Just Musing . . . Theology, Philosophy, and More

N. T. Wright on Discipleship and Scholarship: Part II

2008-06-18T18:47:00.000-07:00

I want to offer one other quote from Wright's Moule Lecture. It ought to remind those of us who live and move and have our being in the academic world that within that marvelous economy and context which is God's Church, we have just as much to learn from non-scholars as they do from us.

“. . . scholar-disciples are part of the larger world of the church, including the great majority of fellow-disciples who are not themselves scholars, and here there is a vital need both to recognise the responsibility to teach, at whatever level may be appropriate, and to recognise the need to learn, in various different ways, from those who have no Greek or Hebrew and for whom, as Ward Gasque memorably put it, Formgeschichte and Traditionsgeschichte and all the rest belong in the same category as Bullsgeschichte. Scholar-disciples must learn how to teach without pride, and to learn without fear, among their fellow members of the Body of Christ.” (p. 12)

N.T. Wright on Scholarship and Discipleship

2008-06-18T18:32:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading N.T. Wright's recent Moule Memorial Lecture in honor of Charles Moule. The lecture can be found here. In this lecture, Wright considers the relationship between Christian discipleship and scholarship, specifically, New Testament scholarship. It was a stimulating read, and I want to share a quote:

"There are many times in the work of biblical scholarship, as there must be equally in physics and French history, in geology and jurisprudence, when one is feeling one’s way in the dark towards the possibility of a fresh hypothesis and allowing the data with which one’s mind is stocked, and the frameworks of understanding one already has, to interact, to play around with one another as with a massive jigsaw, hoping for the ‘aha’ moment when a new pattern will emerge which can then become a full hypothesis, earning the right not to be instantly validated but to go forward for testing against the normal criteria common, within reasoned discourse, to all disciplines (those I mentioned earlier: getting in the data, appropriate simplicity, shedding light elsewhere). And in that dark and mysterious and often deeply frustrating and exciting process, the Christian disciple should know that, while prayer and piety do not guarantee the right answer, yet they have a double part to play, first in the general terms that a Christian physicist might be expected to pray about the hypotheses she was developing and testing, and second in the more specific sense that since the New Testament is about, and intended to generate and sustain, the practice of Christian faith, witness and life, there is the proper expectation of what you might call an internal interlinking between the prayer and the study of the scholar who is also a disciple. In particular, the innate knowledge of what being a Christian actually means opens up the possibility of hypotheses which are both fresh and faithful. The chapel is also a place of study; the library is also a place of prayer. And there must be many for whom, as it clearly was for Charlie Moule, it is often hard to discern where the one ends and the other begins, or indeed whether either of them really stops" [emphasis mine]. (p. 11)

Job, the Philosopher, and the Exegete

2008-05-15T09:26:00.000-07:00

I recently received a compilation of Calvin College’s and Calvin Theological Seminary’s Stob Lectures (1986-1998). The Stob lectures, in honor of the late Henry Stob of Calvin Theological Seminary, feature the latest work of renowned Christian thinkers (philosophers, ethicists, theologians, etc.) in their respective fields. I highly recommend these lectures.

I just finished Eleonore Stump’s (Philosopher – St. Louis University) lecture Faith and the Problem of Evil. Back in 2003, she delivered the venerable Gifford Lectures (to be published by Oxford) on much the same topic. There’s so much to say about her Stob Lectures, but I will limit myself. In much of her work on the philosophical problem of evil, Stump’s proposals do not fit within the established western philosophical paradigm and dialectic traditionally brought to bear on evil, pain, and suffering. I consider this to be a good thing. This is no less the case in her Stob Lectures. She makes much of what she terms a second-person account, and possible philosophical fruits that second-person accounts share over both first-person and third-person accounts. I do not have the time to spell this out. If it’s something that interests you, you should familiarize yourself with her work. She then applies this second-person account to the text of Job, arguing that this OT wisdom book that always finds its way into discussions of the problem of evil offers a second-person response to the problem of evil. She uses the Anchor Bible Commentary on the book of Job as a foil for her interpretive proposal. In the second installment of her Stob Lectures she briefly summarizes this approach, which I here quote:

“In “Second-person Accounts and the Problem of Evil,” I discussed the problem of evil in a preliminary way. I raised a methodological issue regarding philosophical problems such as the problem of evil, and I argued that at least sometimes an important role in their examination can be played by what I called (adapting a phrase from Avishai Margalit) ‘a second-person account.’ A second-person experience is the sort of experience I have when I have personal interaction of a direct and unmediated kind with another conscious person. A second-person account is a representing of such a second-person experience in a form which helps someone who was not part of that experience to simulate what it would have been like for him if he had been a bystander in it. I went on to argue that the book of Job is a second-person account of Job’s interactions with God, and that God’s speeches to Job are themselves a second-person account of God’s interactions with his creatures. I tried to show that, contrary to common opinion, there is a theodicy in the book of Job but that it is in the form of a second-person account. Such a second-person account will have much more weight with believers than non-believers because, like Job, believers have their own second-person experiences of God, of one sort or another, to draw on. So, I argued in the last lecture, believers and non-believers will and should approach the problem of evil in different ways. Believers should bring to bear on the problem not only the usual array of philosophical and theological considerations but also their own religious experience of God and their interpretations of second-person accounts involving God, especially biblical narratives. To do so is to approach the problem of evil with the stance Job takes towards God at the end of the book.” (Eleonore Stump, “Faith and the Problem of Evil,” in Seeking Understanding: The Stob Lectures (1986-1998), p. 530).

