Pulse: Myths in Pre-Mature Resolution (A Guest Post by Jordan Nakamura)

Before all else, I’d like to respond to the prompt at face value: hands down, the “topic our generation will deal with the most” is homosexuality and LGBTQ rights. It is what has been elected as the cultural question of the age, in the United States at least. I have a lot of thoughts on the issue myself, I think it’s important to talk about it, and i’m glad that we are. I especially hope that people who identify as Christians will continue to begin a healthy discourse. We have handled it horribly for a long time, one response among many inexcusable ones being the whole “if you just don’t talk about it, it’ll go away” charade. It’s often painfully obvious that there is still a long way for Christian communities to go. But for the most part, I’d much rather see people making some mistakes in the same room trying to reconcile than to see them staying comfortably worlds apart, safe in their festering assumptions.

But as for what I think is the most important, other issues come to mind as better candidates. To clarify, I mean better candidates than legalizing gay marriage, not evasive action and advocacy against homophobic violence, which is about as important as anything else I can think of. Basically I’m going to attest that any “third world issue” is more important than “first world issues.” A large number of these third world issues stem from racism, and while racism to some might sound like a simple pitfall to avoid, even black toddlers in the States will pick a white doll over a black one. In light of this, it becomes important to investigate who our white leaders are picking to assist and understand before aiding or bombing, because the results get to be as serious as life and death. At the end of the day, it’s still important in this age to investigate exactly why it was Japan and Asians that were bombed, and not Germany and white people. It is our generation that needs to look at these things to grapple with present issues: why black unarmed teens are still being shot and why nobody covers the story, and why I have seen white co-workers walk in completely blazed on pot and not get a second look for it. In this way, these third world issues of racism and even sexism become the issues of our generation in the first world, but go unacknowledged as relevant or even existent, let alone our onus. This is why I’d argue that issues of racism and sexism in any “world” is a priority. It is more important that people not die because of preventable causes than it is that gay marriage is legalized. That might piss people off, but I stand by it, as do I stand by my belief that gay marriage should be allowed. But people who compare movements of LGBTQ rights to the Black Civil Rights movement simply have not looked at history with clarity or respect. I’m not trying to pit one issue against the other. Disproportionate death by AIDS in the LGBTQ community is a tragedy, and like anyone, I hope a cure is found. but I also hope that we work towards remedying the effects and occurrence of disproportionate murder and captivity of black skinned human beings, which has been going on a lot longer than AIDS existed. Again though, the problem is when people start pretending like this ancient issue is covered, and in the current “Age of Obama,” the post-racial narrative is rampant and sets the stage for the marginalization of these issues.

Let’s examine some of our culture for a minute, the culture that predicates this very post as almost certainly being read from a glowing computer screen: Due to highly accelerated networking, information has completely changed in nature and shape. Capitalism and consumerism have been altered. Young people like myself are not good at imagining a world before this new order, let alone how something like commerce used to run. What most people in our generation will acknowledge is that images are everywhere, at a constant inundating rate. Given this, we might conclude that issues of race and gender are perhaps more relevant today than ever before, because never have our ideas of them been so easily malleable, the icons of these ideas so easily created and spread, nor their effects so easily covered up. By nature, race and gender are sort of airy. For example, even at the genetic level, I have no more chance of being more genetically similar to another Japanese person than I do to a Norwegian person. Despite this, race is a phenomenon that has been called into being. It is real because the effects are real, but there is no locus in object. Sex and ethnicity, of course, are very real in the sense that they’re biologically measurable, and are objective. The mechanics of how images and narratives work in the modern world have mutated, and these changes need to be addressed in addition to inherited systemic problems. 

The idea that we are living in a “post-racial age” is also a major factor. This idea is widely accepted as common sense: the notion that we no longer need to deal with issues of race because it is a solved or moot issue. Race being removed from public consciousness contributes to the emphasis on gender. Therefore, any sociological energy that the public has is given to LGBTQ concerns. Race, once again is marginalized, due to the myth that racial marginalization is a checked off item on the humanitarian To-Do list of history. Some of this has to do with an institutionalized historical slant towards a version of history that sterilizes the Black Civil Rights movement, making it out to be a safe topic that never reaches the present. Some of it has to do with the fact that a man named Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States. Again, I want to stress that I don’t want to eclipse one cause with another. It’s precisely that motivation that I re-emphasize race which I think has certainly been eclipsed by other issues. My definition of more important reads as “more important to reassess the importance of.” The effects of racism in America are rampant, widespread, and too often fatal, and few people realize that it is even an issue anymore, whereas legalizing gay marriage is important in the public eye to the point of it being hip. It’s a lot harder to make a mass-profile picture icon about generations of unintentional but destructive microaggressions, and so it doesn’t happen. The quote about white privilege isn’t going to get several thousand shares on tumblr, like the one on gay marriage will. Understandable I suppose, but what isn’t okay is how the issue then drops off the map because it isn’t recognized in pop culture, politics, and daily interactions.

