Clarity, Spirals and Hermeneutics

The debates within evangelicalism are now beginning to boil to this stock-broth reduction:

Scripture is clear. . .

I was listening to a podcast segment on Unbelievable? where the topic centered around the 'Religious Right' and whether or not it was 'wrong.' I appreciated the program, not because I necessarily agreed with the ideas expressed but because it shone a bright light on two important factors.

Those two factors were brought out vividly by a right-wing Christian who proof texted Scripture like a bat out of Tartarus to prove capitalism, and by Brian McLaren. The right-winger would espouse the clarity of Scripture to prove his point, and Brian would undermine the right-wingers clarity of Scripture by allowing the man his opinion but saying people disagree.

Those two things:

One would assert over and over that his view was "biblical" and "clear" as a means of ending the discussion before it had a chance to really begin. I will grant that some topics in Scripture are clear, but many of them aren't. Thus the spiral and lack of clarity.

The other factor was the only response Brian McLaren could make was to simply disagree. Which was fine and Brian was a gentleman about it, but nevertheless I wish that things weren't just boiled down to simply a disagreement in abstract silence. The spiral of hermeneutics is washed down to simply a disagreement and that is that.

Now I grant that disagreements aren't necessarily a bad thing. As someone who does, however, tend towards theological realism, I find that most disagreements are centered around flattening interpretations to accommodate some views and exclude others. In short, while I don't think Scripture at all teaches Capitalism, I really wish more progressive Christians would simply stand up, say that the argument is bad and give really good reasons why it isn't.

I should offer a concluding remark and clarification; I didn't distinguish between salvific and non-salvific issues. What one thinks about the age of the earth has no bearing on one's salvation. But one can be dead wrong.

So, let's make a point to make better arguments (conservatives) and actually give better biblical arguments (progressives). Let's avoid black and white thinking where color is needed, and let's avoid pat answers. The truth usually sucks and I hate believing in it, but the universe is what it is regardless whether or not I want it to stop spinning.

There. I picked on both enough to know that I'm right and that is the clear sober truth.

Psych. :)

--Nick

In the Wake beneath the Dust and Blood of the Crucified God #progGod

There are a million questions to this question, and I don't think one can even begin to do them justice in the spans of a thousand or two words. For myself, I would consider myself a moderate to conservative evangelical so this is a bit of a brain teaser.

Why crucifixion?

Adam as the one formed from dust (or earthling, as a former prof once explained) is the one for whom the spiral out began. This Adam is from the earth, as a created being, from humble roots (pun possibly intended) and offered the world. However, through actions unlike what God desired, the world as we know it began a spiral towards death.

Why crucifixion?

Adam died in the wake of a falling creation and Eve died alone, with her children in disarray. All they knew was death apart from anything good. Genesis doesn't mention how Adam and Eve died, but it wouldn't be far to assume that it was of old age and of broken hearts.

Why crucifixion?

Paul states in Romans 5 that through the one human death came into this world, and through the one man we are all justified. In a cosmic sense, maybe Jesus had to die in such a way as opposite of Adam and Eve. Maybe he couldn't go up and ascend in wonder and glory via old age, but instead he had to die at the hands of certain emperors and certain Jewish leaders.

Maybe it is to showcase the failings and the abundance of grace, and that the pain of old age is a wonderful gift (in it's own right) as opposed to a political execution.

In the wake beneath the dust and blood of the crucifixion, maybe Jesus' death reveals that in spite of the hope for a life of old age, that life is cruel and callous and that this hostile universe needs to be revealed. The political and the social and the redemptive are summed up in a crucifixion. Maybe Christ's life was too important to drag out. Maybe the adage "a young life" is wasted, but even that is subverted.

Why crucifixion?

Dying a political death at the hands of an evil empire seems to be a universal addendum, in that there will always be martyrs and kings, blood and pain, until beyond the eschaton.

To quote my favorite church father,

When Christ 'shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father' , then those living beings, because they have been before this been made part of Christ's kingdom, shall also be delivered up along with the whole of that kingdom to the rule of the Father; so that, when 'God shall be all in all', they also, since they are a part of all, may have God even in themselves, as he is in all things.

Origen, On First Principles, pg65.

All in all, I don't really know. But it is fun to sit and think about such things on a Saturday afternoon.

--Nick

Potential Theological Trends within Evangelicalism circa 2013

Brandan Robertson wrote a post, and I hate to say it but I had been pondering the same thing. I think there will be three things approaching.