So, what does this have to do with my title? It’s quite simple; philosophers and exegetes (and theologians and psychologists . . .) need to be in conversation with one another. Oftentimes, philosophers engage in sloppy exegesis in their research and writing. Oftentimes, exegetes forget that they bring certain philosophical assumptions to the biblical text, some of which may be philosophically suspect. One thing we all need to keep in mind is the Medieval idea of the unity of all truth, and that all truth is God's truth. Interdisciplinary dialogue is and will be fruitful. What is interesting about Stump’s Stob Lectures is that I think she is adding a necessary and exegetically warranted layer of nuance to the interpretation of the “God speaks” sections in the text of Job. She uses the Anchor Bible Commentary as a foil for her interpretative proposals. I’m neither an exegetical scholar nor an expert on Job, but I think Stump is on to something with her interpretation of Job. All I really want to say, then, is that future commentaries on Job would do well to interact with Stump’s second-person assessment and how this functions as a response to the problem of evil within the framework of scriptural premises. What emerges from this interpretation is different from some of the other extant interpretive proposals (I say this with some measure of caution given that I have not sampled most of the commentaries on Job. I’ll put it in the form of a conditional then—if commentators have not pursued something akin to Stump’s proposal, then they should explore this further).

Far from being a callous, vindictive God who cares not what his creatures of dust suffer, God in the whirlwind, who speaks of even inanimate and non-human sentient creatures that do not share in the imago dei in motherly, tender terms, is intimately interested in his image bearers, so interested that he communes with them, giving them, indeed us, you and me, an encounter with himself. His interaction with Job is a demonstration of his power, to be sure. But this power is balanced by his intricate personal care, a care that is revealed through these second-person accounts. This is no third-person response to the problem of evil, where we come to know why pain, suffering, and evil is the salient feature in some state of affairs x (the concern of traditional treatments of evil), but it is an answer on a different, probably more important level. I look forward to concluding Stump's second installment within the next few days, as it has already proven well worthwhile.

Volume IV of 'Reformed Dogmatics' is Here!

2008-05-07T10:20:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I received the final installment of the English translation of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics. It is subtitled Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. There are numerous systematic theologies available from multiple theological perspectives; in my humble assessment (my academic area of specialty is neither theology nor systematics) this is one of the best. Irrespective of your own theological paradigm, I cannot recommend this work highly enough, as it is substantive, rigorous, faithful, etc. It's not in my schedule right now to read extensively in these four volumes, but I do dabble here and there, and someday plan to work through all of it.

Hermeneutics and Preaching: Redemptive History and Christ-Centeredness

2008-05-01T13:31:00.000-07:00

In mid-June I will continue a sermon series in Ecclesiastes that I began several years ago at Crestview Bible Church in Hutchinson, KS. Given that I only preach a few times a year, it could be a very long sermon series! My wife and I met in that church, our families are members there, and we have beloved friends there also. Phil Auxier, the pastor at Crestview and our friend, graciously extends these invitations to me every so often.

In my exegetical preparation (there are other equally indispensible elements to sermon preparation, for example, prayer and meditation) for this sermon, I am examining the normal checklist of resources (i.e., Scripture (goes without saying), a dozen or so commentaries on Ecclesiastes, and some general biblical reference works including the recently released Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (eds., G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson). I am also, however, spending some time with a few works on biblical theology and the redemptive-historical approach to Scripture as these topics come to bear on biblical interpretation in general and preaching specifically. Finally, I am again reflecting on what expository preaching (I like the term “biblical” better) means for preaching different biblical genres. A verse-by-verse linear approach, for example, probably fits the epistles nicely. Although even here, when one approaches some of the more ethical, Christian living principles in, say, the latter parts of some of the epistles during later installments of the sermon series, one will want to remind his hearers of the theological and Gospel underpinnings of those principles that were examined in earlier parts of the series. Ecclesiastes, given its structure (or seeming lack thereof) makes this whole task difficult. Since I have started in a linear fashion I will probably continue down that path. This does not mean that I’ve stopped thinking about how best to preach through a book like Ecclesiastes.

But back to the redemptive-historical point, it is not always clear what to do with the Old Testament, either in one’s private use of God’s Word or in the context of proclaiming that Word in corporate worship, and this “problem” is only accentuated with the wisdom book of Ecclesiastes. Very often (especially in OT narrative contexts), preachers exclusively draw moral and lifestyle applications for Christian living from the examples of Old Testament saints. To be sure, this has some legitimacy. However, if this is all that is done, one has neglected more substantive issues like [i] the nature of the biblical canon and, therefore, [ii] where and how the narrative, account, passage, etc. functions in redemptive history, and specifically [iii] how does this passage link to the incarnation and especially the Gospel.