Hopefully, the church will realize that followers of Christ should be running with the vanguard in any true societal brokenness, yearning and fighting for justice and entering into the pain. I do not have the time here to elaborate on why I have become convinced that race and marginalized issues are at the forefront of cultural battles to be stationed within, but I trust readers can continue to investigate for themselves. But I must address the prompt which asks what issue is the most important for our “Christian generation.” Obviously, anyone can fight for racial justice or women’s rights or anything else, believing in God is not a requirement. Sadly, the bulk of the Western Christian population has more or less been content to leave most of these fights to people who do not identify as Christians. But I want to talk a bit about something that is a big question for many in “the church” which probably isn’t for others outside of it. I’m going to refer to this as the “weird supernatural” spiritual gifts, or “miracle work” in the Holy Spirit. 

Jordan Nakamura can be found via the Twittersphere, and on the rest of the Interwebs.

Jeff Cook, "Beer Proves the Existence of God"

I'm still laughing.

Cook:

We know God exists because of great beer.

Don’t discount the Ontological argument just because you think you can imagine the perfect island. The ontological argument has real bite when you marry it with fine ales. Open your mind for a moment, and you may reply as Bertrand Russell once did, “Great God in boots!—the ontological argument is sound!”

Behold…

1. Beers that exist are greater than beers that do not exist, and as such existence is a great-making property.
2. If God exists, God is the greatest conceivable being.
3. Let’s assume the greatest conceivable being does not exist.
4. If (3) than there is something greater than the greatest conceivable being.
5. (4) is a contradiction, so (3) is false.

God exists and we know this because of great beers.

Contrary to Kant, every philosopher I know believes that beers that exist are greater than beers that do not exist. It would be offensive to humanity, the Rolling Stones, and your grandmother to deny Premise 1.

Because no philosopher actually believes a non-existent beer is equal in standing to one’s real beer of choice, “existence” is a great making property.

 For the original kephale.

--Nick

Deconstructing "Hellbound?"

I'll confess, I'm generally not a fan of documentaries. I had to sit through several of them while at Biola, and I always found time to twiddle my thumbs and pretty much ignore everything else.

Well, Hellbound? is the first documentary that both moved me and annoyed me to no end.

Allow me to explain.

Rob Bell's Love Wins brought about a major shift in the tone of evangelicalism. Some reacted, some reconsidered. But a conversation began, starting with a multitude of books and blog posts denouncing Rob Bell. Even the SBC got involved, affirming their commitment to eternal conscious torment. So, clearly, a differing view of hell sparked enough of a debate to warrant intelligent conversation on the topic of eternal damnation.

Writer/Director Kevin Miller takes us on a journey that deals with his own personal struggles with eternal conscious torment, and the idea that God would send/allow some to go to hell. His encounters involve laymen such as the "God hates fags" protestors outside the 9/11 memorial, to famous and controversial pastors such as Mark Driscoll and Brian McLaren. They all offer varying ideas, some of them quite extreme and others predictably toeing the traditional party line.

However, after setting the stage with what is at stake, the film takes a far more intellectual route, dealing with philosophy of religion, ethics, retributive justice and the meaning/s of the word "hell" in Scripture. Kevin marshals ample resources in the form of Brad Jersak, Sharon Baker and Michael Hardin. Greg Boyd makes several appearances to offer his clear perspective on things, but Robin Parry (one of my favorite scholars) has some a very wise perspective he offers. The interview is revealing, and quite profound in it's implications.

Though the film is somber and serious, there are some amusing moments in regards to prominent pastors screaming, and some charming anecdotes from Michael Hardin. It doesn't smack of the cheap editing tricks of "Religulous" but some/many may find them offensive anyway.

What annoyed me most about Hellbound? is the same thing that annoys me when I watch the evening news or listen to talk radio. Like I was, you will be tempted to yell at the screen and start arguing with a computer monitor. Hearing distinctions between theologies that I don't find compelling in the slightest really grated against my instincts. But this is to be expected.

You will be provoked, you will be challenged, and I do think you may be changed. The topic of hell can be extraordinarily divisive, but it would be a debate amongst Christians to conduct in love and respect. There is something in here to offend everyone, but none of it is intended to undermine or disrespect. Hellbound? offers much respect towards each view, though it does not shy away from revealing it's own conclusions on the matter. 

Like "Lord, Save Us From Your Followers," "Hellbound?" isn't interested in simple answers to complex questions. Indeed, many of the scholars and pastors interviewed are skeptical or hopeful or pessimistic about the state of the afterlife. You run the gamut between conservative evangelicals to progressives like Franky Schaeffer, and all have much to say on this topic. The finale of "Hellbound?" is deeply unsettling for some, but it is also moving and forthright.

The media hype about Rob Bell's Love Wins is nothing compared to the potential that Hellbound? is going to offer evangelical and progressive Christians. If Love Wins was a firestorm, Helbound? is a tactical nuclear strike and it's fallout will be felt for quite a long time.

Be open, be honest, and be prepared to have your buttons pushed.

I will post a more in-depth review once the film is released on September 21. You can check out the website for the film HERE.

--Nick

Marius Lombaard, "Necessarily Absolute Relativism?"

My good friend from down under (South Africa, I guess) recently wrote a book review and his subsequent thoughts. As usual, his thoughts are irenic and challenging. Marks of a humble soul.

Lombaard:

Sometime during the last year I read a book that was really thought provoking titled: “Truth… & The New Kind Of Christian”.
 
Although the books main subject deals with Postmodern Christianity, specifically the Emerging Church, a book can be written on the subjects of the last few chapters alone.

