Categories
Spirituality

The Coming Evangelical Collapse?

Michael Spencer, aka, the “Internet Monk,” writes about The Coming Evangelical Collapse in the Christian Science Monitor, in an article that’s making the rounds on blogs and email lists.  Mark Galli interacts with Spencer in a Christianity Today post

I think Spencer makes some good points.  He’s right, I fear, that the religious and spiritual culture we are passing on to our children in “mainstream” evangelical churches often is shallow and banal.  He’s also right that mainstream evangelical culture has too closely attached itself to “conservative” American politics.

I also think he’s probably right about the depth of theological roots among average evangelical church-goers.  But here I think part of the problem isn’t, as Spencer suggests, that we lack orthodox foundations.  If anything, I think it’s because a couple of generations of our leadership have been reared with a theological framework that is too narrow in its supposed orthodoxy.  Our theology is often obscurantist because it lacks contact with the broader world of knowledge and scholarship.  If we become a ghetto, I think it will be because we have made ourselves an into an intellectual ghetto.

At the same time, Galli is right:  “Evangelical” is a term that describes a particular historical / sociological moment.  That moment will surely pass, though not in ten years as Spencer predicts.  Yet there will always be movements of people called by God to be “evangelical” in the sense of living the good news of the inauguration of God’s Kingdom in Jesus Christ.

Categories
Biblical Studies Interviews Science & Technology Theology

Nature's Witness: Conversation With Daniel Harrell

This continues my conversation with Daniel Harrell, author of “Nature’s Witness: How Evolution Can Inspire Faith.” Daniel is a long-time Pastor at Park Street Church in Boston, MA. Park Street is an historic evangelical church.

Dave: Let’s consider a question that’s the “Big Kahuna” for many evangelicals — and I admit, a tough one for me: the evolution of human beings and the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. A friend of mine reminds me that Genesis 2:4 describes what follows as an “account” — a tol’dot or “generational history” — though of course I remind him that it’s a different history chronologically than Gen. 1! Theologically it seems that the literal-ness of Adam has been a line in the sand, particularly for folks committed to a Reformed understanding of original sin. You seem to lean towards a “recent representatives” view in your book. A few specific questions here:

Is it difficult or uncomfortable for you to come to a view that’s not strictly monogenistic? Does this mess significantly with your theology of scripture, the image of God, and original sin?

Daniel: No, not necessarily. As for the image of God, if you are willing to assert that God creates with evolution (which I am willing to do), then the image of God becomes a result of that, and thus people evolve as a reflection of God’s own creative and free character. However, in line with Pannenberg, I see the imago dei as destiny rather than starting point. So God creates people in his image; that is, he makes us with the potential to become (as with creation itself). At the same time, God’s plan includes redemption from the beginning. In Christ we are fully the image of God.

I’ve never been one who thought of original sin as genetic (and clearly neither could have the Reformers). Once Adam and Eve go for it, the human race is tainted to be sure, but remember, I see creation as something started and not yet finished, not something perfect that then went awry.

Dave: More than a few people have suggested to me that accepting a non-literal or semi-literal view of Adam is a rejection at least of evangelical Christianity, or worse, the loss of something essential to any sort of authentic Christian faith. How do you respond to such concerns?

Daniel: I do think that an historic Adam and Eve seem to be as essential as an historic Jesus, at least given Paul’s treatment. I grant that adam could be a metaphor for humanity as a whole. But if your concern is the authority of Scripture, having Adam as a person (chapter 2 account) describes what Gen 1 does poetically as a prologue. Still, if Adam turned out to be fictitious (and how would we ever know this?), I don’t think all would be lost. In the end, Christianity rises and falls on the resurrection, not on the garden of Eden.

Dave: How persuaded are you really that the “recent representative” view might be true? I have to confess, it seems to me a stretch to suggest that Adam was a Neolithic farmer or something along those lines.

Daniel: I do think it “might” be true and surely as well as anything at preserving a reading of Scripture in line with a reading of evolutionary biology. And yet it is, like all of this, provisional. If it is the case that people emerge as evolution teaches, having God inject homo sapiens into creation seems just as odd given all that would be required to mask its injection as natural rather than supernatural. But, if Adam is a precursor of Christ, I guess God can do whatever pleases him. My point is that we don’t have to get caught up in defending a literal Adam. We have options.

Categories
Epistemology Theology

Guretzki on Truth

This is a great entry by David Guretzki, Associate Professor of Theology at Briercrest College & Seminary.  Quoting in full:

I had this email come to me from an inquirer from the West Indies.

May I ask you a question about Christian Soteriology ?

