slightly exaggerated example, but only slightly. This kind of exegesis happens all the time. And, while it may seem more academic when it comes to cessationism, similar theological conclusions are drawn from a few verses. The worst part is the denial of a forfeiture of historical/grammatical hermeneutics. No matter how hard they are pressed, such advocates refuse to acknowledge that they are going beyond the actual text in drawing their conclusions.

How does this work with Eph. 2:20 and 1 Cor. 13:8-10? Consider Ephesians first, leading in with verse 19. “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” (Eph. 2:19-20). Based on the cessationist argument, the Church (the household of God) was built back then on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Nevermind that many (especially theologians of the Patristic era) believe that “prophets” refers to the Old Testament prophets, and not the New Testament prophets. Nevermind that the definition of “apostle” simply means sent one, implying that the church is built on/by those who take the Gospel to those who don’t already have it. What I want to focus on is the circular reasoning used in arguments for cessationism from Eph. 2:20. Here is the cessationist argument – “Based on my understanding that apostles and prophets were giftings/offices for the first century, I know that these gifts have ceased. Thus, I can conclude that chapters 12-14 from 1 Corinthians don’t apply to me today, because prophecy has ceased, based on Ephesians 2:20.” (this is the circular reasoning part) Now, here’s my question: where in the text does it say that once the Church’s foundation has been laid the offices of apostle and prophet cease? Oh wait…it’s not in the text. But the cessationist says, “Oh well. Nevermind that. What matters is that I’m right, and even more importantly, that I’m never wrong, and I’m clearly the best scholar with the best arguments. True academia belongs only to those in my denomination who think just like I do (others are in danger of apostasy). But I digress - back to my argument. I’ll just do some theological hermeneutics based on the teachings and traditions that I’ve received, all the while vehemently denying any departure from true, pure historical/grammatical exegesis. Anyone who challenges me on my methods or points out inconsistencies will incur my wrath. I’ll deem them heretics who are in danger of departing from the orthodox methods of interpretation so that everyone will know that I’m serious, even though my position isn’t academically defensible.”

What about 1 Cor. 13:8-10? “Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” Remember, in interpreting this passage, we must be very strict in our adherence to the literal interpretation based on historical/grammatical exegesis. Most cessationists, if they are consistent, are doomed from the get go. They fail to point out that knowledge will pass away along with tongues and prophecy (oops). But this is not so much the tragic hermeneutical failure at work here. There is a massive assumption that “the perfect” refers to the completed cannon. Thus, when the New Testament was completed, the gifts ceased. However, there is debate even within the cessationist community as to whether the gifts ceased as the formal canonization of the New Testament in 397 AD or when the epistles themselves were penned. Nonetheless, this sidesteps the true issue. On what textual basis can we conclude that “the perfect” refers to the New Testament? (remember, historical/grammatical exegesis is the watchword) This argument is not made positively, but instead by supposedly ruling out other alternatives, such as Christ’s second coming. But even this deserves further analysis, and certainly more attention than it has been given historically. “The perfect,” as is oft noted, is neuter – neither male nor female. Thus, it is argued, it cannot refer to Christ, for this would certainly require a masculine delineation. But why, I ask, could it not be referring to Him, but the event itself (the Parousia)? Or, why could it not refer to glorification, or some other idea that is “perfect,” such as God’s final judgment? This has never been adequately answered, in my estimation. Thus, any argument from cessationists based on 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 involves more than historical/grammatical hermeneutics. We can therefore conclude that it is impossible to argue cessationism from any standpoint which strictly adheres to historical/grammatical exegesis and/or hermeneutics. Indeed, to go still further, all cessationist arguments involve some type of theological hermeneutic, usually a trajectory of sorts.

To wrap up, with respect to hermeneutics and interpretation, it’s not a sin to go beyond the Bible. However, since so many people believe that it is sin, consider how incredibly hypocritical it is to throw stones at those who apply methods of exegesis other than historical/grammatical while at the same time, the “stone thrower” is not without the same sin, not to mention the height of arrogance. Perhaps this is an appropriate time to apply Jesus’ teaching from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7 on judging.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

Time out! - here's my outline for the remainder of Theological Hermeneutics

2006-09-11T14:29:00.000-07:00

I’ve been taking some time to process how to go about wrapping up this discussion on theological hermeneutics. Only if you cannot read would you not be aware of the war going on these days within the evangelical community over women's roles in the church. Consider the Statement of Articles from the conferance titled Together for the Gospel, which essentially states that the egalitarian position is nothing short of apostasy. After all, if you don't agree with them on that point, apparently you're not "together with them" for the Gospel, thus you must not believe in the same Gospel of Jesus Christ. Due to issues like this, and a number of recent discussions on the blogosphere concerning the hermeneutical methods of William Webb’s book Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals as they pertain to the complementarian/egalitarian debate, I feel compelled to take more time than I originally intended in order to strongly make my point.

During a discussion with a close friend, I was asked what I am trying to accomplish in this series. Good question. There are a number of goals: 1) Show the absurdity of the cessationist position, especially if supposedly rooted in historical/grammatical exegesis, 2) point out the pride and hypocrisy of dogmatic complementarians who are also cessationists, 3) show the positive nature of a “redemptive movement hermeneutic,” or what is more commonly known as a trajectory hermeneutic, 4) point out the pitfalls of misappropriations of a trajectory hermeneutic due to a failure of a correct appropriation of theological hermeneutics, and 5) help others see the value of narrative theology as it plays out in theological hermeneutics.

But there are even more foundational elements to my arguments here. All of this series is intended as an effort to accomplish two more fundamental goals: 1) Educate my readers and prevent them from being led astray in thinking that the dogmatic community of academicians within the SBC has a monopoly on Christianity, and 2) Stop the academic community from “getting away with murder” in the theological blogosphere.

I should take a second to interject here to remind everyone that I am committed to serious Bible study, and about submitting to the meaning of the text as the Holy Spirit guides us all, based on the authority of the Bible. Furthermore, I am a committed complementarian. However, I don’t find the methods (hermeneutics) used to arrive at certain conclusions are acceptable, nor do I believe them to be theologically or logically defensible. Nor do I believe that the attitudes of those who are complementarians and cessationists within the conservative evangelical community (especially the SBC) are Christ-like. My chief concern, however, is that many of these lothers to think that if they differ in theological method, they err seriously, and it will inevitably lead to apostasy from the gospel. This is false. Worst of all, as I have shown clearly in my first 3 posts, the very thing that these thinkers argue against, they do themselves when it comes to their own pet doctrines.

So, what’s next? I’m glad you asked. Be on the lookout, because this week, it is my goal to write the conclusion to this series. I’m going to tie a bow on this discussion and try to end it neatly, politely, and What follows is my tentative outline.

Tuesday – Hidden theological hermeneutics in cessationist exegesis which falsely claims to be historical/grammatical exegesis

Wednesday – The absurdity of historical/grammatical exegesis as the final explication of Holy Scripture

Thursday – The value of theological hermeneutics in the egalitarian/complementarian controversy

Friday – Conclusion – Why we must get beyond the basics

Book Review: Passion for the Heart of God - 5 Stars

2006-09-11T08:11:00.000-07:00

Passion for the Heart of God – John Zumwalt

Every Christian should read this book as soon as possible. Make it the next on your list. Rearrange your priorities - make time for this.