[iii] above is especially important. Wherever we are in the Old Testament, we need to keep the following questions in mind: How does this passage function in redemptive history? How does this passage come to bear on Christ’s person and work? This is not to advocate an unmitigated and uncritical reading back into the Old Testament anything we want. Neither is it meant to minimize real differences and certain discontinuities between the Testaments. Rather, it takes the words of Scripture and Christ himself seriously in that remarkable encounter with a few of his disciples on the road to Emmaus where, after they filled him in on their conversation, the text says, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Christ himself advocates what we might call a Christocentric Hermeneutic, whereby one takes the person and work of Christ as a central part of one’s understanding of the Old Testament and the information contained in the span from Genesis to Malachi, from the Law to the Writings to the Prophets. We bring the same construct to bear on the New Testament. Of course, this opens up many hermeneutical questions, and precisely what a Christocentric hermeneutic means and how it is fleshed out will be more nuanced. Taking the teaching of Jesus here seriously and then discussing the fuller extent of what this means for exegesis are distinct issues though. We need not have the second issue settled before affirming that the first issue is important. So, we at least must begin with what Christ himself says about his relationship to the Old Testament.

On this note, I want to share a passage from a book I’ve been reading in preparation for the sermon, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture by Graeme Goldsworthy. I would recommend it to preachers and “non-preachers” alike.

“Luke shows plainly that the encounter with the risen Christ makes the difference. Whatever transpired in the hermeneutical lecture that Jesus gave when he “interpreted to them the things about himself in the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27), it must have formed the basis for the later apostolic ministry. As Jesus speaks to the larger group of disciples and opens their minds to understand the Scriptures, it would appear that Luke intends us to understand the centrality of his suffering and resurrection for hermeneutics (Luke 24:45-47). This point cannot be emphasized enough for it signifies that the meaning of all the Scriptures is unlocked by the death and resurrection of Jesus. The practical issue for the preacher is whether we can afford to assume that people will understand this without being reminded of it. Can we truly and faithfully expound any text of Scripture apart from this heart of the gospel event? And, once again, if we believe that the link must be made, how do we avoid predictability and sameness in our application?” (pp. 54-55)

A Couple of Quotes

2008-03-01T16:13:00.000-08:00

I've been really sick for the last several days with some sort of viral infection. It hasn't been fun. I've been using some of this time, when I feel up to it, to read in a couple of books I recently purchased: Biblical Theology by Geerhardus Vos and Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church by N. T. Wright. I've really enjoyed what I've read so far. For some time now, I've been interested in the subject of biblical theology and how it relates to systematic theology. I anticipate Vos will continue to help me here, as he has already done in Chapter One. Additionally, I think much of what Wright has to say in his recent book nicely addresses some rather poor theology rampant in evangelicalism and abroad when it comes to our future hope and what that entails. Here are some choice nuggets from each.

"God's self-revelation to us was not made for a primarily intellectual purpose. It is not to be overlooked, of course, that the truly pious mind may through an intellectual contemplation of the divine perfections glorify God. This would be just as truly religious as the intensest occupation of the will in the service of God. But it would not be the full-orbed religion at which, as a whole, revelation aims. It is true, the Gospel teaches that to know God is life eternal. But the concept of 'knowledge' here is not to be understood in its Hellenic sense, but in the Shemitic sense. According to the former, 'to know' means to mirror the reality of a thing in one's consciousness. The Shemitic and Biblical idea is to have the reality of something practically interwoven with the inner experience of life. Hence 'to know' can stand in the Biblical idiom for 'to love', 'to single out in love'. Because God desires to be known after this fashion, He has caused His revelation to take place in the milieu of the historical life of a people. The circle of revelation is not a school, but a 'covenant'. To speak of revelation as an 'education' of humanity is a rationalistic and utterly un-scriptural way of speaking. All that God disclosed of Himself has come in response to the practical religious needs of His people as these emerged in the course of history."

(Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, pp. 8-9)

"A survey of beliefs about life after death conducted in Britain in 1995 indicated that though most people believed in some kind of continuing life, only a tiny minority, even among churchgoers, believed in the classic Christian position, that of a future bodily resurrection. Indeed, I often find that though Christians still use the word resurrection, they treat it as a synonym for "life after death" or "going to heaven" and that, when pressed, they often share the confusion of the wider world on the subject."

(N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, p. xii)

"Instead of talking vaguely about heaven and then trying to fit the language of resurrection into that, we should talk with biblical precision about the resurrection and reorganize our language about heaven around that."

(N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, p. 148)

Coming Soon . . . Volume IV of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics

2008-02-24T11:51:00.000-08:00

I am very excited for the May release of the English translation of the great Dutch Reformed theologian, Herman Bavinck's, fourth volume of Reformed Dogmatics. You can check out the Table of Contents and Editor's Introduction here. I initially came across this bit of information at Reformation 21. I have dabbled in the first three volumes of the series, and have greatly profited from the little that I've read. Someday, I hope to read the entirety of all four volumes with some folks that want to do the same.

