The Egalitarian/Complementarian Divide (Part IV)

With a Different Overall Approach Comes a Difference

In the Way “Guiding” Passages Function

Egalitarian and Complementarian Evangelicals accept that the Bible is thoroughly consistent. Scripture interprets Scripture and one passage does not contradict another. There is unity throughout. However, how does this play out when, on the surface, isolated passages appear to be teaching something different? Even after looking at genre, context, lexical and data, Evangelicals are still coming out with different interpretations—especially in regards to women in ministry.

At their best, individuals within both theological systems simply try to take into account the whole counsel of God and make the best sense of what is available to them. They utilize constructively God’s gift of cognitive dissonance, which drives people to make sense of, and find consistency in, their world. “…Since consistency is itself a virtue reflecting the rational character of God, then God has created this drive as an essential part of our noetic structure.”[1] However, we live in a fallen world where cognitive dissonance can turn to the subtlest rationalization—even if only for the sake of maintaining what appears to be a consistent worldview. Susan Foh captures this tendency when Evangelicals are at their worst: “Human nature tends to make things uniform, to smooth out the wrinkles in the biblical material to make it fit neatly in the boxes of the human mind. To create a logical, uniform system, both sides—the subordinationist and the egalitarian—must ignore or explain away the other.”[2] This is often how those on opposite ends of a heated debate see each other. Both Complementarians and Egalitarians frequently accuse the other of dismissing or ignoring passages that challenge or are unfavorable to the accepted theology, and often do not believe the passages offered adequately address what is most important in the debate. They often believe their counterpart is rationalizing away important Biblical data, either to protect an unbiblical view that is widely thought to be traditional, or as a novel attempt to square modern American ideals of equality with the Bible. However, this negative application of the need for consistency does not have to account for why either side emphasizes some passages over others, even if this is sometimes the case.

If there is a difference in the shaping principles of equality, with the Complementarian taking on an added premise, and this difference accounts for patterns of different approaches (broad principled vs specific), then it is not a leap to consider that the differences in approach will not only encourage which passages are emphasized, but how they are often used. Douglas Walker provides just such an insight.

For the rest, click HERE.


--Nick

Would I Date a Democrat?

I don't generally self-identify as a (Fiscal) Republican, so I was amused when a friend asked me if I would date a  Democrat. this came up during a conversation about him breaking up with his lady and then to politics. Guys tend to topic shift quite quickly when break ups are present.

I'm not certain where my friend lands politically, so I found the question amusing. He had talked to me about religion in the past, so I assume that he assumed (correctly) that I lean towards the white elephant in the back room.

After thinking about it, I said it would depend on the person.

He was confused, and asked for clarification.

I said I wouldn't date most Republican women I know, but that had little to do with their political persuasion. As for dating a Democrat, it would depend fully on her as a person.

Is she open to being wrong, as I try to be open?

But, my friend told me to answer the expletive question, so I did.

I told him yes.

He then asked me if she hated Republicans, would I still date her.

I said that if she hated Republicans, I would react in the same way if she said she hated Blue Clues. Means very little to me. Now, if she hated Rocko's Modern Life, that might be a deal-breaker.

All that matters is if she is open to always pursuing the truth.

And if she's hot. That's kinda important.

--Nick

God Proof 151

The scariest and most sublime attribute of my job is to know customers on a first-name basis. Forgive me. Where are my story manners? First, back story.

I snapped this picture while out at Trinity visiting Allison. I do not know who the artist is, but they struck a profound chord in me.

I work at a place that sells alcohol. I feel like I should stand up and face the small little circle of alcoholics I put in this tiny space. I generally don't have an issue with selling alcohol to responsible adults. The libertarian streak I nursed while in college keeps trying to cool my conscience on this one.

But I'm not so certain anymore.

Part of me wants to chalk this up to libertarian freedom, both social and spiritual. I didn't force these people to put down money on my counter to buy their artificially colored caramelized concoction.

But that doesn't cool me.

The other part of me does, in some twisted way, wonder if these people may deserve it. I mean, most are quick to point a finger in a junkie's face and say that fateful idiom, "this is your own damn fault." And they are right.

All of this is our fault.

But that doesn't cool me either.

So what is truly bothering me about knowing alcoholics on a first name basis? I think what it boils down to is the simple concept of suffering and indulgence. In some ways, I wonder if souls feel the need to seek and absorb conflict so they feel justified in indulgence. I do think some create suffering, or their own personal hells, just so they can seek absolution in the hooked end of a bottle.

At the same time, I have never felt so sorry for so many people before. Never had I wanted to ask a genuine stranger a question about himself, but I'm terrified. I'm absolutely terrified of asking a stranger about their problems, because I don't know if I'm strong enough to hear their answer.

I mean, pass by someone in the market and say hello and ask them how they are doing. 95% of them will either ignore you, or say hello and move on down the cereal aisle. I've rarely had someone turn, answer in the affirmative and then ask me how I'm doing. Those that did turned out to be some pretty great people. One of them I plan on marrying someday.

Anyway.

Allow me a personal example. A regular came in to buy his usual bottles. I paused, addressed him by his first name and asked him how he was doing. He grunted and tried to pay. I asked him again. He said he was tired. I asked him why. He looked up at me, jaw set, sweating like it was a furnace in the 70 degree store.

Then the damnedest thing happened. He answered. He told me that he had spent the weekend setting up this romantic juncture for his wife involving rose petals, lotion and a three hour long wallop session. I'll spare you the grisly details because they aren't important, and thank Jesus I've forgotten half of them.