In this post I won’t go into detail about post-modernity or the emerging church (I might write a detailed book review later though); rather I want to touch base on an interesting distinction that changed the ways I view truth and knowledge.

For most people, the alternative to absolute truths are relative truths. And most average folks will live by one of those standards of truth. You either believe in absolutes, or you believe that everything is relative.

Relativity says: what is right for you, isn’t necessarily right for me and vice-versa. Don’t dare to tell me what I ought to do, because truth is relative, and who are you to dictate what is right or wrong for me? The conclusion is therefore that truth is not absolute, but rather relative to the person.

Absolutes say: there are absolute truths in this world. Doesn’t matter what you say:

• Murder is wrong
• Rape is wrong
• Torturing babies for fun is wrong
• Genocide is wrong
• Slavery is wrong

Therefore the conclusion is that there are absolutes we should all live by. We can’t escape it, it is a fact of life that we all live by absolute truths.

Some people have suggested that the truths we live by are merely how we have evolved and that society has decided what is right and wrong. But if this is true, then we are led to believe that we could have evolved otherwise, and society could have developed and chosen otherwise. That is, it could’ve been decided that murder, rape or genocide is not wrong after all. But that possibility is absurd! A culture or society that believed this would soon exterminate itself and cease to exist and develop, since it’s people would be justified in their emotions and anger to murder each other for the silliest things that so easily and frequently kindles our anger.

So it is at least clear that there are at least some absolutes we all live by. But I want to introduce a third possibility: objective truths. What are objective truths? How does it differ from absolute truths?

In “Truth… & The New Kind Of Christian”, Smith looks at four properties of truths to see in what ways they are the same, and in what ways they differ:

For Smith's and Lombaard's thoughts, continue HERE.

--Nick

C. Michael Patton, "Why Arminianism Doesn't Sell"

I thought this was quite interesting. 

I made an observation recently that may be completely off base, or it may just betray the reality of the tight Evangelical circles in which I travel most of the time. Either way, here it is:

Calvinists have a corner on theologically-themed conferences. Arminians have apologetically-themed conferences. Leadership conferences don’t do theology.

Is this true? It seems true from my standpoint. Think about the major conferences out therethat are theological in nature: Desiring God, Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, and Ligonier Ministries. All of them fill churches and arenas with thousands of people. Passion fills the air as speakers talk about theological issues in the church. John Piper, Don Carson, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, Tim Keller, and the like are invited to speak. Diversity runs deep in these theology conferences. Dispensationalist and Covenant Theologians, paedobaptists and credo baptists, charismatics and non-charismatics, and premillenialists and amillenialists are all represented. However, it is hard to find an Arminian invited to (much less putting together) such engagements. Why? I don’t know, but I suspect that it is because Arminianism, as a theological distinctive, just does not preach. Don’t get me wrong. I did not say that Arminians can’t preach. They most certainly can. And I did not say that Arminianism is not true (This is not the question on the table). It is simply that the distinctives of Arminianism do not sell in such settings. Evangelicals love to hear about the sovereignty of God, the glory of God in suffering, the security of God’s grace, the providence of God over missions, and yes, even the utter depravity of man. This stuff preaches. This stuff sells tickets.

For the Arminian to put together a distinctive conference, things would be a bit less provocative. Things like “The Responsibility of Man in Suffering,” “Man’s Role in Salvation,” or “The Insecurity of Salvation” won’t preach too well. Think about how hard it is for a Calvinist to try to plug in a token Arminian at a general theology conference. On what subject do you let them speak? “Roger Olson, I would like you to come to our conference and speak on . . . (papers ruffling) . . . ummm . . . (papers ruffling more) . . . Do you do anything in apologetics (except suffering)?”

Of course, there was the John 3:16 conference, which was Arminian. But that was not a general theology conference. It was a specific conference which amounted to a polemic against Calvinism. During the conference, the speakers simply countered all five points of Calvinism. This is symptomatic of so much of the Arminian distinctives with regard to their message. Much of the time Arminianism is simply seen as “Against Calvinism,” whereas Calvinism is more affirmatively focused on the sovereignty of God. Even the latest books published on the subject betray such a reality: For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger Olson. I think one can find this same general approach in the theological blogosphere. Calvinists have something they are for, while Arminians are always on the defensive, fighting what they are against. Finally, as far as I know, the John 3:16 conference only happened once (in 2008). That it, or anything like it, has not been renewed or rebooted may serve to prove my observation.

Now, apologetics seems to be a different story. Not only to do you have Arminians filling the pulpit when it comes to defending the faith, they seem to dominate. William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Paul Copan, Norman Geisler, and Gary Habermas are all on the roster. It is “Team Biola.” This is not to say that Calvinists don’t do apologetics. However, they normally do so in a less “evidentialist” style that just won’t teach. Have you ever tried to teach people to defend the faith using presuppositional and transcendental arguments? Enough said. The simple observation I am making is that apologetics is heavily dominated by Arminians today. However, I don’t think there is anything distinctive about Arminianism which would make them more equipped to hold apologetics conferences. Perhaps, the focus on the free will of man makes the whole apologetics enterprise more necessary and effective in Arminianism. Theoretically, Calvinists, because of their compatibleness (holding the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in tension), could teach evidentiary apologetics just as truly as an Arminian. ”Did Christ Rise from the Grave?”, “Who is Jesus?”, “Is God a Moral Monster?”, or “Responding to the New Atheists” are all topics on which Calvinists and Arminians could teach together without sacrificing their theological integrity. There may be some distinction with a topic such as “If God is Real, Why is There Evil?” But that is the only apologetic issue which I think could be an exception in this group of topics.