N. T. Wright on Heaven: Poorly Framed by Time, but Nicely Done by Wright

2008-02-11T19:44:00.000-08:00

In a recent interview with N. T. Wright on Time's website, the current Bishop of Durham answers some questions about heaven. The interview itself is actually pretty good. Wright has some substantive things to say. The really disturbing aspect of the article however, is how the topic is framed. The article is titled, "Christians Wrong About Heaven, says Bishop," when a more accurate title should be something like "The Popular Cultural View of Heaven (Mixed with a Couple Probable Distortions from the Medieval Era) that Some Christians Adopt Because They are Theologically, Historically, and Exegetically Naive Due to Sloth and Laziness in Scriptural Matters . . . IS WRONG!" The nature of the title is clarified a bit in the second paragraph, and yet the damage has already been done. This is just another instance demonstrating that Historic, Orthodox Christianity is very often poorly understood and represented in the culture at large.

But if we're honest, a substantial portion of the blame falls at our own Christian doorsteps. Many in our midst are almost entirely illiterate on theological matters even though they can rattle off the last 5 'American Idol' winners along with the last 5 'Survivor' winners and the latest twist on 'Lost' (I love 'Lost' by the way). In the new heavens and earth (yes, I said "earth") we are not going to be floating around singing as disembodied souls. We will have resurrected bodies. One of my favorite seminary professors used to say that we will drive cars in heaven. He said this, partly to shock students ought of the Greek and Gnostic assumptions that creep into notions of heaven, but partly because he actually believes it. The nature of what our lives of worship will be like in the new heavens and earth is for another time though. Suffice it to say for now, that worship will take multiple forms.

A very short biblical theology of the inherent goodness of matter [you know, physical stuff]: step [1]: God created the physical universe (He even called it good) . . . and God does not create evil things, step [2]: The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, took on human flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us (God cannot be joined to anything evil, He was "joined" to flesh, therefore, flesh must not be evil), step [3]: Jesus Christ, the God-man, had a physical resurrection body which He will have forever and ever, step [4]: There will be a new heavens and earth, and God's redeemed, in physical resurrection bodies, will reign there forever with their King. Matter is not inherently evil. God created it, and it will continue to be part of God's created reality even through the process of redemption and eventual transformation into a time when sin and death and evil are no more.

For a nice comparison of the "Greek" view of the immortality of the soul vs. the Biblical view of resurrection, see Oscar Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? The Witness of the New Testament (London: The Epworth Press, 1960).

The Reality of Brokenness, but . . .

2008-01-30T14:29:00.000-08:00

We live in a broken world. This is another way of saying we live in a fallen or cursed world. A new heaven and earth is coming. God’s will is in the process of being done on earth as it is in heaven. God’s kingdom is marching on. And yet, we do not currently experience this reality so beautifully portrayed in Revelation 21, where it depicts our tears being wiped away by our Lord. History has yet to be consummated. It’s coming sure as you’re breathing, but it’s not here yet. “Come Lord Jesus.”

In the meantime we hurt. We weep. We sometimes despair. We sin. We hurt others and we hurt ourselves. We rarely admit this though. Brokenness is all around us. And yes, this is even a reality for those whom the Lord has adopted as His beloved children, although we are in the process of being sanctified. Sanctification presupposes that we have a profound need of being sanctified. Right? Yes, it does and we do. There are still remnants of brokenness and sin in our lives, which, while being slowly yet surely removed, will be a reality to be wrestled with and mortified this side of glory. I think we often deceive ourselves about just how much we stand in need of this divinely governed process, and those things about us that are in need of sanctifying grace. We are good at putting up fronts, aren’t we? We know the Christian lingo and how to act out a seemingly vibrant Christian life. We are good at confessing just enough sin to appear honest and humble, when, in fact, deeper, ugly realities lurk within our hearts. We are superficial with ourselves and with others. I am just such a person.

The Christian context in which I have spent the last four years has taught me greatly in this respect. Sin and brokenness are taken seriously, but the story doesn’t end there. Hope through the Gospel is proclaimed and lived out. The church where my family attends is a safe place to confess and admit just how horrible we can be. When I have done this, I have been met overwhelmingly by love. Equally as important, I am exhorted to repent, believe, and constantly remember the Gospel. People are committed . . . truly committed . . . to me as I am to them. It appears to me that in this community there are few illusions about the sin and brokenness in our lives. But more importantly, sin and brokenness are consistently met with the Gospel, with love and the call to repent and believe in Christ, in terms of what He has done for us and the life to which He calls us. Is this the perfect church? No reply is needed. If there ever were a rhetorical question, that is one! However, there is a deliberate and sincere attempt to be substantive, honest, and authentic in all facets of life as members of Christ's Body (theologically, existentially, etc.)

We, as those claiming to be followers of Christ, need to think long and hard about what the Body of Christ means and what it entails for how we live out our lives under the sun. We have let far too many western individualistic assumptions creep into and distort our thinking about the Church. This, in turn, damages our lives, our families, not to mention that it fails to glorify our Lord who died for His Church. It’s uncomfortable at first to begin to cast these assumptions aside and replace them with more biblical and corporate assumptions, but it’s good and healthy.

Okay, so I have a couple of different lines of thought in this post: [1] brokenness and, [2] the need for the right kind of community (i.e., the Body of Christ as it’s supposed to function). [2] is the solution to [1]. It is only the radical love of Christ flowing through lives in proper community as the Gospel is preached and lived out that will address the profound brokenness in our world in its various manifestations.