But what really struck me was that he clearly loved his wife, and yet was here buying more. Like nothing changed. Like the romantic gesture was foreplay to this. I imagined him being alone without her, and where he life could've been. I watched him walk all the way to his car and drive away.

The libertarian streak tried to cajole me into ignoring it. I couldn't. The rest of me pleaded, saying he deserved it and brought it upon himself. I agreed. But agreeing with something doesn't make the empathy go away.

Something tells me that the One who transcends and offers so much for so little isn't interested in dethroning empathy, a most remarkable trait.

So who do we blame? We love to blame those in silver towers for the injustices done to those in other parts of the world. We love to blame leaders who are secretly fighting other leaders for not being good leaders. We love to blame addicts for being addicts, and lobbyists for being lobbyists. We love to blame everyone for everything that happens to everyone.

What do we do with people are drinking their way into destruction, who lie, who hate, who blaspheme, who are damned?

We can't throw them away, they are already in the waste basket.

And it doesn't take too much speculation to know Who is in there with them.

--Nick

"Would Paul Have Made a Good Evangelical?"

 I thought this was pretty awesome.

Enns:

No.

Even when you account for 2000 years of cultural differences between Paul and Evangelicalism, the answer is no.

Why? Because Paul didn’t treat the Bible the way mainstream Evangelicalism says you need to.
The way Paul handled his Bible–what we call the Old Testament–would keep him off the short list for openings to teach Bible in many Evangelical seminaraies and Christian colleges. Heck, John Piper, John MacArthur, and R. C. Sproul probably wouldn’t let Paul lead a home Bible study, at least not without supervision.

Here is the main reason why:

For Evangelicals, the Old Testament leads to the Gospel story. For Paul, the Old Testament is transformed by the Gospel.

For Evangelicals, the Old Testament, read pretty much at face value, anticipates Jesus. For Paul, the Old Testament is reshaped in order to conform to Jesus.

For Evangelicals, the Bible is God’s final authority. For Paul, Jesus is the final authority to which the Bible must bend.

You see, Paul had a monumental theological and hermeneutical task before him.  The Old Testament is centered on Israel’s need for obedience to the law of Moses in order to stay in God’s favor–what the Old Testament often calls “life.” God’s favor is most clearly demonstrated by Israel’s remaining in the Promised Land–if they obey, they stay; if they disobey, the are cast out (which is what the exile to Babylon was all about). And, as an added benefit, when Israel is faithful to God, the other nations will take notice and also bend the knee to Yahweh, Israel’s God.

Obedience to law; holding onto the land (and along with it worship in the temple); conversion of the Gentiles. All central elements of being an Israelite.

The Gospel of Christ that Paul preached said:

Law was a parenthesis, a temporary measure; holding on to land is now a non-issue; Gentiles can claim Israel’s God as their own as Gentiles.

Clearly something has to give. For Paul, it was the Old Testament.

For the rest, 

Peter Enns.

--Nick

Is the "Women's Ministry" Inadequate?

Quite interesting. My lady quotes someone and responds.

I shared my frustration with Christian women’s things…because they tend to be: devotional or “light” in nature, emotional/relational, or focused entirely on a women’s “role” as wife, mother or housewife. None of these things are bad, but women are more than this… and need more than this as well.

…I mostly read blogs/books written by men because they tend to be general about theology and the Christian life (and not exclusively through the lens of fatherhood, being a husband, or masculinity) – and therefore applicable to everyone. Why is it that so few women are capable of this? Our identity should be in Christ and should flow from the Gospel. But it seems that for too many women, their identity is in their role and flows from their life status. Don’t misunderstand – there is a time and place to discuss roles. But too much women’s material is anchored only in roles or distinctly feminine issues.
–Enough Light

The post reminded me of a complaint many of my other female friends (Complementarian and not) have about how the women’s ministry is done in their churches. This is especially felt by women who might be classified more as “thinkers.” Personally, when I hear “women’s ministry”, the words that immediately pop into my mind are: boring, devotional, shallow and for mothers (I am not a mother yet). Part of the issue for me is that I was initially raised in a church that taught me in Sunday school and youth group to dig into the Word and was rich and diverse in application. I later went on to get a B.A. in Biblical and Theological studies at Biola too. Unfortunately, the women’s Bible study or ministry often gets confined to activities and “studies” that are about Ruth or Esther (great women of God), but don’t go beyond these figures or simply don’t dig into the intricacies of the text. Are women actually interested in matters of doctrine, systematic and Biblical theology? My experience has been that they are once they are introduced.

For the original post: Allison Quient.