Leadership conferences, on the other hand, are normally very diverse. Why? In all probability, they are not very theological in nature. Stirring passion about finishing strong, leading by serving, and preparing a sermon does not require any theological commitment one way or another. However, if the leadership conference turns on men’s issues or women’s issues, the complementarian/egalitarian elephant enters the room. And, generally speaking, most complementarians are Calvinist and most egalitarians are Arminian.

That said, these observations are not timeless. They are what I see today. I think they represent the chicken or the egg question (I don’t know which comes first) to the resurgence of Calvinism in the pews today. My hypothesis is that Calvinism preaches better than Arminianism. In a confused world of suffering and pain, we want to know that God has it under control, not man. Calvinism instigates more of a dramatic change in theology than does Arminianism. We are more naturally inclined toward the Arminian idea of free will and God’s sovereignty. People normally don’t “become” Arminians. But nearly all Calvinists can tell of a passionate “conversion” experience as to how Calvinism dramatically changed their way of thinking about God. This creates incredible passion. Therefore, we invite Calvinists only to these theology conferences (even when the organization, itself, claims to be more broadly Evangelical). And people leave with a full heart. On the other hand, when we want to fight against the New Atheists, we do not need to discriminate against the finer points of theology too much. Therefore, we invite either Arminian or Calvinist apologists.

C. Michael Patton

--Nick

RCA, "A Simple Argument Against Naturalism"

Kurt has graciously offered me the chance to blog on his site. Since I'm lazy and don't feel like logging in, I decided to post something here that caught my eye. It's by Murray Vasser.

If naturalism is true, then everything that exists is composed of matter and energy. There is no God and no immaterial soul. Everything that you think or feel results from the arrangement of the atoms in your brain.

Furthermore, if evolution is also true, then these physical structures in your brain came into existence through the mechanism of natural selection weeding out random genetic mutations. Therefore enduring human beliefs and feelings came into existence only because, at some point in time, these beliefs and feelings promoted the survival of the human species.

 

Therefore, assuming both naturalism and evolution are true, the universal human impulse of love came into existence because this instinct enabled humans to live together in peaceful societies, pooling their knowledge and strength to conquer the elements and populate cities.

 

However, like any other primitive structure produced by evolution, this instinct is by no means perfect. While it has, overall, promoted the advancement of the human species, it occasionally works against Darwinian survival. For example, in some cases this instinct has prompted human societies to expend resources to assist the elderly, mentally disabled, or terminally ill. It has also prevented human societies from breeding those who are strong and intelligent while killing, or at least sterilizing, those who are weak and stupid.

 

But now human beings have reached a pivotal point in their evolution. For the first time in history, sentient beings understand the forces that have created them. They can now guide their own evolution. They no longer require love to guide them, because their brains have finally evolved to the point where their reason can better accomplish the aim that this primeval instinct sought blindly to achieve. In other words, if both naturalism and evolution are true, then reason and love are ultimately in conflict.

 

However, this conclusion seems highly unlikely.  No string of reasoning could ever lead me to doubt love, because my faith in love is every bit as strong as my faith in reason.  I cannot prove that it is wrong to kill a handicapped child, just as I cannot prove the law of non-contradiction.  However, though I cannot prove either proposition, I am equally certain that both are true.  Therefore, because I am certain that both love and reason are valid, I am certain that naturalism and evolution cannot both be true.

 

www.murrayvasser.blogspot.com

Real Clear Apologetics

--Nick

Roger Olson, "Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism; Distinctions?"

Olson:

What Distinguishes “Evangelical” from “Fundamentalist?”

Is it possible to be truly, authentically evangelical without being fundamentalist? That’s what I really meant to ask in books like Reformed and Always Reforming, How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative, and Questions to All Your Answers (and in many of my articles about “postconservative evangelicalism.”

The problem is that, over the last few decades, fewer and fewer people call themselves “fundamentalists.” I think that probably began when the media started using the label to describe terrorists. Who wants to be associated in people’s minds with Ayatollah Khomenei? (Some of you may be too young to remember, but, as I recall, he was the first non-Christian that I ever heard labeled “fundamentalist.”)

These days, people who used to identify themselves as fundamentalists and who still exhibit that ethos call themselves “conservative evangelicals.” Of course, there are people who call themselves conservative evangelicals who are not fundamentalists. So it gets complicated.

So why is this even an important question? Simply that, at least here in the good old U.S., there is a huge network of educational institutions, publishers, mission agencies, world relief organizations, parachurch ministries, etc., etc., that identify themselves as “evangelical.” Most of them at one time or another had some affiliation with the so-called “neo-evangelical” or “postfundamentalist evangelical” movement that was born in the 1940s out of disillusionment with the fundamentalist movement.

