Daily Dose of (political) Humor, "Tea Party"

I'm a (somewhat liberal) Republican, and this is funny.

--Nick

Scot McKnight, "Giving Hell/All Texts Priority"

I think this is a very interesting topic. Check check check it out.

"On a flight recently I was reading a book about hell, and one of the chapters was devoted to examining the so-called “universalism” texts in Paul’s letters. Sometimes Paul says things like “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all are made alive.” The issue is how “all” that “all” is! What I observed is that the author focused on showing that the “all” didn’t really mean “all.” This, undoubtedly, is the traditional view in the church. 

But it got me to pondering this question: Why do we use the judgment/hell texts to trump the “all” texts? Why don’t we use the “all” texts to trump the hell texts?This is a question about method today, and not a question about which one to believe. I’m curious what you think about the proper method: How do we know which group of texts has the priority? What criteria do we use to choose between the two? 

Is it as easy to say “all” doesn’t mean all as it is to say “in the end salvation will conquer all” (after the judgment, after hell)? How do we decide? So today I will give a list of the universalism/all texts and then a list of some judgment texts, and you can think through these and tell us what you think of the questions above. 

Universalism Texts 

John 12:32: And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 

Acts 3:21: Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 

Romans 5:18: Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 

Romans 11:32: For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. 

1 Cor 15:22-28: ²² For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. ²³ But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. ²⁴ Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. ²⁵ For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. ²⁶ The last enemy to be destroyed is death. ²⁷ For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. ²⁸ When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. 

2 Cor 5:19: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 

Phil 2:9-11: ⁹ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
¹¹ and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. 

1 Tim 2:4: who [God] wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 

Titus 2:11: For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 

Heb 2:9: But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 

1 John 2:2: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 

2 Peter 3:9: The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 

Judgment/Eternal Hell Passages 

John 3:18: Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 

John 3:36: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. 

John 5:29: and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. 

Acts 28:24-27: ²⁴ Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. ²⁵ They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet:
²⁶ “‘Go to this people and say,
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
²⁷ For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’ 

Romans 2:5-12: ⁵ But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.⁶ God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” ⁷ To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. ⁸But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. ⁹ There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; ¹⁰ but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. ¹¹ For God does not show favoritism.
¹² All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 

1 Cor 6:9-10: ⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men ¹⁰ nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 

Hebrews 10:26-31: ²⁶ If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, ²⁷ but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. ²⁸ Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.²⁹ How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? ³⁰ For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” ³¹ It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 

2 Peter 2:9-10: ⁹ if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. ¹⁰ This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority.
Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings… 

Rev 20:10-15: ¹⁰ And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. ¹¹ Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. ¹² And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. ¹³ The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. ¹⁴ Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. ¹⁵ Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

McKnight and Priority Texts


--Nick

Scot McKnight, Peter Enns and "The Evolution of Adam" part II

The more I read Peter Enns, the more interesting I find his ideas. Very cool material, regardless of prior convictions. 

Chapter Three of Peter Enns’s new book The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins looks at the relationship between the stories of origins contained in the Hebrew Scriptures – our Old Testament – and the stories of origins in the surrounding Ancient Near East (ANE) cultures. 

Before the mid-nineteenth century it was possible to read the Old Testament in isolation and marvel at the creation stories in Genesis, to believe that they were a unique special perfect revelation delivered to Moses during the sojourn in the wilderness. A multitude of discoveries over the last two centuries has challenged this view in deep and profound ways. 

Among the most important challenges are the tablets that have been found dating from the mid-seventh century BCE and earlier, in fragments much earlier, that relate creation myths and flood myths of Mesopotamia, both Akkadian and Sumerian. I am an amateur here, but have on my shelf books like Samuel Noah Kramer’s The Sumerians and Stephanie Dalley’s translations Myths From Mesopotamia and several others.  The ANE stories are both obviously different from and unnervingly similar to the stories of creation, flood, and re-creation in Genesis 1-11. Of particular significance is the evidence that these ANE myths have their origins in stories dating far earlier than Genesis in the form we have it in our bibles. 

The study of the ANE texts is taken by some, both within the church and outside the church as a challenge to the inspiration of Genesis in particular, and more generally to the validity of scripture as a divine book of any sort. The implications of the discoveries in ANE archaeology are either “worldly wisdom” to be resisted or one more nail in the coffin of an outdated religious superstition. Both these extremes are misguided and damaging.  Enns takes us in a different direction: 

Perhaps a better way of thinking about the issue is to introduce the phrase “genre calibration.” Placing Genesis side by side with the primordial tales of other ancient cultures helps us gain a clearer understanding of the nature of Genesis and thus what we as contemporary readers have a right to expect from Genesis. Such comparisons have made it quite clear that Israel’s creation stories are not prepared to  answer the kinds of questions that occupy modern scientific or even historical studies. Genesis is an ancient text designed to address ancient issues within the scope of ancient ways of understanding origins. (pp. 35-36)

McKnight/Enns PART II


Thoughts?