--Nick

The Egalitarian/Complementarian Divide (Part III)

Part III:

Differences within the Foundation Contribute to Differences in Approach

As a result of the differences within the foundation of the Complementarian and Egalitarian views, the approaches used to argue their cases often differ. One can quickly notice a general pattern of approach that appears to follow the very shape of how their views were constructed in the first place. The pattern hinges on the acceptance or rejection of the additional Complementarian premise.
From early on, it has been acknowledged that Egalitarians “have tended to emphasize the broader affirmations of the gospel which stress oneness in Christ. Traditionalists have usually centered on specific passages of advice in Scripture” (emphasis mine).[1] The Egalitarian tendency to take a more broad principled approach is highly evident. In the organization Christians for Biblical Equality, the following statement can be found for their rational for Biblical equality:

The Bible teaches that, in the New Testament economy, women as well as men exercise the prophetic, priestly and royal functions (Acts 2:17-18, 21:9; 1 Cor 11:5; 1 Peter 2:9-10; Rev 1:6, 5:10). Therefore, the few isolated texts that appear to restrict the full redemptive freedom of women must not be interpreted simplistically and in contradiction to the rest of Scripture, but their interpretation must take into account their relation to the broader teaching of Scripture and their total context (1 Cor 11:2-16, 14:33-36; 1 Tim 2:9-15).[2]

There are many other examples of a general principled approach being utilized by Egalitarians. A “redemptive-movement hermeneutic” is advocated by authors such as William J. Webb in Slaves, Women and Homosexuals and I. Howard Marshall in Beyond the Bible. This approach puts great attention on the broad sweep and direction Scripture is moving in and even allows for a more full application of a Scriptural principle than the text presents. While the many authors of Discovering Biblical Equality do pay attention to passages with a more specific focus, much of their case in support of Egalitarianism depends on the overall pattern of how women have been used by God in leadership roles, the movement throughout Scripture towards more inclusion of women in a patriarchal society, and passages that exemplify the principle of equality—sometimes to the exclusion of the Complementarians’ added premise (e.g. Galatians 3 in context). Egalitarians could build a positive case from these alone, especially Genesis 1 and 2 “because [these passages] do not speak about subordination or prescribe difference in roles; whatever is said of the male is said equally of the female.”[3] However, the Egalitarian must also counter the Complementarian’s premise and this they also attempt with limited degrees of success at persuasion when using the broader, more principled approach.

Of course, there are not a few Egalitarians who prefer to focus on texts that are more specifically and directly geared towards the Complementarian premise, this focus may be an adaptation for their opponents rather than a denial of the broader approach. Craig Keener, who does not base his case on principles, explains his own sentiments:

The broader theological method has its place; for example, the abolitionists typically argued their case more by identifying principles, and the slaveholders more by pointing to concrete texts…Broad models like Creation (Gen 1-2) and Christ’s redemptive work (for example, Gal. 3:28) are excellent places for biblical theology to start…I do not mean my own approach to be a condemnation of a different approach.[4]

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Christus Victor, a brief case

OPENING

I begin with an affirmation to the universal church, that Christ's death and resurrection is central to all atonement theories. In that, I agree that each atonement theory is grounded in some portion of the meta-narrative of Scripture. This includes the oft-maligned and majority held Penal Substitution Theory and even the Moral Influence Theory held by many within the Emergent crowd.


Simply stated, Christus Victor is the atonement theory that views Christ's death and subsequent resurrection as a cosmic victory over sin and death, which had kept humanity in captivity. It views the resurrection and the death of Christ as triumphant. This does not say that other theories do not have their place, or do not, in their own way, attempt to work out the same factors in their own views.

However, I do think that Christus Victor ought to be our primary lens by which we view atonement theories. I will offer some reasons why, and I do not expect this to cover each point of atonement nor do I plan on answering objections to my view. I simply am giving some reasons as to why Christus Victor should be our primary lens, and not at the exclusion of other theories.

In the first thousand years of church history, Ransom Theory or Christus Victor was the dominant view of atonement. Adherents included Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote:

When the enemy saw the power, he recognized in Christ a bargain which offered him more than he held. For this reason he chose him as the ransom for those whom he had shut up in death's prison. [1]

I think the early church had an aptitude for recognizing the spiritual realm, often equating salvation as a battle for souls, with God and the Devil fighting for each individual. Very theatrical, of course. However, I do think this method of viewing everything through a lens of spiritual warfare, but also God's ultimate victory, is what sets Christus Victor up as the best lens. It is both supernatural in focus and cosmic in scope.

1) PRINCIPALITIES, POWERS & THE WARFARE MOTIF

Through St. Paul, I do think Ephesians 6 offers us a glimpse as Christians into another realm. V12-13 speak directly to "wrestling against the rulers, authorities, cosmic powers over this present age, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." Using a militaristic battle cry, we are called to resist such "cosmic powers" and "evil."

Recognizing the role of the "Adversary" as a cosmic schemer of this "present age" is a helpful reminder. Indeed we see the conflict written against "hostile waters" which seems to indicate a time of folklore where the Hebrews believed the earth was enshrined in water, with water being a sinister force. However, God is shown to be king over such hostility, causing it to flee at the "sound of His thunder" (Ps. 77:16). 

It is God who is ultimately victorious over such forces (Hab. 3:15) and who sits above "the mighty waters" (Ps. 29:3-4, 10). Given the language used throughout Scripture to God being bigger than opposing forces and being a force to reconcile and be reckoned with, see Eph. 1:22, Ps. 8:6, 110:1, 1 Cor. 15:27, Colossians 1:15-20. The language of warfare and utter destruction is well attested, almost to the point of being anesthetizing.

You even have the Hebrews adopted foreign "monsters" such as Leviathan. Leviathan (possibly a reference to Tiamat, a Babylonian god of the primordial sea) is shown to be ferocious with many heads and the ability to breathe fire (Job 41:26-27), but was shown to be no match for YHWH. According to Ps. 74:12-14, God utterly destroyed him. The imagery of appealing to foreign gods and monsters of mythical proportions was and is symbolic of YHWH being supreme over such created beings. Even in Colossians 1, Paul explicitly emphasizes the sovereignty and preeminence of Christ against a foreign ruler, namely Caesar, who believed himself to be above all things. In essence, St. Paul is writing a letter of treason against a "principality" and using him as an example of the power of the one true God as both source and sustainer.