Three weeks ago, I finished rereading this book. The second time through, I was able to pick up on a number of things that I missed when I first read this almost four years ago. Hence, this review will be longer than others because this book is richer than others. John Zumwalt, founder and director of Heart of God Ministries' (HGM) Beautiful Feet Boot Camp (BFBC), has truly done the Church a great service in writing this book. By far, Passion for the Heart of God is the best single volume that I know of introducing God’s heart for all peoples and basic missiology, largely because it does so in a deeply devotional manner while not sacrificing new academic thought while doing so. Three things stand out to me as to why I love this book. First, the use of narrative theology. Second, Zumwalt’s appropriation of a theology of the Kingdom. Third, the hinting at the 5 distinctives of Heart of God Ministries (HGM), influenced largely by the material in the curriculum of the class Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, book can be found here.

Zumwalt encourages reading the Bible through the lens of God’s history of redemption. His canonical approach is similar to Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer’s canonical linguistic approach as detailed in his book Drama of Doctrine. By examining the ways of God’s strategic use of peoples to bring about his ultimate plan (worship from every tribe, tongue, and nation), Zumwalt is doing a more biblical theology as opposed to a systematic theological understanding of missions. This is a much more effective method in teaching others the biblical basis for world missions as it relates to the entire Bible and the story it tells, as opposed to proof-texting a dozen or so verses to establish our point. (If you haven’t picked up on it yet, I’m beginning to reject poor uses of systematic theology which fail to use the entire Bible within a narrative framework)

Furthermore, John Zumwalt analyzes God’s use of Israel from the standpoint of a strategic use of a nation to expand His Kingdom. This is reminiscent of Dr. Walter Kaiser’s exegesis of the Old Testament (book here) and Dr. George Ladd’s “grand unifying theory” of the Kingdom. I find this to be the bridge between Reformed and Wesleyan theology. Both Calvinists and Arminians should be able to work together if they share this (correct) understanding of Kingdom Theology and God’s use of Israel. There are elements within this system that are difficult for either camp to accept, but I find this to be the radical middle.

The 5 distinctives of HGM are: Aggressive Christianity, Radical Love for One Another, Incarnational Lifestyle, Contextualization of the Gospel, and Church Planting Movements. All of these elements of good missiology are depicted in this book, but some stand out more than others. They way John paints a picture of Christ in his book emphasizes the need to live incarnationally among the unreached people in the same way that Jesus did. Zumwalt also stresses again and again the zeal which we should have for completing the Great Commission in hastening the Day of the Lord.

I have often pondered what books (besides the Bible) are best to recommend to new believers. This is one such book. Many other books which I find highly beneficial I fear giving to those whom I don’t know well or do not walk in a close relationship with for fear that unbalanced teaching will not be dealt with. There is so little in Passion for the Heart of God that concerns me that I can confidently recommend it to everyone. There is nothing substantial that I disagree with in this book, nor anything that I fear can be taken too far. Few books make my must reading list – this is one that makes the list for everyone, academicians and pastors (learning how to mobilize missionaries and spread a passion for missions) and layman alike.

Back from a week off

2006-09-10T16:08:00.000-07:00

After taking some time to think, I've got a lot coming down the pipeline. Be on the lookout this week to the conclusion of my "theological hermeneutics" series.

In the meantime, take some time to check out the following:

My friend Michael's list of 11 More Things That Will Make Everyone Dislike You and Shipwreck Your Faith. Dead right. I feel like we should write two books together. The first could be called Aggressive Christianity and Why it Matters. The second, How not to live a Serious Christian Life.

Also, check out Justin Taylor's awesome article on Race in the Church from the magazine Reformation 21. Great principles to live by.

Interesting insight into Luther's view of the baptismal regeneration of infants can be found at Confessing Evangelical. Perhaps in light of this, we can all learn to live a little more charitably. Luther, who was undoubtably a hero of the Reformation, would be called a heretic by most modern Southern Baptists if they knew his position. Perhaps this will give us some reason to live more charitably with our brothers and sisters who don't quite agree with our respective understandings of baptism. (HT: alastair.adversaria)

Lastly, take some time to read a number of posts from the following two bloggers: Dr. Denny Burk of Dallas, TX - The Criswell College and another, Dr. Jim Hamilton of the Houston , TX extension of SWBTS. While I am in agreement with their respective positions regarding complementarianism, I find their discussions of hermeneutics difficult to accept, especially when considering their interpretation of various NT passages concerning spiritual gifts and their place in the Church today. Let this be a start point for some things to come later this week.

Theological Hermeneutics # 3

2006-09-02T12:16:00.000-07:00

I have now made clear that many take a hard line stance on obeying the biblical text as it is stated literally, according to strict historical/grammatical exegesis linked with authorial intent. I, too, advocate such a hermeneutic, not as the sole hermeneutic, but as a good starting point in determining the meaning of a text and applying it for ourselves today in our culture.

Please take a moment now, before reading on, to read Dr. Jim Hamilton’s post on the gift of prophecy.

Remember, Lig Duncan (the author of the block quote from Together for the Gospel in my last post) is a cessationist, as is Dr. Paige Patterson, (President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) (SWBTS). Their theological positions have influenced the recent policies forbidding potential missionaries from serving with the IMB who speak in tongues privately in prayer. Thus, these theologians from a cessationist perspective have forbid speaking in tongues (at least one type of speaking in tongues). Dr. Hamilton, if he is correct theologically in his post, has made it impossible to obey 1 Cor. 14:1, for to desire to prophesy would be to add to the Bible, thus bringing on the curse of Rev. 22:18 (assuming that this passage extends to the entire canon and not just the book of Revelation, as has been traditionally accepted in Christendom).

On to my specific question…

How in the world do people like this, who stress historical/grammatical exegesis apart from extra-biblical theological hermeneutics, take authorial intent into question and get from “forbid not to speak with tongues” (1 Cor. 14:39 – KJV), to “FORBID the speaking in tongues,” or “eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” (1 Cor. 14:1) to “Do not prophesy, nor desire to prophesy, for that was only for back then?” These cessationists who are strong complementarians break the very rules that they insist others follow with regard to the complementarian/egalitarian debate.

It is impossible for cessationists to be strict complementarians while insisting that we adhere strictly and solely to a hermeneutic of historical/grammatical exegesis based on authorial intest, as I will explain in my next post.

Latest Reading Log Entry

2006-09-01T19:38:00.000-07:00

Real Sex – Laura Winner

This is the best book on this subject I have ever read. Before anyone gets too excited, I should clue everyone in on the subtitle – The Naked Truth about Chastity. Laura Winner is an award winning author, and now I know why. This particular book was recently named one of Christianity Today’s books of the year. This book discusses chastity both outside of marriage and within the bounds of a covenant relationship between two people (one man and one woman, of course). Don’t confuse chastity (obedience to God’s commands concerning sex) with celibacy (complete abstinence from sex). Thus, celibacy is the expression of chastity for anyone who is not married. Fidelity is the expression within marriage.