--Nick

The Daily Lewis Black

"My mother may watch Glenn Beck. Because I think as long as there's reason to be pissed, my mother will stay alive."  

--Lewis Black

Why Would Christian Universalists be Motivated to Evangelize?

I post this not because I agree with everything in the essay (for one, I'm not a liberal Christian), but because I sat and thought about it for over 30 minutes. Anything that gives me pause to think is worth having others think over. I appreciate Eric's response.

The other day I received an e-mail from one of my students. As I finished writing my response, it occurred to me that readers of this blog might be interested in it. And so I’m including the relevant pieces of the exchange in this post. 

Here’s the question my student asked: 

I started to read Thomas Talbott's book The Inescapable love of God, and wanted to ask you something. Most Christians seek to convert others out of a desire to save them. As a universalist, would you still be concerned with saving and also converting other people? If so, what are you saving them from? Unlike most evangelists who claim to save the potential Christian from hellfire, a universalist would not be worried about eternal damnation. It seems then, the motivation for evangelism is at least partially removed by removing the fear/threat of eternal damnation. Unless you believe in some form of original sin, you wouldn't be saving the person from their depravity either. Perhaps you would be offering them the chance to a better, more fulfilled life. It seems the motivation for a universalist would be positive; trying to make someone’s life better whereas to others it would be more focused on saving them from Hell (removing a negative consequence). What are your thoughts? I know this might be personal, so you don't have to respond to this. But as a Universalist yourself, do you have a motivation and if so, what is your motivation, for “seeking souls” (so to speak)? 

Here is my [Eric's] reply: 

Speaking for myself, I have very little invested in converting people to Christianity (although I do have a great interest in convincing people who think otherwise that there are versions of Christianity that can be embraced by reasonable and morally decent people). That said, Christian universalists might experience an evangelical calling for several reasons. I can think of four off the top of my head. 

(1) The first is the one you touch on in your comment. Specifically, Christian universalists might believe that there are positive life benefits (in terms of subjective life satisfaction or happiness, and in terms of resources for moral improvement) that are possible in this life if and only if one opens oneself up in this life to the kind of relationship with God that Christianity claims has been made available through Christ's life and work. Desiring others to enjoy these benefits here and now, Christian universalists might take on an evangelical mission.

(2) They might believe that, while the salvation of all is inevitable, this is not because they don't think there is a subjective requirement for salvation but because they think it is inevitable that all will eventually come to meet this requirement. So, they may think that enjoying the blessings of union with God is only possible for those who have chosen to open themselves up to those blessings--and while it is certain that all will eventually open themselves up in the relevant way, those who do not do so by the time of their death will exist after death in a state of alienation from God that can only bring increasing misery the longer that it lasts (a finite "hell," if you will). These universalists might believe that the effort of human evangelists is one of God's means for hastening the salvation of all, and so feel it is their calling to be God's agents in this way. In the absence of those efforts, they might think that more people will experience the "hell" of alienation from God for a longer period of time before realizing their error and turning to God.

(3) In its original meaning "evangelist" means "good messenger." To evangelize is to share good news ("gospel" means "good news"). In the Christian context, the good news is typically taken to be that God loves us all with an unwavering love and that, on account of Christ, we have been forgiven all our transgressions. In short, it's not about conversion at all, but about declaring good news as widely as possible. In this sense, the motivation for evangelism is, at least in part, the same sort of motivation that would impel someone to call everyone they know as soon as they learn that their child has been cured of leukemia. They want to share their joy at this wonderful news. But in the case of the Christian gospel, the news also seems to be of a sort with beneficial pragmatic implications for those it is being shared with. If people are hunkering down in their cellars waiting for enemy planes to fly overhead and drop bombs, the news that the enemy has been defeated will mean that people can come out of their hidey-holes. In such a case, running through the streets shouting out the good news is not merely motivated by a desire to share a personal joy but to let people know that they no longer need to burden themselves in a particular set of ways.

(4) Christian universalists might be convinced that the Christian worldview makes the most sense of human experience, that it fits the pieces of our experience together into the most coherent whole, as well as offering pragmatic resources for living better lives. In other words, they might be convinced that by the most plausible ways of measuring the truth of a worldview, some variant of Christianity comes out as the worldview most likely to be true. In this case, what might motivate them is the same kind of thing that presumably motivates Dawkins to preach atheism--a belief that one has the truth (or at least the most rational worldview) combined with the belief that it's just good in itself if more people believe the truth (the most rational thing).