Regardless of the terrifying aspect of the worst of creation, we can bet our lives that YHWH is above all things and that this cosmic battle is not eternal in duration. The warfare motif is a strong and consistent theme throughout Scripture, and it is even stronger in the New Testament.

2) RANSOM & IMMORTALITY

In Adam, we have the consequence of mortality, without any hope of immortality apart from Christ, which is a gift that God gives to the saved. Even in the Old and New Testament (Prov. 12:28, Ezekiel 18:4, I Cor. 15:53-54, 2 Tim. 1:10 and others), we can see that immortality is something to be sought after, and a gift that only God can give. Thus, mankind doesn't seem to be born with immortality and can only become immortal (Strong's 862-- Aphthartos -- Uncorrupted, imperishable, immortal (of the risen dead)). God alone appears to be immortal (Rom. 1:23).

In this, sin has it's grip upon humanity. It not only keeps us from attaining immortality, which is contested in that we may have never had it, but also showcases the full effect of Adam's sin and Christ's death, which brings life and justification (Rom. 5:12-21). In him we have deliverance and the forgiveness of sins.

In this same vein, deliverance from sin and death seems to be a dominant theme in Scripture. Mark 10:45 speaks about Christ "giving His life as a ransom for many." In the present context of servanthood and submission, to think of the Son of Man as anything less than a conquerer was unheard of. Christ as a servant did, in a cosmic way, destroy everything that was sin. Moltmann speaks of this as such:

God allows himself to be humiliated and crucified in the Son, in order to free the oppressors and the oppressed from oppression and to open up to them the situation of free, sympathetic humanity.

The line of thinking is deliverance from bondage and oppression and the sin of this world. In refuting the heresy of the time, St. Paul speaks of this as "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time" in I Timothy 2:5-6. As is seemingly consistent with Pauline literature, the idea of past bondage is given over to Christ, who destroyed the "old man" that was once Saul, and is reborn as our St. Paul.

We are not ransoms, but prisoners. Prisoners to, simply put, sin. This includes to our flesh but also to the "God of this age" (2 Corinthians 4). In Jesus laying down his life as a substitute, he effectively destroyed what had reigned as condemnation. In fact, much of his earthly ministry was to subvert the effects of the Law, and his death, by perverse trial and condemnation by a ruling principality, culminated in the utter worthlessness of "human justice."

The cosmic significance is staggering, and seems to fit better within Christus Victor.

3) INAUGURATED ESCHATOLOGY & "ALREADY, NOT YET"

This is the easiest part to argue for. It isn't often that you have Thomas Schreiner and N.T. Wright in agreement on one topic. However, I do think Christus Victor strongly supports IE and I shall give some examples.

All things are seen as "already established" and "awaiting consummation." Christ's ministry on earth included the healing of the blind, casting out demons and speaking in tongues. When the 72 returned to Jesus, they proclaimed that "even the demons are subject to use in your name!" (Lk. 10:17). Having unclean spirits proclaiming Jesus as "the Son of God" (Mark 3:11) symbolizes the uniqueness of Christus Victor in that it is shows the effects it has upon believers, but also demons.

The idea that the Kingdom of God was established and birthed in the 1st Century and is awaiting the full consummation is a widely held Christian belief. I believe it fits perfectly with Christus Victor.

4) YHWH'S FINAL VICTORY

To emphasize God and Christ's victory of sin itself is also foundational to the Christus Victor model. Given the warfare motif as seen above, to believe that God reconciled "all things to himself" (Col. 119-20) seems to suggest spiritual entities as well on top of the possibility of the "new earth" being "won over." This is speculative so I won't insist upon it.

In Ephesians 1, we see that God putting "his enemies beneath his feet" seem to signify the utter end of sin in the sense of "already, not yet." This fits perfectly with God's perfect love in saving sinners from bondage, and that nothing can ultimately separate us from him (Rom. 8:35-39, John 1:29, 3:16).

This holds true to the teaching that the "Adversary" is "driven out" (John 12:31). In doing so, Jesus "disarmed the powers and the authorities, [He] made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Col. 2:13-15).

The cross symbolizes the ultimate destiny of sin, the cosmic significance of God triumphing over this temporal evil, and that paying such a cost is "costliest grace," according to Bonhoeffer. This world has been "set free" and "liberated from bondage" (Rom. 8:18-23).

The cross symbolizes God's perfect love, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8).

The cross symbolizes the healing brought forth by Christ's desire to save and to heal (Matt. 8:1-17, with emphasis on v17).

5) CONCLUSION

Gregory Boyd sums up Christus Victor as thus:

Whereas other models tend to isolate the meaning of Christ's death from his lifestyle, his healing and deliverance ministry, his teachings and even (in some cases) his resurrection, the Christus Victor model reveals the profound interconnectedness of everything Chris was about. All these things are ultimately about one thing: establishing the reign of God by vanquishing the reign of Satan and the powers through the power of self-sacrificial love. [3]

In summation, Christus Victor seems to not only emphasize the cosmic scope of all things, but also maintains substitutionary atonement and the element of sacrifice. It can include the Healing View and the Moral Influence, with Jesus' moral teachings, healings and living by example central to His ministry.

FOOT NOTES

[1]. Gregory of Nyssa, "An Address on Religous Instruction," Chapter 23. LCC, III, 300.