With so many different denominations out there who insist that there are commandments which they keep that other churches do not keep (eg 7th day Sabbath) and with so many different interpretations of the bible, how does one know what the truth is and is finding the truth about every single commandment to be kept a matter of life and death?

Secondly, why is it that the indwelling Spirit doesn’t guarantee singularity of thought?

Here’s what I said:

1) You ask, “With so many different denominations out there who insist that there are commandments which they keep that other churches do not keep (eg 7th day Sabbath) and with so many different interpretations of the bible, how does one know what the truth is and is finding the truth about every single commandment to be kept a matter of life and death?”

Biblically, I think it is important to realize that “truth” is, first of all, most closely identified with the person of Jesus Christ. As he himself says, ”I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). One of the problems we have had in the modern period is assuming the “impersonality” of truth. But this is in contrast to the biblical assertion that God is grace and truth, and that he manifests that grace and truth personally in his Son Jesus Christ, who is also said to be full of grace and truth (John 1:14). Jesus is, in other words, the exact representation of God’s gracious and truthful being (cf. Heb 1:3). To know Jesus is to know Truth.

This leads me to conclude that no human individual (or denomination, for that matter) is able to grasp the truth in its fullness on her or his own. We know the truth analogously to how one knows another person. Thus, we would be better off thinking about “truth” in relational terms. In other words, to know, biblically, is to enter into relationship, not simply to grasp cognitively. To know means to know someone moreso than knowing something. While cognitive grasping of the nature of another person is an important aspect of knowledge, it is only a part of what it means to know.

To know the truth, therefore, means to know Christ personally in a growing way. It is what we call the walk of discipeship and following after Jesus. Consequently, differences of opinion on what Scripture means, how we are to keep commandments, etc. should not at all come as asurprise, given the fact that we (Christians) are all in the process of coming to know Christ more fully, and to becoming increasingly conformed to his image. Since we now only see dimly and only know in part, we are bound to disagree, especially because we continue to fall into sin and division. But when we see Jesus face to face, then we shall “know fully, even as [we are] fully known.” (1 Cor 13:12) Full knowledge in the kingdom of God will consist of knowing God the Father fully in and through the one mediator, Jesus Christ. Though we cannot yet claim to know God fully in this life, we claim the Scripture that he does know us fully in Jesus Christ. Our knowledge of him is, in other words, in the process of “catching up” to how he already knows us.

In regard to whether finding the truth about every single commandment to be kept is a matter of life and death, I would say this: God alone is the one who holds life and death in his hand (Deut 32:39). As important as it is to ensure that we are living in obedience to God’s commands, we do so recognizing that it is only as God gives his Son and his Spirit that there is no condemnation (Rom 8:1-2). Those who think that a particular interpretation of a commandment is the key to life and death are still stuck in the idea that truth has something primarily to do with cognition, or even with right action, rather than right relationship. As disciples, we seek to do everything that Christ commanded (Matt 28:19), but we do so knowing that we do nothing to save ourselves. So we continue to debate over how best to live in obedience to Christ, but we do so recognizing, again, that our knowledge is still incomplete and dim.

2) You ask: “Why is it that the indwelling Spirit doesn’t guarantee singularity of thought?” Hopefully, the above begins to answer that, but I will expand here. Part of the problem, I think, is that we tend to think of “unity” as “uniformity of thought” or “singularlity of thought” rather than “cohesion of thought around a common centre.” I use the example of a large group of people standing around a very large and complex architectural structure–like a Great Pyramid of Egypt or the Taj Mahal. Singularity of thought would mean that every observer sees the architectural wonder from exactly the same perspective and using exactly the same set of words. But such uniformity wouldn’t likely even begin to capture the fullness of what is to be “known.” In contrast, “unity of thought” would accept that while all the people encircled around the object are viewing the same thing (i.e., they have a common centre of focus), they by no means will see the same thing. Thus, someone viewing the Taj Mahal from the north side will see very different things from the person viewing the Taj Mahal from the south side. But it is still the same central focus informing both. That is, I think, what it means to have unity of thought over against the idea of singularity of thought.

If in fact we all thought in uniform ways, the Christian pursuit of the knowledge of God (in the biblical sense) would be in danger of ceasing. Uniformity of thought would mean we would all agree on everything, and once we agree on everything, down to every possible minute detail, we would be tempted to set aside our pursuit of God and the fullness of his glory. We would be tempted by that great temptation which tempted Adam and Eve: You shall be like God, with the ability to know good and evil in the way that only God knows (Gen 3:5).