Let me dwell for just a moment on (1). My own thinking with respect to (1) is that what has the pragmatic benefits is not belief in Christian doctrine as such, but rather a certain kind of attitude of openness to being moved and transformed by a good greater than oneself. While the Christian narrative can inspire the relevant kind of openness, it doesn't always do so. In my judgment it depends a great deal on just how the story is told—and versions of the story that emphasize hellfire seem to me to be less effective in this respect. It also depends on the life history of an individual. Some have had such a poisonous relationship with Christianity that even the best versions of the story evoke all the psychological crud laid down by that relationship. In that case it is likely that the greatest pragmatic benefits will come from a different narrative altogether, one which hasn't been poisoned. And my experience (with friends who are Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, agnostics, religious naturalists, etc.) is that many different narratives can be effective in evoking the relevant attitude of openness. Again, it depends on just how the story is told. So, believing Christian teachings is neither necessary nor sufficient for bringing about the kind of openness to being transformed that, I think, has the clearest pragmatic value. 
I also think this openness will have to be the primary subjective component to any defensible view of eternal salvation--a fact which has clear implications for my understanding of (2). While I have thoughts on (3) and (4) as well, I suspect my arguments in my book and on my blog make my views on (4) pretty clear, and my thoughts on (3) would probably take awhile to formulate precisely. So I'll leave it at that for now.

Eric teaches philosophy at Oklahoma State University, and has written "Is God a Delusion" and "God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism." He has also contributed to "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate" with several other authors such as Thomas Talbott, Daniel Strange, and I. Howard Marshall.

For the original post and the subsequent discussion, Reitan's post.

--Nick

An Atheist's encounter with Rob Bell & Love Wins

LINK

The article is interesting and I agree with much of what he has to say about Rob. I'll be forthright, I like Rob but I was not blown away by Love Wins. I do think the fever people had over it was unjustified and contributed greatly to it's success. But, I'm with Ben Witherington in regards to Love Wins, and it is a work of artistic poetry, not systematic theology. It is more like Psalms, not Romans.

That does not excuse the instances of Love Wins' poor theology, but it ought to at frame the discussion.

The guest author (and atheist) Ronnie Stockton offers several thoughts in this article I found compelling as well as perplexing.

First, the perplexing.


He quotes George Bush Sr., who makes (at least it appears) an incredibly restrictivist (and also isolated) comment about how atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots. There is no citation given for the quote, and although I'm confident that Bush may have had one of his legendary slipups, to not cite the quote in it's entirely in a footnote doesn't quite aide Ronnie's case about much of "US evangelical Christianity, which can appear to be the shallow religion of a narcissistic, self-interested, rampantly capitalist society." It appears uncharitable, which is odd given that most of the article is actually pretty respectful. The quote by Ronnie is overly simplistic. 

I've had someone ask me why all prominent Christians don't act like Jesus and pray for their enemies and those that persecute them. I answered because these days, if you want to see Christians being truly persecuted, go to China or the Middle East.

But even then, the issue seems to be a superficial view of the prominence of some rather than the sincerity of most. I will concede that too much of Christendom is shallow, uncritical and self-interested. And it must be changed. But too much means that there ought to never be such a thing. His question is a generalization based upon a stereotype. The issue with stereotypes and the people that break them is that often those who break stereotypes are labelled simply as exceptions and dismissed. "Just because you've become enlightened doesn't mean your system or your camp is correct" is often what this can become.

Ronnie then offers a distinction between Rob Bell and George Bush. I'll let you chuckle over the obvious differences between both men. He points to Rob's inclusive statement about Jesus, citing this as clear and honest. And I agree. But Rob Bell is not the only theologian, scholar or pastor who is inclusive about Jesus. Roger Olson, Greg Boyd, Jurgen Moltmann and many others are great examples of people who hold to the same inclusive love.

Now, I disagree with Rob Bell when it comes to inclusivism, as I am an exclusivist. But this is not something I care to die upon. Just to note it. There are better and more scholarly examples to offer than Rob Bell on this subject. I may explore inclusivism in the future, if anyone is interested.

So I'm not convinced that the dichotomy built Bell and Bush is correct.

Lastly, the compelling.


I appreciate, first and foremost, Ronnie's honestly. By the end of the article, he has shown to be considerate and without condescension (except for the notes above). The attitude helps quite a bit in furthering genuine dialogue.