We, who are redeemed by the grace of God, have a broken world as our context. How are we responding to this fact? I’ll speak for myself . . . not very well. The adjectives that often describe me: self-absorbed, callous, uncaring, distracted, lazy. May the Lord give us hearts for broken people. May we venture out of our comfortable lives, rubbing shoulders, getting dirty, getting involved with those of our fellow humanity who are made in the image of God. The thought of this scares me. Only the grace of God and the love of Christ can make this a reality. Let's begin to pray more to this end.

Having said this, I want to direct your attention to a website that shares a moving story of brokenness and hope. The RUF (Reformed University Fellowship) campus minister here at OU (Doug Serven) mentioned this site earlier this week. Some of the language (at least one expletive) or the way the story is told may not resonate with how you think as a Christian, but I hope it will grip you to the core as it has me. Check out To Write Love on Her Arms.

Scripted Prayers and Spontaneous Prayers: A Few Thoughts (Part Two)

2008-01-24T09:34:00.000-08:00

In his article “Rediscovering Mother Kirk” a few years back for Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, D. G. Hart (Westminster Theological Seminary – California) expresses some of Calvin’s thoughts on the matter of written prayers. His article is directed primarily at those in the Presbyterian tradition with low-church proclivities. I here cite the following section from his essay in its entirety.

". . . Calvin’s Good Reasons

The image of Reformed believers with their eyes open in prayer, because of the use of a prayer book, is one that would strike many contemporary Presbyterians as a sign of spiritual rigor mortis. In many Presbyterian circles it is common to assume that real faith expresses itself spontaneously, without the props of formalism (i.e., “dead” orthodoxy).

But Calvin had good reasons for writing out prayers, not just for families but also for pastors. “I highly approve of it that there be a certain form,” he declared, “from which the ministers be not allowed to vary: that first, some provision be made to help the simplicity and unskillfulness of some; secondly, that the consent and harmony of the churches one with another may appear; and lastly, that the capricious giddiness and levity of such as affect innovations may be prevented.”

What is striking about Calvin’s reasons for written prayers is that they fall squarely within that range of sentiments that sometimes prompt Presbyterians to look outside Reformed churches for high-church expressions of devotion. First, he admits implicitly that some people pray better than others, and that worship, which is designed for God’s pleasure, should use the best efforts that the Church can produce. In other words, worship is not a form of spiritual affirmative action that allows everyone equal time in the liturgy. Better to use the prayers deemed superior, even if prepared by saints of the past, than to give precedence to the words assembled by the current pastor simply because he is the one now given the responsibility for praying.

Second, Calvin regards uniformity in liturgical expression as a good thing rather than as a sign of complacency, a sentiment that stands in contrast both to the liturgical diversity that now prevails among Presbyterians and to the logic of cultural contextualization that often justifies such diversity of worship. For Calvin, Reformed theology should be embodied in certain liturgical manners; it is not a shapeless substance that can take any possible form as long as one is sincere or earnest.

Finally, he believed written prayers prevented the kind of flippancy and disrespect so often expressed in the practice of spontaneous prayer, especially when sincerity and passion, more than dignity or truth, are the criteria.

All these reasons, in other words, suggest that if Calvin were living today he would be looking for a high-church liturgy along with those disgruntled Presbyterians attracted to Canterbury or Constantinople. Which is another way of saying that the road to old Geneva might offer a form of worship just as sober and careful as that of today’s high-church traditions. . . ."

The goal of this post, as is the goal of most, is not to offer any sort of definitive word (such a desire on my part would be folly, and the blogosphere suffers too much from the malady of intellectual dishonesty, hubris, and just plain ole self-deception about one’s depth of knowledge), but rather to get us thinking or to continue a “conversation” about such matters.

A Simple Question

2008-01-21T18:25:00.001-08:00

In a sentence or two, what do you think the following question is asking, "What is the meaning of life?" I told you it would be a simple question! As I am writing a dissertation on this, I'm curious what everyone (all half a dozen of you) thinks about this.

Scripted Prayers and Spontaneous Prayers: A Few Thoughts (Part One)

2008-01-18T12:03:00.000-08:00

I have gone through some significant paradigm shifts in my thinking in the last several years. Not a few of these have occurred on theological and philosophical fronts. One such shift (which is in process) is taking place in the area of Ecclesiology. I have spent most of my life in low-Church environments and it is only relatively recently that I have spent time interacting with, reflecting upon, and participating in the high-Church tradition (the Presbyterian church that my family calls home is on the high-Church “radar screen” even if not in the middle of it). As part of this process, I am more and more attracted to the liturgy. And one element in the liturgy that those who have only caught a simplistic, passing glimpse often criticize, along with the general formality, is the use of scripted, recited prayers (not solely though). Of the liturgy in general and scripted prayers specifically we hear the standard criticisms: Where is room for spontaneity? Where is room for the work of the Holy Spirit? Ritual and formality are indications of dead orthodoxy. These are legitimate questions and concerns to which responses, in the form of other questions, are: Just how does the Holy Spirit work in corporate worship? What are the God-ordained means and methods to be used in corporate worship? Is the work of the Holy Spirit in corporate worship restricted to contexts of spontaneity? What of discipline, study, and prayer in preparation for heralding the Word of God? What of using rich, substantive prayers penned and uttered by saints of the past, to which we can add our willful, fervent affirmation? (Pick up a copy of Valley of Vision to experience the power and profundity of praying prayers that predate us hundreds of years.) Indeed, a prayer prayed and recorded 500 years or 1000 years ago can still be prayed today . . . by us. Of course, which prayers to use and pray is not an either/or issue.