While Winner does take a less conservative position than I do on some positions regarding human sexuality, she does affirm that heterosexual relationships are the only legitimate expression of God’s design for sexuality. I would guess that her positions have been significantly influenced by her Anglican background, and a desire for authenticity in the Church’s discussion of sex. For too long we have pretended and played make believe about the seriousness of this sin within our congregations. This belief seems to have lent itself towards talking about things on a much more real-life level - even the ugly stuff.

I guess the reason that I enjoyed this book so much is that her main thesis resonated so much with me. We need to change the way we talk about sex if we really want to help people. In almost every church that I’ve ever attended (including the church that I’m attending now, as well as my home church) we talk about sex as if it is evil, if we talk about it at all. We must get comfortable talking about this subject if we really want to encourage obedience among our generation. We are still treating this subject the way that it was treated in the early to mid 1900’s. I could go on and on about this, but I’ll hold my tongue for now. If I’ve peaked your interest, check it out. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed, especially if you want to learn how to talk about this subject in a way that is both true to the Bible and relevant to this generation.

Kissed the Girls and Made them Cry – Lisa Bevere

This is one book I could have done without reading. That spoken, it definitely has its place. It was required reading for all the women during HGM Boot Camp, but, since I’m married, I, too, had to read it along with my wife. This book is written to broken women in an effort to help them go through a healing process of sorts. While I do feel that books of this sort are extremely beneficial, the methods used by this book can create as many problems as they solve with its use of highly individualistic hermeneutics. This problem seems to plague many women’s ministries today, and is rearing its head more and more in this postmodern age.

The greatest problem of this book is that it identifies every individual woman as the beloved bride of Christ. They are told that they can find their true healing in understanding that Jesus pursues them with a romantic love. Thus, Christ is made into quite the polygamist. Furthermore, the true solution to many of these issues, living in close community, is undermined by stressing the importance of the individual without ever mentioning community.

Having spoken of its faults, I must say that certain parts of this book speak volumes. I am not aware of any other book that does as good a job as this one does in fulfilling its intended purpose. My feeling is that this book, if paired with Laura Winner’s Real Sex, which plays up the role of community in the discussion of chastity, will accomplish much of what we desire: holiness. Besides, eventually we want to arrive at a place where the sorts of healing discussed in Bevere’s book are no longer necessary because people are living obediently, thus no healing is required.

Theological Hermeneutics # 2

2006-09-01T15:14:00.000-07:00

Sorry, I couldn't wait.

So, most of us should be in agreement that, based strictly on historical/grammatical exegesis, linked to authorial intent, it is never appropriate to ignore the command of a single verse of Scripture. This is not to say that those who advocate such a hermeneutic never do this. When they do, they appropriate theological hermeneutics instead of pure historical grammatical exegesis.

For now, I leave everyone with the following in order to lead you all down the path I've trod…

Read the following comments from Lig Duncan on hermeneutics regarding complementarianism in light of the Together for the Gospel articles of Affirmation and Denial.

“One, the denial of complementarianism undermines the church's practical embrace of the authority of Scripture (thus eventually and inevitably harming the church's witness to the Gospel). The gymnastics required to get from "I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man," in the Bible, to "I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise authority over a man" in the actual practice of the local church, are devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of the people of God.

“By the way, this is one reason why I think we just don't see many strongly inerrantist-egalitarians (meaning: those who hold unwaveringly to inerrancy and also to egalitarianism) in the younger generation of evangelicalism.”

(HT: T4G)

Theological Hermeneutics # 1

2006-09-01T08:36:00.000-07:00

Let me be clear from the get go. In this series of posts on hermeneutics, I’m baiting everyone to think a particular way in order to show inconsistencies in the way we appropriate the Bible and its instruction in our churches. All I’m looking for is consistency.

Many people in the SBC are pushing historical/grammatical exegesis of the Bible, rooted in authorial intent. This is just a fancy way of saying that, in order to understand the meaning of a particular Bible text, we must find the answers to the following questions: who wrote it?, why they wrote it?, to whom it was written?, and to what historical context is the message speaking?

I agree with this method of exegesis as the primary means of determining what the Bible has to say, both to communities back then as well as what it has to say to us today. Whatever the author’s intention was is the primary (not the only) meaning of a text. This in and of itself is a source of much strife regarding the debate over singularity of meaning, but this is not a post in which I will be exploring that concept.

The question that I want to raise is, if we are seeking the author’s intent for a text based on historical/grammatical exegesis, is there ever a time when it is okay to disregard the clear command of Scripture without a biblical warrant to do so? Asked another way, when can we ignore the Bible without another Bible text telling us it is okay to do so?

I’ll let everyone think about this for a day before I follow this up with my answers, and lead the discussion towards my justification of theological hermeneutics…

Be on the lookout...

2006-08-31T09:24:00.000-07:00

So, if you've been hinding in a cave, or living under a rock, you may be unaware of the recent ongoings within the SBC with regard to the IMB and its new policies on baptism and tongues. You'll have to do your own homework to catch up on that.

However, on Tuesday at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS), during chapel Rev. Dwight McKissic preached on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and tongues. SWBTS has decided not to make the sermon available on its website.

Read more on it here at Ethics Daily.

The entire sermon transcript is available here.

The seminary's press release is available here.

An open letter to Dr. Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS, is available here.

This post marks the beginning of a series I'll do on charismatic gifts and hermeneutics.

The best news of the week

2006-08-30T14:24:00.000-07:00

Make sure to read up on the most recent developments concerning the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army) and their truce/cease-fire in Uganda.

For those of you who are not familiar, take some time and go to Invisible Children. This site is well designed, highly informative, and well worth your time.

There is still room to be an Anglican

2006-08-30T14:01:00.000-07:00

Archbishop of Canterbury on Homosexuality

The archbishop of Canterbury has told homosexuals that they need to change their behaviour if they are to be welcomed into the church, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
Rowan Williams has distanced himself from his one-time liberal support of gay relationships and stressed that the tradition and teaching of the Church has in no way been altered by the Anglican Communion’s consecration of its first openly homosexual bishop.

The declaration by the archbishop - rebutting the idea that homosexuals should be included in the church unconditionally - marks a significant development in the church’s crisis over homosexuals. According to liberal and homosexual campaigners, it confirmed their fears that the archbishop has become increasingly conservative - and sparked accusations that he has performed an “astonishing” U-turn over the homosexual issue.
(HT: alastair.adversaria)

Too true to be funny...

2006-08-29T13:42:00.000-07:00

Think About It: Which Is The Real Thing?

VS.

(HT: Slice of Laodicea)

Reading Log - Update

2006-08-29T13:10:00.000-07:00

The Only Wise God – William Lane Craig

This is the best philosophical theology book I’ve read this year. My interest in Molinism began last fall as a radical middle position between the sovereignty of God in Calvinism and the free agency of man within the Arminian system. After reading a number of academic articles, my friend Brad Smith recommended this book. I found it very readable. In fact, one of the reasons I like it so much is that I can recommend it with confidence to anyone who is interested in theological epistemology. Anyone who is willing to think hard and concentrate for 15 minutes at a time can make it through this book. I also appreciated the brief chapters which are further broken up making it easy to digest piece by piece.