Ronnie's openness to Rob has nothing to do with Rob. I think Rob would say the same thing, and point Ronnie instead to Jesus. Which, it seems, Ronnie is now beginning to investigate for himself. I also agree with Ronnie specifically about factional politics within the United States. After watching the debate between Jim Wallis and Al Mohler, I was struck by how different both men approached Jesus. Both had a systematic lens, but through very different methods. Both are Christians and love Jesus, but the emphasis is different. To someone seeking a more rigorous and apologetic-driven case, Mohler is appealing. To someone seeking a more open and practically-driven case, Wallis is appealing.

People need both systems. I see no reason to separate the two and think if one can figure out a solution to combining them, we might have something magical on our hands. If anyone has a book to recommend, hit me up in the comments.

Rob's emphasis on God's love for us seems to be quite appealing to many atheists. I know of several who have paused quite a bit when I mentioned God's overwhelming love for us, especially if it is transcendent and something they can experience, even so dimly. It seems that Ronnie desires a relationship with Christians and, simply put, to talk about who we are. Nobody likes being talked *at* but people love talking about themselves.

Its time we sat down and let them speak. The more we learn about them, the more we can empathize and love them. Even Ronnie admits that what Bell did was point him to Christ.

"What is increasingly apparent to me though of course is that Rob Bell is talking about Jesus – thus the story that speaks to me is the story of Christ. Before this recent stage of my journey, I positioned my atheism from the perspective of someone who does not believe in organised religion. But now I want to explore the ties that bind my ethical beliefs to the perspective of faith. What I’m learning is that the Christian message chimes far more tunefully with my own than I had realised."

I'm not certain how I feel about him believing Rob Bell is a spokesperson for a generation, as I think Bell has quite a ways to go to figure out his theology, but I understand the sentiment. I do not think the progressive politics and theology are necessary, as Ronnie seems to indicate in his final paragraph. I know many conservatives who are open and honest with their doubts, their fears and their love for Jesus. I count myself as one of them. Progressive politics and theology does not equal openness.

But, at the end of the day, I admire atheists who are honest, irenic and seek truth. If the evidence leads them to Jesus, then I'm glad Rob Bell wrote Love Wins. This does not mean Love Wins was a particularly good book. But it caused a great many of people to think in ways they have never done before, including Ronnie. I would only hope that they progress towards Jesus and his teachings, and not rest until they've found him. I think Ronnie's final words written sum up everything nicely.

"Furthermore, from a self-interested perspective, although not ‘a believer’, I feel more involved and included and, most importantly, open and curious towards faith and the message of Jesus."

To future dialogues and to truth alone. God bless.

--Nick

Top 13 Films of My Modern Life

13. Magnolia. 1999. R.

12. The Sting. 1973. PG.

11. The Departed. 2006. R.

10. Apocalypto. 2006. R.

9. The Grey. 2012. R.

8. Munich. 2005. R.

7. Sin City. 2005. R.

6. Casablanca. 1942. PG.

5. District 9. 2009. R.

4. The Incredibles. 2004. PG.

3. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. 2005. R.

2. Bad Lieutenant. 1992. NC-17.

1. Raiders of the Lost Ark. 1981. PG.

Orange Blossom Special, a review

Orange Blossom Special is a special tribute to the power of the Internet, and includes a shot and chaser to the amount of time it takes for a band without a manager to progress up the ranks. They were tapped to open the 1st annual 48 Hours Festival, ”The World’s Biggest Rock n Roll Party Weekend,” in Las Vegas. The festival included Korn, Godsmack, Hollywood Undead and Sick Puppies. Not back for a band with no manager and two cool brothers who work with me at Bevmo. But, with all due respect, a band’s accomplishments, though fanciful and impressive in certain regards, mean next to nothing if the band’s talent is one drink away from ending up in the gutter. 

Justin Bieber has a platinum album and Usher as a mentor. So agent or no agent is irrelevant in regards to talent. Does Orange Blossom Special’s Cocktails & Treasure Maps stand up on it’s own?

In a word? Almost. In a phrase, read below.

Echoing the intensity and party rock of the 80s and 90s, OBS is prepared to party until frizzy hair and Patrick Bateman become relevant again. This is a good thing. Not often have I listened to a pure rock n’ roll album that actually made me want to rock n’ roll.

“Wishful Thinking”: kicking off the jams with a series of head-banging riffs that sound yanked from the better days of Van Halen. In fact, the guitar work reminds me of Joe Satriani. This is a good thing.

“Shooting Daggers”: Lead singer/guitarist Anton reminds me of Johnny Cash mixed with Joe Elliot from Def Leppard. Think of this track as being a snide blend of Bon Jovi’s sarcasm and Leppard’s hyper-extended middle finger coupled with some furious guitar licks.