On the specific issue of prayer in corporate worship, it seems as though we need not and should not commit ourselves solely to one or the other. Indeed, it seems entirely appropriate to have prayers that lack a determinate script during corporate worship. However, it is also entirely appropriate to have prayers that are scripted, and these prayers are equally the domain of the Holy Spirit in which to work. There is nothing less Godly or Spirit-filled about them. In addition, they are often more biblically substantive and moving than their relatively spontaneous counterparts. Compare the following prayers (The first I shall call informal, the second formal):

“Lord, we just ask that you would just help us reach out and love the people around us. We just want you to know that we love you.”

“Dear Father of mercy, according to your promise of the power of the gospel and your Spirit, grant us love for our neighbors and even our enemies. For we know in Christ that you were reconciling the world to yourself, not counting our trespasses against us, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.”

Notice the difference.

We find prayers similar to the first example throughout evangelical churches today. Of course, they are often entirely sincere, and our heavenly Father is certainly pleased with requests to cause us and aid us in loving our neighbor, the second great commandment. Furthermore, God is certainly displeased with articulate, erudite, and sophisticated talk not grounded in a heart that loves Him and our neighbor. However, carefully crafted words out of a sincere love of God and man and desire to corporately worship Him in a worthy manner often possess a richness and depth not captured by “on the spot” utterances. And these scripted prayers need not suffer from any of the standard criticisms like empty formality, dead orthodoxy, and the like. Finally, it is true to say that we ought to pursue excellence in corporate worship, and often well-chosen prayers, the words of which have already been written, better meet this aim.

(. . . to be continued)

Herman Bavinck on Scripture and Life

2007-12-17T12:38:00.001-08:00

I've been reading portions of Herman Bavinck's (1854-1921; Dutch Reformed Theologian) Reformed Dogmatics. In the section on the attributes of Scripture (in the context of a larger discussion of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition), he offers the following words:

"Scripture does not exist to be memorized and parroted but to enter into the fullness and richness of the entire range of human life, to shape and guide it, and to bring it to independent activity in all areas." (Volume One, Prolegomena, p. 493)

If Bavinck's words resonate with you (and especially if they don't), you might consider reading Eugene Peterson's second volume in his set . . . in progress . . . on spiritual theology titled Eat This Book.

Antony Flew's Pilgrimage from Atheism

2007-11-29T10:33:00.000-08:00

I recently finished reading the fascinating new book (There is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind) partially chronicling the former atheist Antony Flew's move from atheism to something akin to deism or even possibly theism. Those aware of the philosophy of religion landscape of the last half-century no doubt know just how large Flew looms in the philosophical discussion. His classic essay, "Theology and Falsification" was highly influential, and is still read today. I read it as part of a philosophy of religion course in my Ph.D. studies here at the University of Oklahoma. Furthermore, his work on burden of proof issues opened up new discussion on just who must shoulder the burden of proof when it comes to God's existence, the theist or atheist. In a sense, we can thank Flew for Alvin Plantinga's work on belief in God being properly basic. (That is to say, such belief needn't be based on other more basic evidence . . . a person can be entirely within his or her epistemic rights in believing in God without any other propositional evidence in hand.)

A few years back while in seminary in Charlotte, NC, I and others from the seminary had the privilege of being present at a debate on Christ's resurrection between Flew and Gary Habermas. At this time, Flew was still an atheist. He was, however, a corgial fellow and very soft spoken. Over many years, he had developed a relationship with Habermas and other Christian philosophers. He notes their influence and friendship as part of his "conversion" story.

In the aftermath of Flew's shocking announcement there has been much discussion and armchair psychologizing about why Flew changed his mind. From the atheist fundamentalist side (religious groups certainly do not have a corner on the bad sort of fundamentalism), we are told that Flew's mind has slowed (which is true . . . but doesn't necessarily warrant the conclusion they desire), he fears death and so is engaged in wishful thinking, and that his Christian philosopher friends and others are "tricking" him. I don't have time to participate in such discussions. I am troubled, however, by the surge of popular level, highly polemical atheist writing that many of those within the academic philosophical discipline (both atheist and theist) see as too simplistic (E.g. Letters to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, and others). These guys aren't really interacting with the substantive material being put out by contemporary Christian philosophers of religion and theologians.

So anyway, read the book and see what you think. Flew gives reasons for his shift in thinking. It will not do to raise these other criticisms that many have. One must grapple with the reasons Flew offers. Anything less moves in the direction of fallacious ad hominem attacks, strawmen, etc. . . . poor reasoning strategies that I'm trying to teach my students to avoid in critical reasoning this semester.