I found this articulation of Middle Knowledge very helpful not only in defining terms, but also in practically using them in theological dialogue. Dr. Craig’s volume will serve as an introduction into Molinism. The book covers the issue holistically, touching on most subjects it affects, but does not do so in depth on each topic. However, I found Dr. Craig’s arguments quite convincing, and helpful in explaining the compatibility of Reformed Theology and elements of Arminianism. I could post ten articles on this topic, but I won’t. Nonetheless, if anyone would like to discuss this book, please contact me (make sure you read it first).

God, Freedom, and Evil – Alvin Plantinga

While I benefited from this book on philosophical theology, I did not find it nearly as enjoyable as The Only Wise God. The book is divided into two separate parts: the first concerning Molinism and overcoming objections to the doctrine of Middle Knowledge, the second concerning natural theology, with emphasis on the ontological argument.

The first half of the book delves much more in depth of specific issue concerning Molinism and its objections. However, I found the books technical style readable, but not reader-friendly (enjoyable). Furthermore, I highly doubt that I employ what I gleaned from this book in conversations with anyone besides well trained philosophical theologians. Nonetheless, my reading of Dr. Plantinga has further strengthened my conviction that Middle Knowledge is the epistemological key to understanding the Soteriological debate between Calvinists and Arminians.

In the second half of the book, Plantinga discusses an area of philosophical theology of which I am not very well read. Thus, I have no framework by which to evaluate the information contained therein. Natural theology is not the particular area of interest I have within the discipline of Philosophical Theology. However, the ontological argument, having been a topic of discussion for practically the entirety of philosophical history, is something that I should be more familiar with. I commend this book to anyone with an interest in Natural Theology.

Meanderings

2006-08-29T08:44:00.000-07:00

Make sure you check out the following:

Dr. Scot McKnight on Calvinism - interesting.

Dr. Jim West on Fat Christians.

Some guy I don't know on Bad Criticism of N.T. Wright - right on the money!

Joe Thorn on Top Ten books on Personal Piety - excellent.

With regard to the last one, we need to be reading more from this category. This is where the character of Christ is formed in us, and this is the hope of glory. Herein lies the secret of Orthopathy. Orthodoxy and orthpraxy are important, but not all there is. Genuine Spiritual Formation.

My new favorite website

2006-08-28T20:17:00.000-07:00

I just seem to be on cloud 9 these days. Ever since visiting this website, I just feel invincible. Whenever I'm down, I just watch the video and then I feel all better.

What's even better is that I realized how much time this is going to save me. Instead of meeting with people to pastor and encourage them, now I can tell them to enter their name and it will do the same for them!

They should have invented this a long time ago...

www.ben.arbour.youaremighty.com

(HT: proecclesia)

More thoughts on the Sabbath

2006-08-26T09:05:00.000-07:00

More thoughts on the Sabbath –

The Old Testament festivals were a time of relaxation, often in addition to the mandated weekly “One in Seven” Sabbath. These were the times when God commanded that the fat portions be eaten, and other seemingly incorrect instructions. We should remember that, at least sometimes, God’s ways are not our ways. Can we all at least agree to try to do it God’s way? Let’s try to get away from extreme legalism.

Let’s just see how serious it is to God that we observe the Sabbath (which means resting, relaxing and playing as a means of worship). “But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him. And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.” (Numbers 15:30-36, KJV)

It is clear that failure to observe the Sabbath is a sin that results in apostasy. God killed this man who was working. In essence, as Matt Chandler puts it, God says, “Party, or I’ll kill you." (HT: Missionsblog.com)

Do you speak in tongues?

2006-08-26T08:53:00.000-07:00

Pentecostal –

Okay, Ben, now you’ve truly lost it. We’ve listened to you clarify the first four terms, but how in the world are you going to explain away all the garbage associated with Pentecostalism? I’m about to spell it out for you.

I’m not talking about the extreme charismatic movement taking place all over the world right now. There is a big difference between being charismatic and being a charis-maniac. I identify myself theologically with the former. This is of the utmost import – theologically means that I’ve actually thought about this. Unlike some parts of the Body who think doctrine is stupid, I actually came to these conclusions through academic means. I do believe, from biblical exegesis and study of church history, that the gifts of the Spirit are for today, and all days until Christ returns.

But this is not the main focus of my use of the term “Pentecostal” in this blog. I use this biblical word to identify a theology of experience. It is not enough for Christians to know academically the truths of God. We must know experientially. There are lots of people who know all about God, but they do not actually know HIM, and thus are not born again. This is the “Orthopathy” part of the sub-title. Remember Isaiah’s prophecy, “This people draw near to me with the words, but their hearts are far from me?” I think Jesus’ command was not just to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless alone. It encompassed more than that. We are supposed to actually care about these people. If we don’t have the compassion of Christ for these people, we’ve missed out on the “heart” of Christianity.

The Old Methodists did a great job of incorporating experience into their theology. method. We should remember that we are called to bear much fruit and this brings glory to God. Thus, if we are called to glorify God, we are called to bear fruit. If we’re not, we should examine our ways. This is (though tremendously oversimplified) a correct appropriation of experience (along with Scripture, culture, and tradition) in theological method. In this manner, I am happy to typify my theology as “Pentecostal."

How are you using the term "Post-Modern?"

2006-08-25T06:21:00.000-07:00

Post-Modern –

This one could be the most deceiving classification of this blog. I am not actually an advocate of post-modernism. But, it’s a popular word right now, and I use it occasionally because I identify with many of the practices behind this thinking, though I wholeheartedly divorce myself from the philosophical beliefs of both modernity and post-modernity. I advocate Pre-Modernism, which decentralizes the role of individual thinking and incorporates a highly value of tradition and authority. However, the more that I read of the Post-Modern movement (i.e. - Emergent Church), I find myself in agreement with many of the things that they want to do. Among some of these are concern about social injustices, reworking the styles of worship in our local churches, and a return to ancient practices of the church.

Another attractive element of the Post-Modern movement is a desire for unity in the church. An ecumenical heart is, I believe, central to the Christian faith. Many people who identify themselves as Post-Modernists, to their credit, seek to identify with people based on commonalities instead of dividing with them based on differences. This is the manifestation of Holy Spirit unity. This does not, however, mean that there is never a time to divide. Nonetheless, a divisive, critical spirit is contrary to the prayer of Jesus in John 17. Where the Emergent movement gets it wrong (in my opinion) is that they don’t take a stand for anything. According to some, there are no real absolutes in orthodox theology. I imagine that this will work itself out over the next decade or so as this movement looks deeper into the Ancient church and the creeds which they value.

I also find a strong desire for genuine community among the Post-Modern movement of the church. This also will entail a rejection of the over-importance of the individual as this paradigm is strengthened. I mean to say, in Christianity, the community is not expected to suffer for the sake of the individual, but rather the individual suffers for the sake of the community. The theological problems within the emergent movement stem from an immature appropriation of this concept. However, community is essential to real spiritual formation in the lives of the saints. Community is the means of grace ordained by God through which He conforms people into the image of His Son. More on this in the future.

You don't want to have fun anymore?