My fear was that the first half of the album would blend together, but each track stands on it’s own via infectious energy and charisma.

“Bill of Health”: the second half of the album hits a brief break in pacing, with several songs covering the same sort of theme of second chances. I’m all for songs about reflection, but they almost seem out of place on a party rock album filled with good times. The resulting songs “Stuck in a Rut” and “Past Few Years” are adequate for reflective rock, but I would rather see OBS make a killer track that sums up everything they are trying to say instead of stretching it over a series of songs. I had the same critique of Drake’s Thank Me Later in that the entire first 15 minutes of his album could be considered the same track. I’d prefer one dynamic track instead of three decent ones.

More emotional punch in a brief period of time.

“Ashes of Today”: this is the pivotal point of the album; we’ve gone through several decent tracks without hitting the standout yet. Well, listen no further. This track is impressive; excellent backing vocals and bass work from Alan, and Anton delivers his best performance which is whispered through distorted guitars and a swirling cavalcade of intensity.

Simply put, this track is the only one that MUST be listened to. The others are for the most part strong, but nothing exceptional. This track is something I would expect to play on mainstream radio while taking a road trip to the beach. This is a high complement. From me anyway.

For such limited time and resources, Orange Blossom Special has delivered material that is far stronger than most unsigned bands. They are almost there. With refinement, they could go someplace. For a classic rock album, Cocktails & Treasure Maps is not entirely polished, but more than makes up for it by being raw and energetic.

The things I want and look forward to in the future; more prominence from the backing vocals and percussion, and more diversity in Anton’s voice. He’s got the chops, I want to hear him go quiet and reflective.

Keep a drink nearby when listening, and to sum up the band’s mostly consistent ethos: “Any place, anytime, anywhere! Play every show like it’s your last and leave it all on the stage.”

You can find OBS on iTunes, Facebook & Spotify.

For the full review, TCM Full Review

--Nick

C.S. Lewis & George MacDonald, "The Nature of Christian Faith" part II

This article was offered for free by author Thomas Talbott on his website. It is from the anthology "All Shall be Well; Explorations in Universal Salvation and Theology, From Origen to Moltmann," edited by Robin Parry (or Gregory MacDonald, as he was known).

This post will cover pages four through nine, and continue in the essay written by Thomas Talbott on my favorite deceased theologian, George MacDonald.

Universal Salvation in the Theology of George MacDonald (1824-1905) by Thomas Talbott

Although MacDonald was never shy about challenging the prevailing theological doctrines of his day, sometimes with a surprising degree of harshness, he also denied that the proper purpose of teaching was to persuade others to conform their thinking to the teacher‘s own thinking. Instead, the sole purpose should be to acquaint people with the living Christ of the New Testament. As MacDonald himself put it: "I believe that no teacher should strive to make men think as he thinks, but [should instead strive] to lead them to the living Truth, to the Master himself, of whom alone they can learn anything, who will make them in themselves know what is true by the very seeing of it. I believe that the inspiration of the Almighty alone gives understanding. I believe that to be the disciple of Christ is the end of being; that to persuade men to be his disciples is the end of teaching."(13)

These words also illustrate the extent to which MacDonald adopted a Christocentric approach to revelation. Like Karl Barth whom he anticipated in this regard, he seems to have distinguished sharply between the incarnate Word of God, which is the light (or the true revelation) that comes into the world and enlightens every person, and the words of any human witness, such as John the Baptist, who might testify to the light.(14) As the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ is the ultimate and final revelation from God, and everything else, including everything else in the Bible, must be interpreted in light of this ultimate and final revelation that, sooner or later, will enlighten every person. Faith is simply the obedient response to this revelation, and, as such, it can also be a reliable source of knowledge under the right conditions. In that one respect, at least, MacDonald‘s understanding of faith was similar to that of John Calvin, whose overall theology he passionately rejected. For even as Calvin held that "the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals in our hearts,"(15) so MacDonald held that "the inspiration of the Almighty alone gives understanding"; and even as Calvin held that certain convictions sealed in our hearts by the Spirit of God are "self-authenticating," so MacDonald held that "the Master" enables us to "know what is true by the very seeing of it."

By faith, for example, "we understand that the world was created by the word of God"(16) and we can know this, furthermore, without having to infer it from other propositions or from some body of evidence. Or, to express the point in a way familiar to contemporary philosophers, at least some of the truths known by faith are properly basic in Alvin Plantinga‘s sense.(17) In no way, however, did MacDonald identify saving faith with the possession of correct doctrine. Faith may be a source of knowledge, but it just is an obedient heart or a disposition to obey; and it "is the one terrible heresy of the church," MacDonald lamented, "that it has always been presenting something else than obedience as faith in Christ."(18) In particular, Christians too often confuse faith in Christ with an acceptance of certain theories or abstract doctrines about his nature and work, and they just as often confuse an absence of "correct" doctrine with an absence of faith. But like Kierkegaard, MacDonald held that an acceptance of correct doctrine is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition of saving faith.