[2]. Jurgen Moltmann, "The Crucified God."

[3]. Gregory Boyd, "Four Views of the Atonement," 46.

Fundamentalist Christians, Gays & Electric Fences?

Oh my. I thought this was from Cracked. Or the Onion. Or the Huffington Post right beside the Kim Kardashian boob pictures.

Oh. Wait.

Anyway. This is spiritually painful. Even if one doesn't accept same-sex marriage, this still strikes me as unChrist-like.

Huff Po:

The barrage of anti-gay sermons delivered by North Carolina-based pastors to hit the blogosphere continues with yet another disturbing rant caught on tape. 

The pastor, identified on YouTube as Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., condemns President Obama's much-publicized endorsement of same-sex marriage while calling for gays and lesbians to be put in an electrified pen and ultimately killed off.
"Build a great, big, large fence -- 150 or 100 mile long -- put all the lesbians in there," Worley suggests in the clip, reportedly filmed on May 13. 

He continues: "Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out...and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out...do you know why? They can't reproduce!"

He also said that if he's asked who he'll vote for, he'll reply, "I'm not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover!" Many of the congregants cheer and reply, "Amen." 

Worley added, “It makes me pukin’ sick to think about -- I don’t even whether or not to say this in the pulpit -- can you imagine kissing some man?”
 
The pastor's comments seem in line with statements made by Ron Baity, founding pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem and head of the anti-marriage equality organization Return America, who told his own congregation that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people should be prosecuted as they were historically, and Pastor Sean Harris of the Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville who advocated parents "punch" their male child if he is effeminate and "crack that wrist" if he is limp-wristed. 

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

"Who Says Homosexuality is a Sin?" Part I

Josh Gould wrote this. The picture has little to do with this, but I thought the picture was funny by itself. ;)

There’s an ancient quote that says, “any interpretation of scripture which leads to hatred or disdain of other people, is illegitimate.” Some of you might recognize this quote from The Charter of Compassion that was launched a few years ago by Karen Armstrong. Rabbi Meir Baal Hanes who lived during the second century first uttered it and made it famous. St. Augustine also came to the same conclusion, but said it in different words.

So what does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, it doesn’t take much effort to see how evangelical Christians oppress and discriminate against someone who identifies as homosexual. These Christians claim that marriage is between one man and one woman and that anything else would destroy the sanctity of marriage, as God established in the Bible. They go out of their way to stand up against issues like same-sex marriage to the point where they pass amendments to ban such an idea. The media especially enjoys plastering their networks with video and pictures of people holding up signs that say, “God hates fags” and “God says fags should die.” Where do they get these ideas from and how can they be so bold as to speak on God’s behalf?

These ideas and interpretations about what God speaks through the Bible come from a place of hatred and, according to Rabbi Meir, this makes them illegitimate. But what exactly are they interpreting? Within the pages of the Bible, there are six verses that are commonly used across the board by Christians opposed to homosexuality: three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. Let’s take a look at the one that is arguably the strongest, most used verse in the Old Testament. We’ll find this verse in chapter 18 in the Book of Leviticus. It might be helpful to follow along in your own Bible, so feel free to turn there and skim down to verse 22. It reads, “do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, it is detestable” (TNIV). Before we begin breaking down the verse, a little context on Leviticus might be helpful.

For the rest, click below.

TheGodArticle.

--Nick

Heathen Manifesto?

Thanks to Marius for posting this for me. Quite interesting.

Quote:

In recent years, we atheists have become more confident and outspoken in articulating and defending our godlessness in the public square. Much has been gained by this. There is now wider awareness of the reasonableness of a naturalist world view, and some of the unjustified deference to religion has been removed, exposing them to much needed critical scrutiny.

Unfortunately, however, in a culture that tends to focus on the widest distinctions, the most extreme positions and the most strident advocates, the "moderate middle" has been sidelined by this debate. There is a perception of unbridgeable polarisation, and a sense that the debates have sunk into a stale impasse, with the same tired old arguments being rehearsed time and again by protagonists who are getting more and more entrenched.

It is time, therefore, for those of us who are tired of the status quo to try to shift the focus of our public discussions of atheism into areas where more progress and genuine dialogue is possible. To achieve this, we need to rethink what atheism stands for and how to present it. The so-called "new atheism" may have put us on the map, but in the public imagination it amounts to little more than a caricature of Richard Dawkins, which is not an accurate representation of the terrain many of us occupy. We now need something else.

This manifesto is an attempt to point towards the next phase of atheism's involvement in public discourse. It is not a list of doctrines that people are asked to sign up to but a set of suggestions to provide a focus for debate and discussion. Nor is it an attempt to accurately describe what all atheists have in common. Rather it is an attempt to prescribe what the best form of atheism should be like.

1 Why we are heathens

It has long been recognised that the term "atheist" has unhelpful connotations. It has too many dark associations and also defines itself negatively, against what it opposes, not what it stands for. "Humanist" is one alternative, but humanists are a subset of atheists who have a formal organisation and set of beliefs many atheists do not share. Whatever the intentions of those who adopt the labels, "rationalist" and "bright" both suffer from sounding too self-satisfied, too confident, implying that others are irrationalists or dim.