2006-08-24T07:15:00.000-07:00

Puritan –

This one is a little easier because more people are aware of the Puritan Era. Why have I decided that this blog would contain “Puritan” in its title? Because I like what the Puritans were about.

First and foremost, the piety of the Puritans is astounding. But before we delve into this, let's get one thing straight...the Puritans were not a bunch of kill-joys. They pursued what brought the most joy to their souls: God! Their pursuit of Him rivals even the most spiritual people today. The asceticism that typifies this era is often misunderstood; they denied themselves only to gain Christ. It is this Aggressive Christianity and whole-hearted pursuit of Christ that is so attractive. Nothing was so valuable to them that it could not be removed in order to better gain Christ.

Second, as a result of denying themselves, the Puritans were able to make time for themselves which they filled with pursuit of God through spiritual disciplines. Prayer, study of God’s word, fasting, and other disciplines were practiced both individually and corporately. Can you imagine entire churches given to prayer, fasting, and deep study of God’s word? Better still, these disciplines were not merely external to Christians of this day. Judging from the diaries and journals of Puritans leaders, people were genuinely changed by pursuing Christ via these God ordained means of grace. Oh, that we today would be so conformed to Christ as those of this day.

Finally, the Puritan view of God was so high, yet so near. What a restoration we need today to this paradox. A God who is so grand that He transcends all that we know, yet at the same time draws near to those who draw near to Him. I want to be Puritan in this sense so that I can draw deeply from the strengths of both the relationship emphasizing camps of Christianity while at the same time drinking from the depths of the knowledge of the Unknowable as emphasized by those who stress theological accuracy in the Church.

But, aren’t you a Baptist?

2006-08-23T17:21:00.000-07:00

Presbyterian -

Now, this one certainly requires explanation. I am not saying that I have become a proponent of infant baptism, nor am I advocating that we divide with those who do not espouse Calvinism as the only correct soteriology.

What, then, is it about Presbyterianism that I’m advocating? I’m so glad you asked! There are two things I will focus on: a “high church” ecclesiology, and liturgical worship.

First, I’ll discuss what I like about Presbyterian ecclesiology. But before I get into that, I should say that, as a Southern Baptist, I am in submission to the Baptist Faith and Message. So, while what I say here may seem in contradiction to this document, I believe that there is a way to reconcile an Episcopalian or Presbyterian ecclesiology with local autonomous churches.

I could write ten books on this stuff, so I’ll be brief here and hope to extrapolate on this material as people ask questions. In Presbyterianism, every church is a part of something much bigger than itself. Now, I know that every church is, in a “spiritual” sense, also a part of something bigger – the Kingdom of God. And I also know that we could argue that every SBC church is a part of something bigger – the SBC. But that is not what I’m talking about. Every Presbyterian church (PCA) that I’ve every visited had a strong sense of being in communion with each other. It is something truly precious to know that they would all work together – there is no such thing as disunity among Presbyterian churches. Everything gets tied together with a hierarchical form of church government (bishop rule). Ordination matters in Presbyterian churches. It is not a joke. There are both written and oral exams that a candidate must pass before the presbytery lays their hands on someone. It is not a 30-45 minute meeting – it takes all weekend. More on this later.

Second, I’ll pen (type) some notes on liturgical worship. Let’s be clear and state what should be obvious – everyone follows a liturgy. The question is whether it is a good one. Think about your church. Doesn’t it generally follow the same schedule every week? Sure, a different sermon, and some different songs and prayers, but for the most part, week in, week out, its another verse of the same song. This is not bad! However, if you only get four verses of Scripture read every week, how are you ever going to hear the full council of God? Not even in a lifetime could you cover the whole Bible. I have lots of thoughts here, but I’ll save them for later.

I hope everyone out there isn’t freaking out as much now as they were when they first heard me use the term “Presbyterian” to describe myself.

What does "Patristic" mean?

2006-08-22T20:38:00.000-07:00

Let's begin with Patristic...

This word identifies with the period of the Early Church. Many academicians take it from the conclusion of the New Testament writings to somewhere around 600 A.D., with many subcategories there within. Orthodoxy was founded in this period of theological history. The doctrines which are central to Christianity (those without which the Christian faith does not exist) were all formulated within this timeframe.

This era also is where the apostolic tradition began. The succession of Christendom (often called Petrine primacy) plays itself out in this period of time. Therefore, those who give a high place to the role of tradition in the authority of the Church and its doctrine (which all Christians should) pay close attention to the writings of the Fathers, whose names are too numerable to mention. It is in this way that I'm using the term here.

That is to say, in my posts, I intend to take what I have to say and seek to bring it in line with the Fathers, and intend to show that everything that determines orthodoxy (doctrines which divide the Christian from the non-Christian) was formulated within the eccumenical councils of the Patristic Era. This is not to say that the Fathers are infallible. I'm just saying that we should take them a lot more seriously than most do (especially evangelicals of a "low-church" background such as myself).

Of particular interest in this era were the nature of the Church, the doctrine of God (Trinitarianism), and the hypostatic union of Christ (the full diety and humanity of Jesus). These are two doctrines which were articulated well in the Creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon, respectively. My position is that all Christians who are truly saved believe in the material of these Creeds, whether they know it or not. I am not saying that all Christians must recite the Creeds, or understand the content of the Creeds. On the contrary, what I am saying is that if their faith is contrary to these Creeds it is not a Christian faith. It is unorthodox, and this person should not be called "Christian." More on this later.

One of the reasons these truths are so precious to me is becuase an appreciation for Patristic theology allows for true Christian unity. This is the eccumenical spirit that we so desparately need today - dividing only when necessary.

So, this is what "Patristic" means, as it will be used in this blog.

What's up with the new title?

2006-08-22T20:36:00.000-07:00

It would be fitting to explain the title: Patristic, Presbyterian, Puritan, Post-Modern, Pentecostal. So, I'm going to post a 5-part series on how I'm using these terms in order to describe the content of the writing of this blog.

Thoughts on the Sabbath

2006-08-21T20:56:00.000-07:00

So I’ve been reflecting on what it means to have Sabbatical Rhythm in one’s life. One question that has continually been brought to the forefront is that of play. Is there any way to reconcile “redeeming the time” with goofing off, for lack of a better word. I’m trying to answer the question, “Is there a place for football or television in the Christian life?” I’m sure there will be more to come on this in the future, but here are some current thoughts.

We have to learn that in order to redeem the time, we must rest so that in our work we can truly redeem the time while we are working. Further still, we must learn that when we play, we are redeeming the time. Still further, if we do not allow ourselves to play, we are not truly redeeming the time.

Some of us (myself) have to crash and burn before we learn in order to let God put us back together.

Play = Recreation = RE-Creation

The principal behind the Sabbath (resting) is worship. The Sabbath is the pinnacle of creation – the culmination of all God’s good works. The opportunity to reflect on all that is good is what the Sabbath is all about. This is, essentially, an opportunity to reflect upon the goodness of God, which is what worship is. It seems that God would have us do this (worship) primarily by resting, playing, and relaxing. Thus, failing to do so (resting, relaxing, and playing) is in direct opposition to the Sabbath, and disobedient to the command. Therefore, it cannot be worship, as failing to obey is antithetical to worship. Fear of playing, resting, and relaxing undoes the very pinnacle of creation - the crowning glory of the first works of God.