It is not a sufficient condition, because accepting a particular theory carries no guarantee of obedience; and besides, "to hold a thing with the intellect," he insisted, "is not [even] to believe it [in the relevant sense]. A man‘s real belief is that which he lives by."(19) And neither is an acceptance of correct doctrine a necessary condition of saving faith, because one can have an obedient heart, a willingness to submit to the "true light, which enlightens everyone,"(20) without giving assent to any particular theory about the nature of Jesus Christ and his redemptive work. MacDonald even went so far as to suggest that an atheist might be closer to the Kingdom of God than a professing Christian: "It is better to be an atheist who does the will of God, than a so-called Christian who does not. . . . The doing of things from duty is but a stage on the road to the kingdom of truth and love."(21)Indeed, our theological opinions and theories, however correct they may be, might be the very thing that prevents us "from being Christians. For when you say that, to be saved, a man must hold this or that [theory], then are you leaving the living God and his will, and putting trust in some notion [such as a theory of atonement] about him or his will."(22) But our task, MacDonald contended, is simply to follow in obedience the one who died on our behalf and rose again in triumph; it is not to haggle over humanly devised theories about the way in which the death and resurrection of Christ successfully reconciles us to God.

Accordingly, a set of incorrect theological opinions, honestly and humbly held, could no more condemn someone than a set of correct opinions, held apart from a transformed heart, could successfully save someone. But if that is true, then in what sense, exactly, is faith also a source of knowledge? MacDonald‘s rather nuanced answer includes an appeal to Philippians 3:15–16, wherein Paul wrote: "Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything [my emphasis] this too God will reveal to you. Only let us hold fast to what we have attained." Commenting on this text, MacDonald wrote: "Observe what widest conceivable scope is given by the apostle to honest opinion, even in things of grandest import!—the one only essential point with him is, that whereto we have attained, what we have seen to be true, we walk by that."(23) So faith (or an obedient heart) is indeed, MacDonald contended, the principle instrument through which God imparts spiritual understanding and a knowledge of himself. But whatever light now dawns in our understanding, whatever ultimate truths we now discern (however faintly), and whatever obligations we now acknowledge, we must allow that to penetrate our hearts and to transform us. We must, in other words, own up to whatever light we have. When we follow that light in obedience and thereby submit to it, the Spirit will inevitably enable us to see farther and wider.

We thus approach what I (and many others) have found to be the single most refreshing aspect of MacDonald‘s approach to religion. He recognized that we must all proceed from where we now are in our respective spiritual journeys, and he saw no virtue in trying to suppress honest doubt or in ignoring moral qualms concerning, say, a widely accepted interpretation of the Bible. Such bad faith, as he saw it, is the very antithesis of a genuine faith in Christ. "Do not try to believe anything," he thus exhorted, "that affects you as darkness. Even if you mistake and refuse something true thereby, you will do less wrong to Christ by such a refusal than you would by accepting as his what you can see only as darkness."(24) Granted, what a given person sees as darkness at a particular time may depend on a host of cultural and individual factors, perhaps even on a confusion of one kind or another. Even MacDonald‘s own teachings, he would have acknowledged, may affect some as darkness. But with respect to any genuine revelation from God, it "is impossible," he believed, that "you are seeing a true, a real thing—seeing it as it is, I mean—if it looks to you darkness."(25)

Imagine yourself, by way of illustration, a simple peasant with no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, little knowledge of the Bible‘s historical background, and no access to scholarly works on the Bible. Imagine further that, even though you believe in your heart that racism and slavery are terrible evils, you should find yourself utterly unable to refute, exegetically, your pastor‘s racist interpretation of the curse of Ham or his appeal to Paul in support of institutional slavery. And imagine, finally, that your pastor should then play his trump card: an appeal to original sin in an effort to knock you off your moral convictions, as if sin would more likely corrupt your deeply rooted moral convictions than it would his interpretation of Scripture. How should you then respond in the face of your pastor‘s seemingly superior knowledge of the Scriptures and his injunction to bow humbly before them (as he interprets them, of course)? MacDonald‘s counsel on such matters was clear: Hold on to your moral convictions, treat them as part of the light that the Word of God has brought into the world, and do not "let your cowardly conscience receive any word as light because another calls it light, while it looks to you dark. Say either the thing is not what it seems, or God never said or did it. But, of all evils, to misinterpret what God does, and then say the thing as interpreted must be right because God does it, is of the devil."(26)

To be continued.