Flew informs us that he has followed the socratic principle during his entire philosophic career. Put simply, it is: follow where the evidence leads. His shift then, is a result of being honest with where he sees the evidence pointing. Note carefully that he doesn't embrace the claims of Christianity . . . yet. However, he is open to this possibility. The concluding appendix in the book is a response by N. T. Wright to some of Flew's questions and problems with Christianity. I'll leave you with a few thoughts from Flew on this matter:

"My current position, however, is more open to at least certain of these claims [the Divine has revealed Himself in human history]. In point of fact, I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. Virtually all the argument about the content of the religion was produced by St. Paul, who had a brilliant philosophical mind and could both speak and write in all the relevant languages. If you're wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat." (pp. 185-86)

"In my view, Wright's responses to my previous critiques of divine self-revelation, both in the present volume and in his books, comprise the most powerful case for Christianity that I have ever seen." (pp. 159-60)

"Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation? As I said, you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (p. 213)

Flew's commitment to the socratic principle and more importantly the God who pursues us and gives those who trust in His Son hearts of flesh to replace their hearts of stone may lead this prolific philosopher to see that, indeed, omnipotence is behind Christianity.

A Word from Edwards on Justifcation Debates

2007-11-17T07:06:00.000-08:00

The following words from Jonathan Edwards are from footnote 30 in Piper's new book on justification. I am here only citing a brief excerpt that focuses on the ease with which we can misunderstand each other in dialogue.

". . . or how far some may seem to maintain a doctrine contrary to this gospel-doctrine of justification, that really do not, but only express themselves differently from others; or seem to oppose it through their misunderstanding of our expressions, or we of theirs, when indeed our real sentiments are the same in the main . . ." [p. 24, emphasis mine].

Piper on Justification

2007-11-06T12:39:00.001-08:00

For some time now I've been following the renewed interest and current dialogue on the doctrine of justification. My ecumenical proclivities have nudged me in the direction of reading sources from multiple Christian paradigms. The issue of justification looms substantially in the new perspective on Paul as well as the Federal Vision "movement" within Reformed circles, not to mention in discussions of Protestant/Catholic and Protestant/Orthodox relations. In an effort to be intellectually honest (which, at heart, is about honesty), I am attempting to read primary sources with an open mind as time and resources allow.

My latest round of reading on the topic (I'm really not widely read on the topic at all) has me starting John Piper's new book The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. Regardless of where you currently stand on this issue, I think you will be greatly encouraged by Piper's tone to begin this work. I spent a few moments last night reading the introduction and the short note on controversy. Wow! I was deeply moved by his graciousness, charity, desire to represent his interlocutor fairly, and deep longing to possess and preach the truth. It truly encouraged me spiritually. It was edifying. He has modeled an attitude and behavior that we should all emulate. If only our theological discussions with our various interlocutors would be fashioned after what a dear brother has shown us in the context of debates over justification. Footnote 30 in the introduction is an absolute gem from Jonathan Edwards that I am going to take to heart. I will be posting it soon. Those quick to pronounce heresy and anathematize fellow brothers and sisters in Christ at every turn must ponder these words in their hearts.

Our Son

2007-10-02T12:14:00.001-07:00

On Thursday, September 27th, Sarah gave birth to our first child, William Josiah Seachris. What a deep and life-changing event this has been! At one and the same time it has been emotionally and physically draining and yet unspeakably joyous and profound. Baby Will is doing well . . . encountering a few bumps . . . but making it over them. Sarah is sore and exhausted and will need time to recover. We are thankful to the Lord for His hand in our lives and the life of our son, Will. Here are a few of pictures of the little squirt.

State of This Blog Address

2007-09-08T09:03:00.000-07:00

I wanted to say a brief word about my lack of posting on this blog lately. Life is busy . . . education, new child on the way, etc. As such, my posting will continue to be very sporadic. I am currently teaching a class at the University of Oklahoma (Critical Reasoning) and working on my dissertation. Furthermore, my wife, Sarah, and I are expecting and anticipating the arrival of our first son, William, in the next few weeks.

Also, I've come to reflect more upon my motives in blogging. This medium gives people a platform to speak and an audience (even if that audience is only a few). This can be both good and bad. In many cases it's bad. People that shouldn't have an audience have one. Blogging also has the danger of fanning our selfishness and pride ("Look what's going on in my world." "Look what I know." "Who's visited my blog today?" etc.). Regardless of this and how operative it may be in what I do on this blog, I have decided that, at this time in my life, I want to do much more listening than speaking on matters of theology, church history, philosophy, etc. Practically, this means that I will not post as much here or let this site take a prominent place in my day to day life.

It's been a good experience for me. Perhaps someday again I will resume regular posting . . . but this season is not that time.

D. James Kennedy (1930-2007)

2007-09-08T08:58:00.000-07:00

The following are some moving words by the late James Kennedy about facing the reality of his own death:

“Now, I know that someday I am going to come to what some people will say is the end of this life. They will probably put me in a box and roll me right down here in front of the church, and some people will gather around, and a few people will cry. But I have told them not to do that because I don’t want them to cry. I want them to begin the service with the Doxology and end with the Hallelujah chorus, because I am not going to be there, and I am not going to be dead. I will be more alive than I have ever been in my life, and I will be looking down upon you poor people who are still in the land of dying and have not yet joined me in the land of the living. And I will be alive forevermore, in greater health and vitality and joy than ever, ever, I or anyone has known before.”