The story has been told over and over again by scholars such as George Marsden, Mark Noll and Joel Carpenter (to name just a few). Put simply, “evangelical” includes “fundamentalist” but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists.  Put another way, fundamentalists are evangelicals, but since the 1940s, at least, there are many evangelicals who are not fundamentalists.

Of course, one of my projects has been to point out that in the last three decades many people who are more like the old fundamentalists than like the new evangelicals, in terms of ethos, are calling themselves “conservative evangelicals” and trying to push many of us who are more like the new evangelicals out of the evangelical movement.  An example, in my opinion, is Al Mohler calling me “postevangelical.”

I claim that my ethos is not essentially different from the evangelical ethos I learned and came to embrace in seminary (North American Baptist Seminary) in the 1970s. My evangelical ethos is closer to the original one of the National Association of Evangelicals than to that of many self-identified “conservative evangelicals” who, in my opinion, operate out of an ethos more like the old fundamentalist one against which the new evangelicals rebelled.

What do fundamentalists, conservative evangelicals and postfundamentalist/postconservative evangelicals have in common? Much.

All of us, as evangelical Protestant Christians, believe in 1) the supreme authority of inspired Scripture for faith and practice, 2) basic Christian orthodoxy as embodied in the consensus of the church fathers and reformers about the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, etc., 3) a supernatural worldview, 4) salvation by God’s grace through faith alone, 5) personal conversion as normative for authentic Christianity, 6) the cross of Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation and as vicarious atonement, 7) the virgin birth, resurrection and visible return of Jesus Christ.

The distinctive hallmarks of post-1925 fundamentalism are 1) adding to those essentials of Christianity non-essentials such as premillennial eschatology, 2) “biblical separation” as the duty of every Christian to refuse fellowship with people who call themselves Christians but are considered doctrinally or morally impure, 3) a chronically negative and critical attitude toward culture including non-fundamentalist higher education, 4) emphatic anti-evolution, anti-communist, anti-Catholic and anti-ecumenical attitudes and actions (including elevation of young earth creationism and American exceptionalism as markers of authentic Christianity), 5) emphasis on verbal inspiration and technical inerrancy of the Bible as necessary for real Christianity (including exclusion of all biblical criticism and, often, exclusive use the KJV), and 6) a general tendency to require adherence to traditional lifestyle norms (hair, clothes, entertainment, sex roles, etc.).

Who were these post-1925 fundamentalists? Not all of these embodied all six of the above hallmarks, but they generally functioned within that ethos: William Bell Riley, Frank Norris, Bob Jones, Carl McIntire, John R. Rice and the early Jerry Falwell. And many, many more. Most of them were non-Reformed, but there was a Reformed camp of fundamentalists who shared that ethos without premillennialism. (I would locate Cornelius Van Til there.)

How did the postfundamentalist evangelicals differ from them? Beginning in the 1940s and increasingly throughout the 1950s former self-identified fundamentalists began to shy away from that identity and ethos without embracing liberalism or neo-orthodoxy. They 1) sought to establish ecumenical cooperation and fellowship among evangelicals who disagreed about non-essentials such as eschatology and predestination [“generous orthodoxy”], 2) sought to be cautiously open to secular culture and higher education and its products, and 3) sought to overcome legalism that had become characteristic of much fundamentalism.

In other words, the main difference between the new evangelicals and the fundamentalists was one of ethos—at least from the new evangelical point of view. From the fundamentalist point of view, of course, the difference was more than one of ethos. It was often viewed as one of departure from the gospel.

The new evangelicalism was to be a broad tent that included everyone from conservative Presbyterians to Pentecostals to Advent Christians to Nazarenes to (recently) the Worldwide Church of God. Fundamentalists were invited to join but declined. Still, formally speaking, fundamentalists are evangelicals and, to liberals, anyway, all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

As an heir of and scholar working within the new evangelicalism movement I have found it necessary to warn fellow new evangelicals about a neo-fundamentalism taking shape and growing among us. Its adherents are not exactly like the older fundamentalists, so it’s not easy to identify them. For one thing, they don’t call themselves fundamentalists. They call themselves conservative evangelicals and attempt to style themselves as mainstream evangelicals, even “confessional evangelicals” and so forth. (Using positive-sounding labels that imply THEY are the “real” evangelical heirs of the postfundamentalist evangelical movement.)

Why does it matter? Why do I and others bother to sound the warning alarm about this? Because much is at stake. First, the nature of the gospel is at stake. These people, like the older fundamentalists (some of whom are still around) wish to “enrich” the gospel and evangelicalism with doctrines not all new evangelicals believe. But they pretend that all “real” evangelicals always believed them. In their hands, the gospel becomes a system of theology virtually identical with that of Charles Hodge and the Old School Princeton Theology of the 19^th century. The gospel becomes a new law, system of orthodoxy, that requires adherence without mental reservation for salvation or at least for discipleship. In their hands, for example, being evangelical requires not only right beliefs but right way of believing—that is, foundationalism.

Second, the wonderful network of trans-denominational parachurch organizations (colleges, universities, seminaries, mission agencies, world relief agencies, publishers, etc.) is at stake. The new fundamentalists are out to take them over. There is no doubt about that in my mind. I experienced it “extremely loud and incredibly close.” So have many of my colleagues who spent much of their lives in Southern Baptist institutions and were forced into exile by the new fundamentalists. Now the same people, joined by others, are attempting to do with evangelicalism what they did with the Southern Baptist Convention and its seminaries.