--Nick

Footnotes:
12 "The Child in the Midst." In Unspoken Sermons, 15. Unspoken Sermons was originally published in three series in 1867, 1885, and 1889 in London by Longmans, Green & Co.
13 MacDonald, "Justice." In Unspoken Sermons , 536.
14 See John 1:1– 9. Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations from the Bible will be from the New Revised Standard Version copyrighted in 1989 by the National Council of Churches in the United States of America.
15 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion , Bk. 1, Ch. viii, Sec. 5.
16 Heb 11:3.
17 See Plantinga, "Warranted Christian Belief", ch. 8. According to Plantinga, ―gospel truths resemble self "evident propositions" in the same respect that "perceptual and memory beliefs" resemble them. That is, "They are evident, but don‘t get their evidence from other propositions; they have their evidence in themselves (and not by way of inference from other propositions" (Ibid., 262). 

18 "The Truth in Jesus." In Unspoken Sermons , 393.
19 Ibid., 390.
20 John 1:9.
21 MacDonald, Paul Faber, Surgeon , 25.
22 "The Truth in Jesus." In Unspoken Sermons , 390– 91.
23 Ibid., 410.
24 From Rolland Hein‘s edited version of "Light" in George MacDonald: Creation in Christ, 42. I choose this edited version because MacDonald‘s use of "thee," "thou," "thy," and some older linguistic forms in the paragraph from which the quotation is lifted could be distracting to some readers.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.

Scot McKnight, "A New Kind of Victim"

Ummmmmmmmmmm. . . .

"A former semi-professional footballer is suing the British arm of the Baptist World Alliance, claiming that the 19 years he spent as a "fervent evangelist" in the Baptist faith deprived him of the chance to play for Manchester United."

Jesus Creed

--Nick

Hermeneutics: "Slave & Women"

My lady wrote this. Check it out. ;)

"Different Interpretive Methods within the Evangelical Egalitarian Camp 

I’ve made a lot of progress finding the points that are guiding the differing interpretations of the gender debate. My understanding that there are two different interpretive methods being used in the Egalitarian camp was confirmed by Douglas Walker in a TEDS dissertation I recently read. In my own words, they are: 1) Those who say the text actually means something different than what the hierarchalists think it means and 2) those who believe Paul’s words are more culturally confined (because they believe the text warrants this?). I would definitely fall into the first camp even though I acknowledge those coming from the second perspective sometimes make valid points. I would side with Schreiner in saying that everything necessary for faith and practice can be found in the Scriptures and has its ultimate expression in the NT (I include useful principles here)."

To continue, Allison Quient blog post


--Nick

Scot McKnight, Peter Enns & "The Evolution of Adam" pt I

I'm currently considering/reconsidering the various interpretative methods involving Genesis, and I'm told Enns is one of the top Christian thinkers investigating evolution. Besides, y'know, Francis Collins. ;-)

Instead Enns has written a book coming from his expertise as a biblical scholar (Ph. D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations  from Harvard) and rooted in the conviction that we need to revisit scripture and think deeply about how to read Genesis and how to read Paul. The first chapters of The Evolution of Adam address the questions raised by Genesis regarding the origin and purpose of the creation narratives in the book. Although evolutionary biology challenges traditional Christian views of human origins, it is important to realize that this is not the sole challenge. The challenges to the traditional view of Genesis and indeed all of the Pentateuch from Genesis through Deuteronomy are both internal and external to the text. These challenges arise from Biblical Criticism, Archaeological study of the Ancient Near East, and from science.

To continue, Enns/McKnight


--Nick

The Daily Lewis Black, "Whoever's in charge. . . ."

"I do have certain feelings [about politics]. My feeling is that whoever is in charge, I want him out." --Lewis Black

--Nick

Mitt Romney & the Southern "Conservative" Vote

I am closer to political conservatism than I am to political liberalism. That said, I found this interesting that both Santorum and Gingrich are fighting a losing battle to see who has the bigger "conservative" set of red, white and blue testicles.

That said twice, check out the article by the Christian Science Monitor.

“The latest PPP poll has Gingrich slightly ahead of Romney and Santorum (33 percent to 31 percent and 27 percent, respectively), and a Rasmussen poll conducted several days ago had Romney leading by 8 points. A win in either state would be big for Romney, not so much because of the delegates at stake (between them, they have 90 delegates), but because of the symbolic victory of finally making an inroad into the South."

For further reading, Romney & TCSM

--Nick

7 Reasons to vote for Mickey Mouse in 2012

1) If South Park is any indication, he won't suffer fools or boy bands. Thus, he will not allow any harm to befall those he cares about. Provided we all have shares in Disney.