If we want an alternative, we should look to other groups who have reclaimed mocking nicknames, such as gays, Methodists and Quakers. We need a name that shows that we do not think too highly of ourselves. This is no trivial point: atheism faces the human condition with honesty, and that requires acknowledging our absurdity, weakness and stupidity, not just our capacity for creativity, intelligence, love and compassion. "Heathen" fulfils this ambition. We are heathens because we have not been saved by God and because in the absence of divine revelation, we are in so many ways deeply unenlightened. The main difference between us and the religious is that we know this to be true of all of us, but they believe it is not true of them.

There are over 12 other points. The post is irenic and quite clever and calm.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

"How to Talk about the Afterlife; if you must"

A very interesting set of theses. I posted the first one, and there are nine others. I think the dude abides with these. ;)

Ten Theses to Guide Debate on the Afterlife

This post is by D. C. Cramer, who is a PhD student in religion with an emphasis in theological ethics at Baylor University, a pastor in the Missionary Church denomination, and a regular participant in the Jesus Creed community.

The following are some theses—in no particular order—that I believe should help guide discussions of the afterlife, especially those debates currently raging over universalism and hell. These thoughts are purely my own (and even I’m not sure what I think of all of them). By stating these theses, I am not advocating or endorsing any of the views of the afterlife discussed.

Which theses do you (dis)agree with? Why? Are there any theses you would add to this list?

(1) Every view of the afterlife involves some amount of speculation. True, some views might be more speculative than others, but the level of speculation doesn’t necessarily determine the truth of a view. No view, however seemingly speculative, should be dismissed or taken as a given until all arguments—biblical, theological, and philosophical—have been carefully considered.

For the rest, go to McKnight's POST. 

--Nick

Ask a Seventh-Day Adventist. . . (with brief thoughts on hell)

Rachel Held Evans interviewed a Seventh-Day Adventist named David Newman. He offers some brief thoughts on hell, where he (obviously) adopts an annihilationist perspective.

From Aubree: Can you explain "soul sleep," and the Seventh Day Adventist position on hell? 

When God created the first man, Adam, “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). We believe the breath of God and the body make a living being.  Without the life-giving breath of God, there is no life in the body.  The concept of an immortal soul came from Greek influence and not from the Bible. 

Very briefly, we believe that when a person dies, they sleep in the grave until the resurrection.  Sleep for death is a common metaphor in the New Testament.  When Jesus comes back the second time,  he raises to eternal life all who died trusting in Him. The Bible says that God is the only one who is immortal (1 Timothy 1:17).  There is no text that says that the soul is immortal. 

We believe in a hell as described in the book of Revelation that burns up Satan and all the wicked and cleanses this earth.  The results of the burning are everlasting.  We do not believe that for all eternity there is a portion of God’s universe where people are suffering forever and ever.  To pronounce an infinite torture for finite crimes is out of all proportion to the crimes. While God is merciful, he is also just. And He is also love.  As Rob Bell has so graphically illustrated in his book on hell, the love of God does not fit with a retributive God for all eternity.

I believe annihilationism is a strong position, and think Newman offers a brief but decent case. Some may disagree on his application and I would've liked a stronger exegetical argument but such as it is.

For the rest of the interview, which is great, check it out HERE.

--Nick

The Egalitarian/Complementarian Divide (Part II)

Allison Quient's second post. It gets better and better. ;)

Differences within a Common Foundation

The “Shaping Principles”

(Continued)

How do Egalitarians and Complementarians understand the other’s view of equality? It often seems the two speak past each other as they assume their own paradigm. For Complementarians, the fundamental difference between men and women is a gender hierarchy that is compatible with, and clarifies, equality of personhood. If one rejects this, it is thought that they must be, at least in principle, rejecting gender distinction or believe it is the idea of hierarchy itself the Egalitarian has a problem with. This very often gets read into the egalitarian critique of their position. For example, Grudem goes after Belleville and other authors by framing the key issue as the Egalitarian arguing equality implies “sameness in authority or roles.” Grudem writes,

But equal value and equal honor and equal personhood and equal importance do not require that people have the same roles or the same authority. A fundamental egalitarian error is constantly to blur the distinctions and to assume that being equal in the image of God means that people have to be equal (or the same) in authority…it is merely an unproven assumption, and it simply is not true.…The fundamental egalitarian claim [is] that if there is equality there cannot be difference in role, and if there is difference in role there cannot be equality.[1]

Millard Erickson notes this basic misunderstanding of Egalitarianism when he comments,

 …I do not know of any egalitarians who would make this claim or who assume it in their discussions. Of the egalitarian couples I know, most do not insist on each performing exactly half of all roles, so that their functions are identical. Where they disagree with “complementarians” is whether one member of the pair always has the final word, or the ultimate authority. Thus, it appears that the fundamental claim that Grudem finds actually has been read into or projected from the perspective that he himself takes.[2]

Unfortunately, thinking Egalitarian opponents are only, or mostly concerned with “sameness” or lack of diversity leads to providing examples that do not address what the Evangelical Egalitarian is actually concerned with.[3] Grudem lists several examples of hierarchical relationships acknowledged by most to involve people of equal value, but different roles and levels of authority such as, the difference between the manager of the Diamondbacks and the pitchers, or the president of a university and the faculty.[4]