Thoughts on my own Christian character development

2006-08-18T09:08:00.000-07:00

Until we come to a state of utter desperation for Christian character to be formed in us, we can rest assured that we will not be truly conformed to the image of the Son.

I have found this to be very true during the first two months of our time here at HGM Boot Camp. More and more I am realizing how high the bar is: Christ-likeness. Count Nicholas von Zinzendorf of the Moravians was noted for saying, “I have one passion; it is Jesus, Jesus only.” Not only do I want more of Him, the more I know Him, the more I want to be like Him. Living in community here at HGM, I have been forced to recognize how low I have seen the bar, and how proud I am in thinking that I’m doing a pretty good job at being an “above average” Christian. How clear it is to me now that even thinking these thoughts demonstrate that I had already missed the point.

But I have found hope. While reading a devotional book, I felt led to read John 17 – Jesus’ prayer for His church. Verse 26 (the last one in the chapter) jumped out at me. This seems to be the hope of Christendom: Trinitarian love. Christ prayed that the love that the Father has for the Son would be in us (Christians) by the Spirit. Thus, we can love Christ with the same fervency that the Father has for Christ. We cannot do this on our own, of course. We must come to the end of ourselves and let God do this through us. The whole of the Godhead is involved in our own pursuit of Him.

My prayer is that two things more than others would be formed in my heart – patience and gentleness. I am sure that God has been working on me in these areas for as long as I’ve been a Christian. However, coming from a community that emphasizes doctrinal learning and Christian activities (Spiritual Disciplines) at the expense of genuine Spiritual Formation has hindered my development. While these are surely important, vital parts of the Christian life, they are not its culmination.

Please don’t mishear me. I am very grateful for the education that I’ve received and how beneficial it has been in my spiritual life, and I intend to continue in theological learning and the disciplines central to the faith. Nonetheless, I now know these are not enough. Education alone will not form the character of Christ in us. It is my hope that you all would pray for me that I would come to this state of utter desperation for God to change my innermost being. I am not convinced that I really am as desperate as I need to be, even with my renewed awareness of how far I have to go on this journey. My prayer for all of you is that your respective communities would come to value real transformation of character alongside theological education and other external manifestations of the Christian life.

Final Reading Log Entry from Spring Semester 2006

2006-08-17T13:21:00.000-07:00

Israel and the Nations - F.F. Bruce

This was a very helpful text for me. I am by no means an Old Testament scholar, so what might seem remedial to others is often revolutionary to me. Dr. Bruce was truly a genious. Not only did he have the entire Bible memorized in English, but also in the original languages - OT in Hebrew, and NT in Greek. This certainly aided his cannonical approach to the history of Israel during the Old Testament era. Bruce also continually points out the impact made by Israel as they bore witness to YHWH in other nations (i.e. Babylonian captivity, etc.). I am still not convinced that any academic scholar has appropriated a "missionary" reading of Israel's role in the OT, as would come naturally through a narative theology. This is, I believe, largely due to the overemphasis of Systematic Theology done apart from the cannonical, linguistic approach advocated by Dr. Vanhoozer. Nonetheless, out of the little that I have read concerning OT history, F.F. Bruce by far tops the charts. Furthermore, from other writtings of his that I am familiar with, I am confident that he would be very sympathetic with the missionary function of God's chosen people that I speak of above.

Old Testament Parallels - Victor Matthews & Don Benjamin

I must admit that I did not thoroughly read this book. I believe that this could be used more like an academic dictionary, or perhaps some other type of reference. From what I understand, this is one of the better volumes concerning its subject matter. However, as afore mentioned, I am by no means an OT scholar, so I have little more to offer concerning the literature of this field. Thankfully, Dr. Chen (my OT professor), went over a lot of the material covered in this book in our class.

Biblical Archaeology - John Sailhammer

This book is part of the Zondervan series on the OT. Sailhammer is one of my favorites, largely becuase he is fond of narrative theology. I found this work very beneficial as someone who came to this book with zero knowledge of Biblical Archaeology. One aspect that I especially appreciated about Sailhammer's book was that he packages the material in a way that is easily readable and digestable. Each "chapter" is at most 2 or 3 pages, making it perfect for bathroom reading. Futhermore, the author has done a tremendous job of bringing academia to the layman in that he presents information in a way that is comprehendable without dumbing things down with a "cookies on the bottom shelf" mentality. This is one I recommend to all people. Even if Biblical Archaeology is not an interest of yours, take some time to pick this up. You'll be surprised at how much you benefit from what you learn, and how much you enjoy it.

Continuation of Reading Log

2006-06-24T09:04:00.000-07:00

After I finish reviewing what is still up on the list, I'll update the "Currently reading" section and get started reviewing what will be new.

Three Views: The Millenium and Beyond - ed. Darrell Bock
I think eschatology is about as exciting as watching paint dry. I see the evangelical world overly interested in studying the aspects of eschatology which are least important - the rapture, the millenium, etc. Instead, our focus should be on Heaven and Hell (also part of what is formally studied within the discipline of eschatology). The ammillenial position in this volume was by far the best essay, and it forced itself to be reckoned with against both pre- and post-millenial positions. I find myself less clear as to my own position after reading this book, but not becuase of its failure. This book is beneficial to those seeking to understand the various views that are within evangelical orthodoxy, and what each position's strengths and weaknesses are. More now than ever, I'm convinced that the key to any eschatology is missions: "And this Gospel of the Kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." - Jesus in Matthew 24:14

Ashamed of the Gospel - John MacArthur
I am ashamed that I read this. It was by far the most caustic book that I've read this year, maybe ever. John MacArthur, whom I am in general agreement with, touched some areas in this book that are clearly outside the bounds of his expertise. The worst part of my experience with this book was my innability to sense the Spirit of God in MacArthur's words.
While this book is a much needed critique of the American church and her practices of selling out to the "marketing movement" within the church to establish so called "relevance." While much of what MacArthur has to say is correct, this book only needed to be about 50 pages. Furthermore, his accusation that the roots of this lie in the misguided efforts of Donald McGavern reveal that He has no concept of contextualization at all, especially on the mission field. If anyone reads this book, I hope they will learn that it is not only what we say, but how we say it that makes a difference in whether we are heard or not.

New Testament Exegesis - Gordon Fee
While many within academia do not care for Dr. Fee becuase of his charismatic position, I found this book to be extremely helpful in analyzing New Testament literature. This is not a book that I would recommend to anyone for "fun" reading. It is, however, an invaluable resource to anyone who preaches frequently, and those who do exegetical research in the New Testament. Many facets of the Bible were brought to my attention through this work which have altered the way that I study the greek text, as well as the way that I structure a sermon. An introductory work for any seminarian, this one is definately worth adding to your library.

Worship: Rediscovering the Missing Jewel - Allen and Borror
One of the better books out there on the subject. Unfortunately, I was unable to devote as much attention to this book as I would have liked. However, I do this this volume has made a significant contribution to the church in teaching that a reorientation must take place within our services. I apply their thoughts even more strongly than the authors did in their book, but I am very much in agreement with their thesis: devotion to Christ is the most important thing that happens in the life of a Christian.