The problem is that these new fundamentalists, who are, admittedly, evangelicals too, are not easy to identify. They pass themselves off as mainstream evangelicals, the heirs of Carl Henry, for example. Henry, however, denied that inerrancy was a litmus test of authentic evangelical faith. And, as strongly opinionated as he was about many matters, he attempted to keep the evangelical “tent” broad and inclusive.

I identify the new fundamentalists by their ethos which I find to be similar in many ways to that of the older fundamentalists. They are evangelicals who TEND to 1) spend much energy searching for and identifying heresies among evangelicals, 2) focus a lot of attention on identifying “evangelical boundaries” and solidifying them by demonstrating that some evangelicals are “outside the boundaries,” 3) add non-essential doctrines to the essentials of evangelicalism (boundaries) such as biblical inerrancy, young earth creationism, monergistic salvation and/or penal substitutionary atonement, 4) find nothing of value in non-Christian culture—especially philosophy, psychology and sociology, 5) attempt to frighten the faithful about “doctrinal drift” and “defection from the faith” where those do not really exist.

Remember, I’m talking about an ethos here, not a set of absolute markers or even characteristics those who display them are fully aware of (they would no doubt deny some of them).

Who am I to talk this way? Am I just someone on the sidelines crying “wolf!” when there is no wolf? I don’t think so. Of course, that’s for you to decide. But I have been in this evangelical movement my entire life and have had very keen interest in it most of my adult life. I have been editor of an evangelical scholarly journal, contributing editor to Christianity Today for quite a few years, chair of the Evangelical Studies Group of the American Academy of Religion, professor of theology in three Christian universities strongly historically identified with evangelicalism, author of numerous articles and several books dealing with evangelicalism. I have seen with my own eyes and experienced directly this attempted takeover of the evangelical movement by new fundamentalists.

An analogy is what has happened to the Republican Party in the United States. I can remember when it included influential moderates such as Nelson Rockefeller, John Anderson, Mark Hatfield and many others. Now moderates are unwelcome in the party. The party has been virtually taken over by people who in the 1950s and 1960s would have been considered radically right wing in their economic views.

People ask me all the time “Roger, why don’t you just give up calling yourself ‘evangelical’ and admit you’ve lost it? ‘Evangelical’ now means ‘fundamentalist’.” Call me stubborn and a champion of lost causes, but even if I go to my grave the only moderate evangelical left that’s what I will be calling myself. I hope others will join me in this and not abandon the label and the movement to the new fundamentalists. (Many of the people who ask me that still call themselves Baptist when, to most people in America, “Baptist” is virtually equated with “fundamentalist.” Why don’t they give up calling themselves Baptist?)

Something I’ve been reading set me off on this post. I’ve been reading articles by a certain, not-to-be-named evangelical philosopher/theologian who finds something good and right and helpful in a postmodern, even deconstructionist, philosopher’s musings. He carefully dissects the philosopher’s thoughts, pointing out the benefit for all Christians, evangelicals included, of exposure of idols, while also pointing out areas of the philosopher’s thought that are theologically weak and probably should be avoided. But he’s very adroit at pointing out the fact that in this particular deconstructionist philosopher’s writings, the non-Christian elements seem to stand in tension with the ideas that are beneficial to Christians. The latter could, if followed out consistently, reform the former and help even this philosopher move closer to the kingdom.

This evangelical philosopher/theologian’s work in the area of postmodernity and deconstruction is profound. It displays first hand acquaintance and real understanding of postmodern philosophy. He does not rely on other evangelical sources; he reads the philosophers themselves. What he finds is not exactly the “standard evangelical line” about postmodernism and deconstructionism. For that alone, being cautiously and critically open to postmodernism and deconstructionism, he was denied tenure at an evangelical institution of higher education. That’s new fundamentalism at work. At that same evangelical institution of higher education, not many years ago, the governing board ordered the president to stop the faculty from introducing liberation theology to students in any manner or form. They did not want the students even to know what liberation theology is. All teaching about liberation theology was to stop. Of course, the president refused and was fired. New fundamentalism at work.

Do I know about these and similar events merely anecdotally? No. I have them from the primary sources. I know people on both sides personally. And I’ve been there myself—in a similar situation where we (theology faculty) were ordered by an administration to cease and desist all teaching about open theism. New fundamentalism at work. I was told face-to-face by a powerful pastor that he would get me fired for not siding with him in his attempt to get an open theist colleague fired. New fundamentalism at work. I was invited to speak at a conference of new fundamentalists (who, of course, consider themselves mainstream evangelicals). Not once during the several days long conference would one of them sit with me at a meal. “Biblical separation” at work, new fundamentalism at work. (No “table fellowship” with heretics!)

Something truly awful is stirring within evangelicalism. It’s directly analogous to what has happened in the Republican Party. I call on moderate evangelical leaders to stand up and speak out against it. So far most have not. None dare call it fundamentalism.

Olson/Patheos

--Nick

The Problem with Christus Victor? (part 1)

I read this very interesting post over at "Covenant of Love", written by Derek Ouellette. You should check it out. I copied the entire response here, and included the link to Mark Galli's original post. I hold to Christus Victor as my primary but not exclusive model of the atonement. 

Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today, wrote an article titled The Problem with Christus Victor. As someone who believes Christus Victor ought to be the umbrella atonement motif for the Christian faith, this post is a response to that article.

Mark writes:

I have noticed—and do tell me if you see otherwise—that in general those who publically champion Christus Victor don’t pepper their talks and prayers with personal guilt for sin or the need for divine forgiveness.

“do tell me if you see otherwise”, I take that as an invitation to discussion. I hope to “tell” Mark “otherwise” before this post is through and show how that perception can easily go both ways.

Some Significant Points:

There are a few things I believe that are significant to point out in this discussion. I believe it is significant that the Church Father’s held to the Christus Victor atonement motif unanimously up to the Augustine/Pelagian controversy of the fifth century, at which point it began to fall out of favour in the Western Church. It believe it is significant that the Eastern Church has always held to the Christus Victor motif from the time of the Father’s of the Church up to this very day. I believe it is significant that the Augustine/Pelagian controversy was virtually unheard of in the Christian East and remains a non-issue (notice the connection between that fact and that the Orthodox still holds to the Christus Victor motif). I believe it is significant that since the Reformation the dominant atonement theory in the West has been Penal Substitution. I believe it is significant that Protestants who react against the growing return to the Christus Victor motif seem to be most concerned with how they perceive that it raises “works” (global concerns and social agenda’s et cetera) above or against personal guilt and a personal need for forgiveness.

There is more going on beneath the surface of Mark’s article then just which atonement motif one prefers. It’s amazing how many “issues” raised by Protestants go back to the Augustine/Pelagian controversy and exposes the Protestant terror of anything that smacks of smuggling works-based salvation in through the back door.

Mark’s View of the Christus Victor View:

Mark correctly draws out some of the strengths of the Christus Victor “model”: That this view emphasizes Christ as the victor, that in his death and resurrection he overcame the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection, those powers variously understood as the devil, sin, and death. But before long the article takes a decisively wrong turn:

While the model assumes humanity’s guilt for getting ourselves into this predicament—beginning with the original sin of Adam and Eve—the theory’s anthropology (view of humanity) emphasizes not our guilt but our victimhood, at least the way it is often discussed today. (emphasis mine)

That emphasis sets the direction of the article. One is left with the impression that there is a problem with the Christus Victor motif itself, when in reality Mark is concerned with “the way it is often discussed today“. The problem throughout the article is that Mark does not do a good job separating the Christus Victor motif from “the way it is often discussed today”. As the title itself suggests, it is the motif itself that has serious problems.  So in the readers mind Mark  appropriately  chucked out the baby with the bathwater. While acknowledging that the Christus Victor motif is biblical, according to Mark it is just one of those things we “Protestants” should be cautious not to over emphasize. We shouldn’t talk about it very much. Yet Mark’s double standard is that it is somehow okay for the Eastern Church to emphasize Christus Victor, just not us Western Christians.

Here, I’m simply suggesting that Christus Victor may not be a theory that Protestants, and evangelicals in particular, should tie their wagons to.

And why is that? Because, according to Mark, 1) “it’s clearly a secondary atonement theme in the New Testament”, and 2) “at least for today’s Protestants, it has an uncanny tendency to downplay a sense of personal responsibility, which in the end, sabotages grace”.

Is Christus Victor Secondary?

Mark acknowledges that the Christus Victor motif emphasizes the role of Christ’s atonement in regards to the whole cosmos. That being said it is difficult to reconcile his claim that it is secondary and that God is really (perhaps we might say, merely) concerned with individual sin, until you see that Mark has qualified his statement with the phrase “New Testament” by which it seems he means “Pauline Epistles and Hebrews”. (A very Protestant approach to the “New Testament”.)

It is significant that in discussing the role of the atonement of Jesus Christ Mark does not turn to the Gospel’s at all. It is also significant that when he speaks of the Christus Victor model he does so in terms of Christ’s death and resurrection, but not in terms of Jesus’ life and actions throughout his ministry which, incidentally, happens to be termed “The Gospels”. This is a Penal Substitution approach to the atonement applied to the Christus Victor motif. Furthermore the long held belief by Christians that the first reference to the atonement is in Genesis 3:15 happens to be a Christus Victor, not Penal Substitution, reference. When the rest of the scriptures are allowed to weigh in on the subject, the idea that Penal Substitution theory is dominant cannot be sustained.

Major themes running through both Testaments include Egypt and Exile, where the great atonement themes in the Egypt event with the sacrifice of a Lamb, the beginning of the passover with the blood spilled on the door posts so that the angel of death can pass over, are all within the context of deliverance, redemption, freedom and victory, and in fact the term “righteousness” is often used synonymously as “vindication” and in the context of military deliverance and victory as in the case with Deborah. The ongoing atonement for Israel’s sins are all conceived within this framework. The continuing sin of Israel landed God’s people right back into bondage in Exile in need of redemption, freedom and deliverance again. It needed another Lamb with spilled blood to end the Exile and defeat the principalities and powers of the air.

Christ’ work throughout his ministry in the Gospels is a testimony to this defining redemption motif.