Does this accurately capture where Egalitarians diverge in their rejection of the additional premise? Is this usually the fundamental Egalitarian error? Grudem entirely misses the problem Egalitarians have with the additional premise. It is not hierarchy among persons that is the problem, but rather a hierarchy based in ontology. Is the president who he is by right of caste or something inherent in his nature? The examples that would be more readily identified by Egalitarians as antithetical to an equality in personhood would not be the difference between a President and a citizen, but the difference between a king by right of birth and a peasant born and kept necessarily in subservience, or the Pharaohs who were thought to be divine and therefore inherently superior to their subjects.[5] The examples Grudem offers capture differences of role, but not the “role” tied to ontology, or as some would put it, a role tied to a function that cannot be otherwise and is universally based on gender to which Complementarianism is uniquely subscribing.[6]

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Hopped and Bothered; Lagunita's Wilco Tango Foxtrot

Lagunita's --Wilco Tango Foxtrot

Alcohol content 7.8%. Strong tangerine at the front. Pours a nice foamy white head. Grapefruit essence at the beginning scent. Aroma is citrus. Tart. Clean. Crisp. The taste is instantly bitter and hoppy. Gives way to an almost instantaneous shift into roasted malty and near syrupy brown sugary goodness. Pine lingers in the bite. A hint of ginger and warm biscuit is the end of the ride.

Buy if: you are in the mood for a "limited" release and a hoppy brown ale.

Overall: I'm not a fan of the bitterness, but the scent and aftertaste won me over. Plus, it's over 7%.

3.50 out of 5.

WTF. Yes indeed.

--Nick

Daily Dose of Humor, "Can you run from God?"

LOL.

--Nick

Coffee, Caffeine & Thinking

As a coffee lover, I liked this.

Caffeine is the most widely consumed stimulant in the world.  We drink it in our coffee, we consume it in our cans of Coke and Pepsi. People take in so much of this drug, they rarely think twice about it. 

Caffeine is found naturally in so many of our foods and beverages, we take it for granted. On top of that, it’s often referenced for its positive effects on attention and mental alertness.
Not only is caffeine found abundantly available in natural and supplemented foods and beverages, you’ll also find it in products sold over the counter for fatigue, migraines and colds. 

But what are caffeine’s effects on our thinking? Is it helping or hindering our thought processes? Let’s find out… 

Blood levels of caffeine peak in as few as 15 minutes and on average 45 minutes after ingestion.  Some studies suggest that over 80 percent of U.S. adults and children ingest caffeine on a daily basis (Brunye et al., 2010). 

Many studies indicate that the primary role caffeine has affecting our behavior is its effect on blocking the inhibitory properties of endogenous adenosine. So what? you say. Well, that inhibition results in increased dopamine, norepinephrine and glutamate. Caffeine ingestion leads to increased stimulation of your heart (cardio) and even anti-asthmatic actions. 

Many studies have demonstrated that caffeine leads to enhanced cognitive performance involving various tasks (Brunye et al., 2010). It is often cited for its positive effects on vigilance, mental alertness, feeling of well-being and arousal.  Caffeine also has a positive effect on various domains of attention (Trayambak et al., 2009). 

Psych Central

--Nick

Theopologetics, "One in Christ Part II

This is part 2 of the interview, dealing with complementarian objections to egalitarianism. Quite good.

Theopologetics

--Nick

Battleship, a brief review

The worst part about Battleship is that I actually kinda maybe sorta enjoyed it. I know, I know, either I'm a contrarian or a MTV caveman. But hear me out.

After what the United States of America dubs "naval games," a naval slacker played with plenty of jaw-line chiseled gusto by Taylor Kitsch (John Carter) is suddenly thrown into a commanding position against an unknown alien horde. 

I actually think the plot if far more simple then that, but I'm feeling generous. But that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not Battleship is worth paying $13 to see on a big screen with some decent surround sound. 

In a word, itdependskinda. 

In a phrase, it depends kinda. 

Battleship is tailor-made for an international release. You have military bravado, war veterans both young and old, strong female leads (both pretty hot), an ethnic cast and Liam Neeson. You have the backdrop of epic special effects, the novelty of a board game and Liam Neeson.

Liam Neeson. 

Okay. Getting serious now.

Taylor Kitsch has genuine charisma. He manages to take klutzy dialogue and give it, well, less klunkification. Rihanna has little to do expect look good while wet and sporting big guns, but you know where you stand on that issue if you enjoy looking at pretty women with big guns. This include Brooklyn Decker who is about as involved in the plot line as a spent bullet is to a sniper rifle. 

Liam Neeson.

As for the special effects, well. BANG. Pretty dope. Nowhere near revolutionary, but more than adequate. 

But, with each miniscule praise must come a qualification. Or many. The pacing is lackluster, the inclusion of multiple odd elements regarding aging war vets is corny and the intension of the alien race is unclear and seemingly pointless. For all we know, their race was set to die and earth had some planet-saving dues ex machina elements. Like unobtanium. Or fig newtons. Or Liam Neeson. 

But, we aren't privy to such information. And to think about it is to waste your $13, trying to fill the gaps that aren't necessary to be filled. 

Some commentators brought up the issue of "warmongering" and "militarism." I think they are missing the point; to give the film that type of credit is simply laughable. Battleship is a tent pole blockbuster, not a Michael Moore documentary. The film is doing only one thing there; trying to make money. Either this film is an incredible satire (which I admit is possible) or it is what it is; a film based on a classic board game trying to make back it's $200 million budget by appealing as broadly as possible. 

So, should you spend $13 on this? 

Sure. Why not. Like marriage and kids and Tim Burton flicks, you know what you are getting.

Liam Neeson. 

3 out of 5.

--Nick

The Egalitarian/Complementarian Divide (PartI)

Allison Quient wrote this for her "Scripture, Hermeneutics & Theology" class. I think it is quite good.