Spiritual Disciplines within the Church - Donald Whitney
This is one of the best books that is on the market concerning corporate disciplines. It is almost an appologetic for local church membership - which I strongly agree with. I do wish that Dr. Whitney would have discussed corporate fasts as an entire chapter. Nonetheless, this is a must read for any pastor to learn how he can shepherd his flock as a congregation in community through the disciplines of the Christian life. I cannot endorse this book more strongly for those seeking to cultivate community within their local body. This book takes strong shots against the individualism so rampant in today's churches.

Reading Log entry

2006-06-22T08:21:00.000-07:00

Here's a paragraph or so on some of the books I read last semester.

Systematic Theology - Wayne Grudem
This is perhaps the best modern single volume systematic out there. Written from a reformed, charismatic perspective, it is a good synopsis of Christian doctrine. The author also released another book Bible Doctrine which accomplishes the same purpose as the larger work. I say this becuase where I would expect a more thorough work to incorporate philosophical arguements more, Grudem has failed to do so. Also, there does not seem to be enough incorporation of the fathers into this volume, especially with regard to soteriology. Therefore, the reformed "Doctrines of Grace" are presented in too strong a manner so as to say that any position outside of Calvinism is heterodoxy. Redeeming himself, Grudem does an outstanding job in his pneumatology, especially concerning the gifts of the Spirit. This work will play a significant role in wiping cessationism from the world of evangelicalism.

Biblical Hermeneutics - Silva & Kaiser
This is a good introduction into the study of understanding Biblical literature. However, it does not even begin to discuss the current issues within Christian accademic circles. While this was not the purpose of the book, it should have at least recommended other reading. To its credit, this book provides a foundation upon which a reader can build. The brief discussion of the history of interpretation is great if you don't have time to read other works strictly concerning the historical aspects of hermeneutics.

NIV Application Commentary - Pastoral Epistles - Liefeld
For what it is, this is a great commentary. The NIV Application series is designed to grant readers who want more information with regard to both history and grammatical construction. However, this series does not do either to such a degree to make it the authority on either subject. Two other commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles will be considered better for those who want more in-depth study: ICC series volume by I. Howard Marshall, and the NIGTC series volume by George Knight. These were the two works that I reference most often in writing on the Pastorals.

So I'm back

2006-06-09T23:15:00.000-07:00

I've been away from the blogosphere for too long now. It's time to make a comeback. Well, I actually never really got off to such a strong start to begin with, but that's besides the point.

After finishing up the semester at SWBTS, I took a summer mini-mester class on New Testament Christology with Dr. I. Howard Marshall from the University of Aberdeen. I finished the last of the requirements for this class earlier today (err, yesterday). On Monday, I start another mini-mester class on the History of Doctrine at DTS with Dr. Jeff Bingham. Needless to say, I've been busy. However, I've had plenty of time for reflection on lots that has been going on in my head.

Over the next couple of days, I expect to do some serious book reviewing, as promised. Nevermind that I'm about two months late. It's finally coming. Check back soon. In the meantime, check out Michael Sawilowsky's post on Trajectory hermeneutics. This pertains to the complementarian/egalitarian debate within evangelicalism. I think I agree with him...

Founders blog proposed resolution for SBC 2006

2006-04-11T23:19:00.000-07:00

I really liked the resolution that has been up on the Founder's Blog, and will certainly support it by voting in favor if/when I attend the SBC this summer. The link won't take you straight there, but you'll be able to read it for yourself if you are not pleased with my own copy and pasted job below.

Resolution on Integrity in Reporting...revisited

The Southern Baptist Convention website has very clear instructions on how to submit a resolution to the annual convention. You may submit one either electronically or via regular mail as early as April 15.

Last August, in response to a suggestion made by Gene Bridges, I put together a resolution on church discipline and integrity in reporting statistics as a possibility to submit to the 2006 Resolutions Committee. There was not much response to it then. But I am posting it again to see if there is more interest now that the SBC annual meeting is only 2 months away. If enough people express support for this resolution, perhaps it might make it out of committee and be recommended to the convention for a vote. I don't know exactly how such support can be registered with the Committee on Resolutions, but I am sure there must be a way.

If you have suggestions, please let me know. I plan to submit it April 15.

_________________________________________________________________

Whereas this 148th annual session of the Southern Baptist Convention marks the 26th anniversary of the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention; and

Whereas at the heart of this resurgence has been a determination to return to an unashamed commitment to the inerrancy and infallibilty of the Bible as the written Word of God; and

Whereas the Baptist Faith and Message states that the Scriptures are "the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried" (Article 1); and

Whereas the inerrant, infallible Word of God instructs us not to bear false witness (Exodus 20:16), but to put away lying and to speak truthfully to his neighbor (Ephesians 4:25); and

Whereas in 2004 the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Church Profiles indicated that there are 16,267,494 members in Southern Baptist churches; and

Whereas well over one half of those members never attend or participate meaningfully in the life of any local Southern Baptist church and are thus no different than non-members; and

Whereas the ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED that the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2005, urge Southern Baptists to repent of our failure to maintain responsible church membership, and be it further

RESOLVED that we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the widespread failure among us to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of church discipline (Matthew 18:15-18), and be it further

RESOLVED that we plead with pastors and church leaders to lead their churches to study and implement out Lord's teachings on this essential church practice, and be it further

RESOLVED that we encourage denominational servants to support and encourage churches that seek to recover and implement our Savior's teachings on church discipline, especially when such efforts result in the reduction in the number of members that are reported in those churches, and be it finally

RESOLVED that we commit to pray for our churches as they seek to honor the Lord Jesus Christ through reestablishing integrity to church membership and to the reporting of statistics in the Annual Church Profile.

Scot McKnight on Post-Calvinism

2006-04-11T22:56:00.000-07:00

Well, this one is really interesting, at least it is for me.

I enjoy identifying myself as a reformed thinker. I am not Roman Catholic. This alone should be enough. I love how the group known as Reformed Arminians are, at least by their name, seeking to preserve some of the original etimology of the term reformed. To be reformed does not necessarily mean to be a 5-point Calvinist. Sadly, the terms have become equivical today.

That said, my not being Roman Catholic is not all I mean when I call myself reformed. I think like reformed people do in systematically trying to work out doctrine and theology. I hold to a reformed epistemology, and generally agree with John Calvin's views, which have in some ways been distorted (at least the emphases) by those claiming to be his followers.

However, I am extremely sympathetic to those who would disagree with my current position, for I was them for over three years. And I wasn't the average, uneducated evangelical who punted sovereignty becuase I didn't like it or becuase I ripped Romans 9 out of my Bible. My friends and I actually had stronger, more academic arguments (both Biblically & philosophically) against some versions of Calvinism prevelant among Southern Baptists today. Scot McKnight has begun to expose some of these issues we used to discuss at length in this article.

I am glad that there are scholars out there who are honest enough to deal with the biblical text apart from theological presuppositions that aid reading into the text, eisogesis, instead of pulling out of the true meaning of the text, exegesis. This might lead to some strange places, but we can hold onto the doctrines that are most important to us while structuring them systematically in a different way, thus, perhaps the term Post-Calvinism?