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news [Gospel] to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, torelease the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” – Luke 4:18-19

Jesus’ mission was summed up in that Isaiac prophecy as he said himself. Through his ministry he did those very things including casting out demons everywhere he went, forgiving sins (yes!) and commanding, “go and sin no more” because it is not just that you have been forgiven of your personal sin, but that you have been set from and are no longer bound to them. In regards to an individual, this is what Christus Victor emphasizes against the raising up of the Penal View. Not just that you’ve been forgiven, but that now you can “go and sin no more” because the chains have been broken.

Is it any wonder John could write:

“The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” – 1 John 3:8

Of course this verse is in the context of personal sin, but that’s just it. Mark’s claim that Christus Victor fails to address personal sin and personal responsibility is simply wrong. “He who does what is sinful is of the devil” says John immediately before the one I just cited, but Jesus came to “destroy the devil’s work” so that you do not need to be of the devil any more. You’ve been forgive, of course, but you’ve also been set free. In fact, John’s point actually addresses the danger of raising the Penal View above the Christus Victor motif: if you claim to be forgiven but are still in sin, it means you have not been set free and are still “of the devil”.

Jesus told the disciples that he has given them authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the wiles of the evil one. When they returned from the mission field he sent them on, he hold them that he saw Satan falling from heaven. We are told by John that “the world is under the control of the evil one” (1 John 5:19) and Jesus called Satan the “prince of the world” (John 14:30) and Paul refers to Satan as “the ruler of the Kingdom of the air” (Ephesians 2:2). Is it any wonder that the central message of Jesus throughout his ministry was the proclamation of the Kingdom of God in which Jesus says, “the Kingdom of Heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force” (Matthew 11:12 ESV).

Obviously the Penal Substitution view is not the dominant atonement teaching when all of the scriptures are allowed to weigh in. In light of this fact, I find it astounding that Mark would make this statement:

With “no extensive discussions of Christus Victor anywhere in the New Testament—one begins to wonder how much stock we should put in Christus Victor. In short, should we be so quick to marginalize substitutionary atonement?”

The whole of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, discuss Christus Victor. Is that extensive enough for you? The substitutionary atonement theory should not be marginalized, but it should be put in its place and not at the expanse of the complete work of God in redemptive history.

Does it Sabotage Grace?

Earlier I made the connection between Protestant fears of Pelagianism and Christus Victor. This is where I think Protestants tend to overreact and scurry away from anything that – to us – smacks of sneaking works based salvation in through the back door. We’re so scared of slipping into one heresy (works based salvation) that we run fool-headed into another (antinominism).

Where Mark sees Christus Victor as potentially sabotaging Grace, I see Penal Substitution theory as sucking Grace dry of its substance. The Grace of God is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the hole Gospel including his ministry, his death and his resurrection and ascension. It is not just about how “I am forgiven so that I can go to heaven” as is often emphasized by those who preach the Penal View exclusively. That cheapens Grace. It is about how God has set us free from the powers of Sin, Satan and Death – the three enemies of the Cross. It is about how “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me [Jesus]. Therefore go and make disciples” (Matthew 28:18). So even the Great Commission is wrapped up in the Victor motif. It is about taking the Lord’s Prayer seriously that “Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven”, it is about taking the Beatitudes seriously, it is about taking Grace and the Gospel seriously.

Where Mark sees the Christus Victor motif as emphasizing human’s as simple victims that need to be set free, the Eastern Church sees the Penal Substitution theory as emphasizing Christ as the victim. Both are an exaggeration. For the Penal View the idea is not that Christ is the victim, but rather the he is the Vicarious One. For the Christus Victor motif, humans are not so much mere victims, as they are in need to redemption from sin, death and Satan. This of course includes, but is not restricted to, Penal Substitution.

Returning to the quote at the start of this post.

I have noticed—and do tell me if you see otherwise—that in general those who publically champion Christus Victor don’t pepper their talks and prayers with personal guilt for sin or the need for divine forgiveness

The perception goes both ways:

I have noticed—and do tell me if you see otherwise—that in general those who publically champion [the Penal Substitution theory] don’t pepper their talks and prayers with personal [freedom] from sin or the need for divine [deliverance].

Thinking about Lent

It is fascinating that Mark concludes his article with this:

Something to think about, anyway, especially during Lent, when many of us ponder the great mysteries of sin and atonement.

In my home city a 40 Day Prayer Vigil for Right For Life has been taking place this Lent, and it is significant that Protestants make up less then 5% of the Christians who are actively involved in this event. But with the dominant view of the atonement being what it is in Protestant teaching still today, (that I have been forgiven frommy personal sins so that I can go to heaven, i.e. Penal Substitution), is it any wonder that Protestants are not always front-liners in matters of contemporary social Kingdom agenda concerns. That is best a matter for those who believe that Jesus’ mission is bigger then me and my heavenly future.

One of Mark’s primary concerns in the article is how many who hold to Christus Victor polemically distort the Substitutionary View. I think he’s right, and so from one who holds to Christus Victor as the dominant atonement motif, I want to address the concern and add a corrective measure. It is unfortunate though that in reacting to an overstatement on the part of the Victor adherents, Mark himself would make so many overstatements.

Covenant of Love, Christus Victor pt 1

I will post part 2 when it becomes available. Thanks for reading. Check out Derek's blog. 

--Nick