Introduction

It has frequently been claimed that understanding the differences in hermeneutical approach is key to illuminating the barriers that now divide the Egalitarian from the Complementarian when it comes to women in ministry.[1] However, the two groups, as Evangelicals, adhere to the same basic hermeneutical principles, but apply them in different ways because the shaping principles that constitute their positions differ as a result of their understandings of specific texts.[2] This paper aims to identify what the different shaping principles and influences of Evangelical Complementarianism and Egalitarianism are in order to understand more clearly how they influence the recent debate.

Differences within a Common Foundation

The “Shaping Principles”

In the midst of all the confusion over the definition of  ‘equality,’ Egalitarians andComplementarians share a common component in their definition. While traditional Christian patriarchy taught that a woman’s nature was ontologically inferior,[3] both Egalitarians and Complementarians believe men and women are ontologically equal in value and worth as persons before God. Egalitarian author Rebecca Groothuis defines equality as “the fundamental biblical principle that every human being stands on equal ground before God; there is no group of persons that is inherently more or less worthy than another.”[4] In summarizing the Egalitarian position, Robert Johnston provides the following as part of how the nature of a woman is to be understood under the concept of equality: “Gen 1:26, 27 recounts how God made male and female in his image. Man and woman were to be a fellowship of equals like the fellowship within the Godhead…and were given joint responsibilities (Gen 1:28).”[5] In 1977, George Knight III was the first hierarchalist to put a Complementarian perspective into print. Based off of the fact that man and woman are both made in the image of God, he articulates: “Thus both by creation and now also by redemption that renews that created image quality, the unity and equality of male and female are most fundamentally affirmed.”[6] Wayne Grudem continues this sentiment when he says, “If men and women are equally in the image of God, then we are equally important and equally valuable to God…God’s evaluation is the true standard of personal value for all eternity.”[7] He lists this idea first among key issues and presentations of the Complementarian view. Clearly, equality in essence is important to both theological perspectives and both would define it in relation to God.

For the rest (and there is a lot), click HERE.

--Nick

Countries According to Dis/Belief in God

I thought this was quite interesting.

Percent of residents who said they were certain of God's existence:

• Japan: 4.3 percent
• East Germany: 7.8 percent
• Sweden: 10.2
• Czech Republic: 11.1
• Denmark: 13.0
• Norway: 14.8
• France: 15.5
• Great Britain: 16.8
• The Netherlands: 21.2
• Austria: 21.4
• Latvia: 21.7
• Hungary: 23.5
• Slovenia: 23.6
• Australia: 24.9
• Switzerland: 25.0
• New Zealand: 26.4
• West Germany: 26.7
• Russia: 30.5
• Spain: 38.4
• Slovakia: 39.2
• Italy: 41.0
• Ireland: 43.2
• Northern Ireland: 45.6
• Portugal: 50.9
• Cyprus: 59.0
• United States: 60.6
• Poland: 62.0
• Israel: 65.5
• Chile: 79.4
• The Philippines: 83.6

Percent indicating atheism:

• East Germany: 52.1
• Czech Republic: 39.9
• France: 23.3
• The Netherlands: 19.7
• Sweden: 19.3
• Latvia: 18.3
• Great Britain: 18.0
• Denmark: 17.9
• Norway: 17.4
• Australia: 15.9
• Hungary: 15.2
• Slovenia: 13.2
• New Zealand: 12.6
• Slovakia: 11.7
• West Germany: 10.3
• Spain: 9.7
• Switzerland: 9.3
• Austria: 9.2
• Japan: 8.7
• Russia: 6.8
• Northern Ireland: 6.6
• Israel: 6.0
• Italy: 5.9
• Portugal: 5.1
• Ireland: 5.0
• Poland: 3.3
• United States: 3.0
• Chile: 1.9
• Cyprus: 1.9
• The Philippines: 0.7

For the rest, LIVE SCIENCE

--Nick

Weekly Esthetics, "American Psycho"

To give a synopsis of the film is almost irrelevant because, well, it is. Suffice to say that Christian Bale plays a yuppie serial killer who's tongue may or may not be planted firmly in his cheek.

The reasons I recommend this film are multiple in scope. First, the worldview is complex and offers a vast array of thoughts and perceptions, including the nature of reality and subjective experiences, an exploration of a mainstream cultural shift (though more satirical in nature), and finally a glimpse into the heart of darkness that may in fact not be as dark as the world around it.

Be prepared for some pretty graphic sexuality, (mostly) implied violence and occasional language. You know your limits. 

The narrative is fascinating, with an inner monologue that reads like Chandler if filtered through Tyler Durden. The pacing is slow, focusing on character elements and re/defining archetypes and villains. Patrick Bateman is narcissistic, cunning and uncertain about the strength of the skin that seems to hold him back. 

The film is technically proficient, though nothing stands out right now. 

All in all, I think American Psycho was a challenging film for me to sit through on the first viewing, mostly because I was stuck in film school and hated most everything that the other students loved. I still do. But, the more I thought about the spiritual and psychological factors of American Psycho, the more I considered how dare-I-say profound I found it to be. 

I consider American Psycho to be a far more interesting film than, say, Fight Club. But that is an entirely different post altogether. So, if you feel interested in seeing this, be forewarned. 

This film challenged me all throughout film school. I think many of you will find it challenging as well, and I hope you enjoy your Weekly Esthetic.

Ugh. Corny. 

--Nick