2) He's in favor of big business. Let's face it gents, business versus military. Though Mickey is not opposed to physical violence to prevent other violence, it seems he'd prefer sitting back on his ass and making money. The ultimate capitalist. He's also quite excessive, having an entire multi-billion dollar industry based on him.

3) He's in favor of same-sex marriage. This will appeal to Blue State voters. He would also charge them a lot to get married.

4) His perspective on religion is mixed. At best he is an agnostic who dislikes the interference of personal faith in the business sector. He is all about the benjamins.

5) He is most certainly objectively NOT a racist. At best, he was young when he had a few youthful indiscretions. Now, he's overcompensating. Which is good. More jobs for everyone.

6) He supports Kony 2012.

7) He would NEVER cheat on Minnie. Not for all the tea in China. He's already purchased it and has outsourced it to Mexico, all the while enforcing a strict border policy.

--Nick

Election 2012 Live "delegates"

POLITICO has offered a live tracker. This is very interesting. Check it out to keep things current.

POLITICO delegate tracker

--Nick

Roger Olson, "Catholic-Evangelical Dialogue pt 2"

Howdy howdy. I found this interesting. 

As I wrote in my The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology there are at least six distinct meanings of “evangelical.” They include the journalistic meaning (politically conservative Christian), the European meaning (Protestant) and the post-WW2 meaning of a post-fundamentalist but basically theologically conservative Protestant who also believes authentic Christianity includes a decision for Christ and a personal relationship with Jesus.

Olson and the continued dialogue


--Nick

"Santorum & Christendom" according to Tony Jones

First, I do not think America is or ever really was a Christian nation. I think it looks nothing like the example given to us in Jesus Christ. I think we potentially shame Him by attributing our nation to His example.

Second, I almost expect the governing body to enforce tolerance/intolerance as they see fit. For them not to do so would be a healthy reminder that cynicism is poisonous to my self-esteem.

Third, the separation of church and state is often touted by many to exclude religious convictions from the public office. I do not see this as possible, nor even necessary. What I interpret the First Amendment to say is that there must be no state run church, see England's Monarchy from which we "fled." Meaning, Rick Santorum cannot start up the "Church of Santorum" but he certainly has the ability to act upon his convictions.

Fourth, I do not think the American Rick Santorum believes in exists. I do not prescribe to idealism within the cesspool of politics for the same reason I do not promote the forcible inhaling of legos through one's nasal cavity.

Fifth, nor do I prescribe to Tony Jones' perspective on american government and politics, and I think he is inconsistent with whom he supports and doesn't support. This, of course, is entirely relative to my own positions. ;-)

Onto the brief responses offered by Tony Jones.

Here’s the thing: the rights afforded us by the First Amendment are sacrosanct, at least in a non-religious sense. But, as a religious person, I abdicate some of my rights when I submit to living in a country with laws. If my religion dictates that I smoke weed, or that I sacrifice cats, I don’t get to do that. My religious rights are not absolute — they are relative, because they are judged in the relative weight with the good for society.

I'm not certain utilitarianism ought to be the guiding principle here. In fact, I see utilitarianism itself as possible relative. So I'm not convinced Tony has quite made his point, even if I think I know what he is getting at.

I would rephrase his comments as "my religious rights are absolute, but how I act upon them is relative to society and the /possible/ damage that can be done to others."

But neither are First Amendment rights absolute. You don’t get to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and you don’t get to post kiddie porn on the internet. Again, the good of the society trumps your individual rights.

I think I agree.

That’s why Santorum’s views on contraception, for instance, are reckless. He may be personally appalled that men and women use contraceptives, and he can use his bully pulpit to promote those views. But to impose those personal views on the rest of us is the equivalent to Mitt Romney forcing us all to wear sacred undergarments, or Barack Obama making women wear burkas.

I'm not certain where the leap in this comes from. Santorum acting upon his conscience is no different than the President authorizing partial-birth abortion. We elect people BASED on their personal views and how they will (or say/lie) enforce them. Many of us knew what we were getting when we elected Barack Obama, and in a way, most/all of us know what we will get if we elect Rick Santorum. At least we have that going for us. . . . . .

I would argue that Tony is operating out of an idealistic view of government when history ought to dictate the reality of government and the opinion and policies of individual people and how they act towards their constituents. Contrast Hitler with Barney. One preached utilitarianism from a TV screen and one was purple. ;-)

To impose those personal views upon people is simply how government works in the mind of a cynic, and dammit Jim, what is more recklessly American then that?

Tony Jones/ Rick Santorum

--Nick