A good synopsis of Piper's "Christian Hedonism"

2006-04-11T21:41:00.000-07:00

Check out this article for a brief synopsis of what Dr. John Piper calls "Christian Hedonism."

I disagree with this terminology...too much baggage. I do understand and appreciate what he's trying to communicate, though. I am not generally in agreement with the things that Piper continually over-emphasizes, but I completely agree with everything in this particular interview, and must further add that these truths have proven incredibly valuable to me in my own relationship with Jesus.

As he himself admits, if you've read one of his books, you've read them all. Tthere are, of course, exceptions, such as his mini-biographies in "The Swans are not Silent" serious are altogether a different genre for Piper. But, insofar as Piper is unique, he is one in a very small minority articulating the experience of joy in believers. For a more detailed account of his take on the Christian life (repackaging Jonathan Edwards), pick up Desiring God, or, the introductory, "cliff notes" version, The Dangerous Duty of Delight. Also, just a plug, his new book God is the Gospel is unparallelled for devotional literature regarding the centrality of the person of Jesus Christ in the Christian life as far as recently written literature.

Reading Log

2006-04-11T18:12:00.000-07:00

OK, so I mentioned I would do this; here's how it's going to work...

When viewing the main page of my blog, on the right you will see a list of books (besides the Bible) that I am currently reading broken up into two parts. The top portion are textbooks that I am reading for class, or some other purpose. I expect that it will take me a substantial amount of time to get through these (i.e. - the duration of the semester).

The bottom portion of the list reflects my reading that is either: 1.) not a primary text, but still related to a class, 2.) other outside reading, or 3.) recreational reading. I will move through these books much more rapidly than the large, primary texts that comprise the first group mentioned above.

Within this second portion of my reading, you can expect to find different types of books: devotional reading to help develop the heart and nurture emotional affections for Christ, informative books that will aid the soul and impart wisdom and discernment for Christian living (especially biographies & church history), and then theological works designed to assist worshiping Yaweh with all of the mind. An over-emphasis in any one given category will inevitably lead to an unbalanced Christian life.

I'm not making any promises here, but if I maintain my current and historical behavior, I'll achieve my goal of finishing at least one (probably two) "extra" books per week. This average, after factoring in seminary reading, should be around 3 total books per week, if my math is right. I always struggled with multi-variable calculus.

I am not a normal person. It should not surprise anyone to see me in the middle of reading more than a dozen books going at the same time. This does not mean that I will finish them all at once. When I finish a number of books, I will post my thoughts on each, a semi-thorough review, along with a recomendation. While I am still figuring out exactly how I'm going to do this, it is safe to assume that I'll post a "reading log" at least monthly.

Some have asked if I will write short reviews of every book I read. If I did comment on all my reading, I would have a healthier relationship with my computer than with my wife. There are many other books that I read outside of what I will make note of in the "Books I'm currently reading" section. I will not comment on every book that I read, but will comment on all the books that I reference via the list on the main page, even if it's only a paragraph.

If anyone has questions about other literature I've not mentioned in this reading log, or comments on my comments, or other additional reading recommendations for me, feel free to ask/opine in the ongoing dialogue.

Thoughts on the IMB controversy

2006-04-09T20:01:00.000-07:00

I hate this controversy. It seems to me that people are more concerned with power than they are world missions. People will not be reached as a result of the current political controversy within the IMB and its Board of Trustees.

I don't have time to explain the entire conflict and its history, and, more than likely, most of you are already aware of this situation, as it has been brewing for several months now. However, I would recommend the following sites and blogs for those of you who are interested.

http://www.missionsblog.com/ - my friend Michael

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/ - Wade Burleson - Board member of IMB

My own, more detailed thoughts I reserve for later... Suffice it to say, for now, I agree with Wade.

Do these questions matter to anybody?

2006-04-09T19:27:00.000-07:00

So, there wasn't a tremendous amount of response to my question: What doctrines are essential, necessary to Christianity, and what teachings are peripheral?

I believe these are going to be the essential questions with which we must interact, and come to real conclusions. Over the last 6 months, I've devoted quite a bit of time and study to the "Emergent Church" movement, also known as Post-Modern Christianity. This article by Scot McKnight demonstrates to me that this is not something that we can just ignore.

I appreciate how Dr. McKnight has interacted with the EC folk and not just written them off as so many others have done. As an individual who has read nearly a dozen books related to Postmodern Christianity, I am impressed by a lot of what they have to say. Don't mishear me...I still maintain that there are serious problems with these folks. However, we (evangelicals) have a lot to learn from them, as in, they are the only people that I know of who are saying some of the things that we need to hear.

More to come on this in the not so distant future.

Why

2006-04-05T14:51:00.000-07:00

So, I've discovered that I'm not nearly as smart as people think I am, and that I'm not nearly as smart as I think I am.

I've come to recognize that very little of what I think is truly original thought. Therefore, it doesn't make sense, nor is it in a spirit of humility, for me to post my own thoughts for others to read. Therefore, (at least for the most part) what I intend to do on this site is to point people to material (i.e. - books, articles, other blogs, music, sermons, other literature, etc.) that would, by the grace of God, edify those who partake of it. I expect my own thoughts (at least original ideas) to be posted very rarely.

Some things that I hope to pay particular attention to:

1.) Theology
2.) Politics and World News
3.) Missions and Missiology
4.) The Emerging Church and Post-Modernity
5.) Practical applications and ramifications of all these things

This should be interesting. I hope not to be too offensive, but also promise not avoid issues simply becuase they are controversial. That spoken, don't get your hopes up that I'll write on every controversial issue known to man. This is a place that I hope to share thoughts regarding issues that are currently important to me (that is, at the time I'm blogging on any given topic at any given moment).

I'll also update people on what I'm reading, and whether what I'm reading is any good or not.

So, as I said when I started this thing a couple weeks ago, here goes nothing.

Let's start interacting around a question...

What doctrines are essential to Christianity (orthodoxy), and what doctrines are important, but non-essentials?

May the dialogue begin,
ben

So, I've finally given in...

2006-03-22T13:10:00.000-08:00

Many of my friends have asked me to put my theological musings on paper. So, I've decided to start a blog. Now, all of my thoughts are on display for the whole world.

May God have mercy on us...

No, seriously, I do pray that God would be merciful to us in that He might providentially guide my thoughts as I journal here. I'm sure this can only lead to my incrimination, as some will no doubt find my thoughts heretical, but this is the best way to do theology, right?

For you theology police out there... please be kind. We're all trying to grow in the faith, and contend for that which was once delievered to the saints. Much of what will be considered "up for debate" are second-order issues not central to Christian orthodoxy. Though I do hope to monologue about key doctrines essential to Christianity (i.e. - Trinity, Deity of Christ, Inspiration/Authority of the Bible, Depravity/Lostness of Man, etc.) , let's make it clear from the beginning that this is not the place to condemn those with whom you might disagree on matters not indespensable to the whole of the Christian faith.

With all this in mind, here goes nothing.

Ben Arbour