Below is a link to an audio tribute of his life -- click on 'Truths that Transform' tab (very touching):

http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary.asp#mediaPlayerView

Schaff's Theses 39 Through 43

2007-08-01T19:48:00.000-07:00

39. The material or life principle of Protestantism is the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through the merits of Jesus Christ, by means of living faith; that is, the personal appropriation of Christ in the totality of the inner man.

40. This does not overthrow good works; rather they are rightly called for and made possible only in this way---with dependence however on faith, as being its necessary fruit, the subjective impression of the life of Christ, in opposition to Pelagianism which places works parallel with faith, or even above it.

41. The formal or knowledge principle of Protestantism is the sufficiency and unerring certainty of the holy Scriptures as the only norm of all-saving knowledge.

42. This does not overthrow the idea of church tradition, but simply makes it dependent on the written word, as the stream is upon the fountain---the necessary, ever-deepening onward flow of the sense of scripture itself, as it is carried forward in the consciousness of the Christian world; contrary to the Romanish dogma by which tradition, as the bearer of different contents altogether, is made coordinate with the Bible or even exalted above it.

43. These two principles, righty apprehended, are only different, mutually supplementary sides of one and the same principle, and their living interpenetration forms the criterion of orthodox Protestantism.

Schaff's Theses 36 and 37

2007-08-01T19:45:00.000-07:00

36. Equally false finally is the view, whether popular or philosophical, by which the Reformation is made to consist in the absolute emancipation of the Christian life subjectively considered from all church authority, and the exaltation of private judgment to the papal throne.

37. This view confounds with the Reformation itself the foul excrescences that revealed themselves along with it in the beginning, and the one-sided character of its development since.

Schaff's Theses 31 Through 33

2007-07-27T13:24:00.000-07:00

31. As little is the Reformation to be regarded as a revolutionary separation from the Catholic Church, holding connection at best perhaps with some fractionary sect of the Middle Ages, and only through this and the help of certain desperate historical leaps besides, reaching back to the age of the apostles.

32. This contracted view of Protestantism is not only unhistorical and unchurchly altogether, but conscious or unconscious treason at the same time to the Lord's promise that he would build his church upon a rock, and that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; as well as to his engagement: "Lo I am with you always even to the end of the world;" and to the apostolic word: "The church is the pillar and ground of the truth."

33. Rather, the Reformation is the greatest act of the Catholic Church itself, the full ripe fruit of all its better tendencies, particularly of the deep spiritual law conflicts of the Middle Period, which were as a schoolmaster toward the Protestant doctrine of justification.

Schaff's Theses 26 Through 30

2007-07-19T08:15:00.000-07:00

26. Protestantism runs through the entire history of the church, and will not cease till she is purged completely from all ungodly elements. So, for instance, Paul protested against Jewish legalism and pagan licentiousness as found insidiously at work in the first Christian communities; the Catholic Church of the first centuries, against the heresies and schisms of Ebionitism, Gnosticism, Montanism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Donatism, etc.

27. The grandest and most widely influential exhibition of Protestantism is presented to us under the formal constitution of a special church, in the Reformation of the sixteenth century, as originated, and in its deepest inward, and truly apostolic form, carried out and consummated by the German nation.

28. It is a jejune and narrow conception of this event, to look upon it as a restoration simply of the original state of the church, or a renewal of Augustinianism against the Pelagian system by which it had been supplanted.

29. Such a view proceeds on the fundamentally erroneous supposition that the religious life revealed in the person of Christ primarily, and by derivation from him in his apostles, has been fully actualized also from the beginning in the general mass of the church.

30. Rather, the Reformation must be viewed as an actual advance of the religious life and consciousness of the church, by means of a deeper apprehension of God's word, beyond all previous attainments of Christendom

Schaff's Theses 23 Through 25

2007-07-15T13:19:00.000-07:00

23. In the wise providence of God, all heresies and schisms serve only to bring the church to a clearer consciousness of her true vocation, a deeper apprehension of her faith, and a purer revelation of the power included in her life.

24. But the presence of disease in the body requires to the same extent a remedial or curative process, that is, a reformation.

25. Protestantism consequently, in the true sense, belongs indespensably to the life of the church; being the reaction simply of her proper vitality, depressed but not destroyed, in opposition to the workings of disease in her system.

Schaff's Theses 13 Through 16

2007-07-12T18:43:00.000-07:00

13. Christianity in itself is the absolute religion, and in this view unsusceptible to improvement.

14. We must not confound with this, however, the apprehension and appropriation of Christianity in the consciousness of mankind. This is a progressive process of development that will reach its close only with the second coming of the Lord.

15. All historical progress then, in the case of the church, consists, not in going beyond Christianity itself, which could only be to fall back to heathenism and Judaism, but in entering always more and more (materially as well as formally) into the life and doctrine of the Redeemer and in throwing off by this means, always more and more, the elements of sin and error still remaining from the state of nature.

16. It is possible for the church to be in possession of a truth and to live upon it, before it has come to be discerned in her consciousness. So it was, for instance, with the doctrine of the Trinity before the time of Athanasius, with the doctrine of divine grace and human freedom before Augustine, and with the evangelical doctrine of justification during the Middle Ages. Thus the child eats and drinks long before it has the knowledge of food, and walks before it is aware of the fact, much less how it walks.