Furthermore, Scripture makes it clear that it is the Spirit of God alone who knows the deepest thoughts of God (1 Cor 2:11). In order for us all to know God in uniformity of mind, and to be agreed 100% on every minute detail of theology would require that all of us would know all things. And that, of course, would again, by definition, make us equal to God. Rather, it is as a fellowship of believers, the Church, the body of Christ made up of many members (1 Cor 12:12ff) that we come to know God. There is, in other words, no individual member that can claim to “know it all,” lest that individual be tempted to say, “I have no need of you.”

The Scripture teaches that the Spirit is a Spirit of unity (Eph 4:4), not a spirit of uniformity. (By the way, such a spirit of uniformity is what leads people into deception, especially in cults, and indeed, in all kinds of fundamentalisms where diversity of thought is discouraged). This is why the apostle says, “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3). If the Spirit ensured uniformity, the moral imperative to us to make the effort to maintain unity would be negated. Instead, to make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit means that we as Christians are called to recognize the spiritual unity that we have in Jesus Christ, in the unity of our baptism, and the oneness of God the Father, even in the midst of disagreements. It means working hard to remember that even when we disagree at various doctrinal points and in matters of practice, we still share a common confession of faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in whose name we were baptized. Technically speaking, then, the only appropriate cause for a break of fellowship with those with whom we disagree is when we disagree about the identity of the God whom we worship.

Categories
Science & Technology

GPS Golf for Smartphones

This application looks awesome.  You can even enter your own courses using Google Maps.

Categories
Humor

Sharkface and Skeleton Man

Looking on the web for some video clips for a project on Lamentations and stumbled on these.  Hmmm…

Categories
Biblical Seminary

Biblical Seminary: Missional Theology I Video

Here’s a video for the online Missional Theology I course at Biblical Seminary that (Lord willing) I’m taking starting next month.  I’m psyched for this one.

Categories
Spirituality

Ryan Bolger on the Emerging Church

Ryan Bolger’s page on the Fuller Seminary site offers some good thoughts about emerging church communities.  Even more importantly — darn, I wish I could grow hair and a beard like that.

Categories
Theology

The Task of Theology

. . . the task of theology is not simply to ask ‘What has the church said and believed, and how can we best express that so that people today will be able to understand it?; it must also ask and answer the question, ‘What should the church say and believe today?’  Consideration of the internal coherence must also entail concern for what we might call the ‘external reference’ of the story which the church tells, of its correspondence to some actual state of affairs in an beyond the world, its responsibility to some objective reality which stands over against itself and of which it seeks to speak.  This is vital if theology is to remain essentially a quest for truth, rather than a simple bid (driven by nostalgia or a misguided sense of historical obligation) to preserve the shape an coherence of a particular theological tradition at all costs.

Trevor Hart, Faith Thinking:  the Dynamics of Christian Theology (assigned text for Missional Theology I at Biblical Seminary).

Categories
Uncategorized

New Article: Patent Infringement Damages

My article “Patent Damages Reform and the Shape of Patent Law” has been published in the current volume of the Boston University Law Review.  The article provides an overview of Congressional proposals to change the way damages are calculated in patent cases and offers alternative suggestions for reform in light of empirical data and recent case law.  It includes an original empirical study of damage awards in patent infringement cases.

Categories
Uncategorized

Missional: Generous Orthodoxy

Dave Dunbar, President of Biblical Seminary, at which I’m taking some theology classes, sets  out in his current Missional Journal Biblical’s understanding of the Missional posture as an evangelical institution devoted to a generous orthodoxy.  I like this description of generous orthodoxy:

The intention of the phrase “generously orthodox” is to describe the playing field for our school. The boundaries of the field are the boundaries of “right teaching” which is what we understand by the term “orthodox.” I will speak more about this in a future article focusing on conviction three in our statement: The Indispensable Significance of the Christian Tradition. The point to be made is that we believe there is right teaching and wrong teaching, there is orthodoxy and heresy, and we know the difference. In other words, there are boundaries to the playing field and Biblical Seminary plays in-bounds.

On the other hand, we believe in a generous orthodoxy which means that we treat one another charitably as we play on the field. We certainly recognize that people sometimes step out of bounds–intentionally or accidentally–and yet our primary concern is not to function as referees but as players. It is one of the unhappy legacies of Christendom that many Christians have chosen to function as referees calling other Christians “out of bounds.” The result? Too much time has been spent precisely defining the boundaries and pointing out the faults of other players. Generous orthodoxy means that we will concentrate more on being the players that Christ would have us be.

At Biblical we believe that God is calling the church in North America to understand that the culture around us is post-Christian. Ours is again a missionary situation which calls for an all-hands-on-deck effort of Christians across denominational and confessional lines. The point of generous orthodoxy is not just greater harmony among believers–not a bad idea!–but greater effectiveness of united witness for the sake of God’s kingdom.

This posture is exactly why I decided to work on my theology classes at Biblical.