1. Annihilationism will increase, as will support for universalism.
With the rise of ReThinking Hell and the increasing atmosphere of openness (given the Rob Bell fiasco awhile ago), we will see more open support for annihilationism. Given that Preston Sprinkle of Erasing Hell fame now leans towards annihilationism or conditional immortali, this trend is indeed a hot one. Bad pun intended. You have other scholars like David Instone-Brewer, John Stackhouse and even Justin Brierley throwing their hats in the ring. Within the near future, the traditional view will die down and the debate will shift between annihilationism and universalism, with annihilationism becoming the dominant view.

2. Egalitarianism.
Due in large part to the scholarship of varying egalitarian heavyweights (Philip B. Payne being one), I believe that the equality of women and men in ministry will begin to be sorted out in my generation. Thanks to the continuous remarks of many Complementarians such as Mark Driscoll and John Piper (both whom don't speak for many of my Complementarian brothers and sisters), the trend within evangelicalism is to reassess the traditional standing. Simply put, Christians are beginning to stop and stare and think about this issue. Many who are involved in justice are sensing something amiss, as well as many seminaries doing the same. The tides are changing, both at Talbot and at seminaries across the United States.

3. The battle for the Bible.
Inerrancy has been a hot topic since the 50s, but I suspect that the liberal/fundamentalist divide will begin to widen with more moderate scholarship and attitudes prevailing. Given the aforementioned emphasis on justice, I see many within my generation being repulsed by both the right and the left. This is a tendency to be sure, but I think one could mine for the best of both sides and create something new. We are currently within a giant hole left by the emergent church and the collapsing nature of fundamentalism.

I see multiple topics seething in the background but they are less likely to be explosive; atonement, evolution and maybe even a little something call gay rights.

Thoughts?

--Nick

An Evangelical Quadrilateral, or musings with Brandan Robertson

I have never met Brandan except via scattered facebook and blog comments, but I get the impression that we'd be jovial friends with the occasional friendly jab. He wrote a post about the spectrum of Protestantism and it attracted some pretty hefty flack, including a response by Dan Kimball.

Unfortunately, I haven't had time to read the comments on the blog or check out any additional response Brandan may have offered. So I'm shooting from the hip on this one.

Here is the picture that started it all (in a good way):

I confess, I find this compelling for the most part. I think I agree with the majority of placements on here (saving Tim Keller in the Neo-Evangelical category) so for the sake of argument I won't push much on this.

But here is my big question(s):

What determines the label "fundamentalist?" Or "Reformed Evangelical?" Why distinguish between Reformed Evangelical and Free Will Evangelical?

Is it a belief in Dispensationalism? Exclusive male hierarchy? Elder only board? Inerrancy?

 In many ways, I feel this graph is part two of a series, and we've somehow skipped part one. The labels themselves need to be defined more specifically. I know DA Carson got after Bebbington and Noll for defining evangelicalism sociologically, but I think there should be more put into this. The subjective nature of labels does blur the lines of an already postmodern society.

So how should Brandan, myself and others defines these terms? The terms change with each generation and what was progressive back in the day (an example is Paul K. Jewett's advocating the ordination of women in the 70s while at Fuller, causing a big stir. Or Edward John Carnell being "soft" of Barth when they met for a session discussing inerrancy). Karl Barth wasn't a fan of liberal theology the way he knew it, yet today he's considered a liberal by many (not necessarily by me, as I'm only 6 pages into his Church Dogmatics).

Please don't misunderstand, I do not consider a definition of labels to be necessarily an exclusion of an individual or group. Rather, I would prefer to see an objective (within reason) form of looking at the way people labels themselves but also the way we label them. This should include some method of evaluating the belief systems and where the chips fall.

So, in essence, this chart is an excellent one, but I believe it is incomplete and a lot of people may be left scratching their heads. I know I was when I saw Tim Killer in the neo-evangelical category. However, I look forward to dialoguing with Brandan about this, as I too am fascinated with labels, being one who rejected labels for some time. Especially when I was just beginning my journey. Brandan is a forward-thinking soul and I am glad to be a part of this discussion.

For the record, I consider myself, according to the chart to be Neo-Orthodox. :)

Here is Brandan's original post.

God bless.

--Nick

Barth, Romans & Paul's Authority of God

Paul's position can be justified only as resting in God, and so only can his words be regarded as at all credible, for they are as incapable of direct apprehension as is God Himself. For this reason he dares to approach others and to demand a hearing without fear either of exalting himself or of approximating too closely to his audience. He appeals only to the authority of God. This is the ground of his authority. There is no other.

Karl Barth, "The Epistle to the Romans," pg 28. vv 1-2. CH 1.

Paul hasn't yet been to Rome that we know of, and the church has already been established. He is eager to stress his credibility and his calling, of that towards the Gentiles (Acts 18:6; Eph 3:1-3). His calling is manifest in his most comprehensive letter (that we know of), and he is eager to not only go to the symbolic "center of the (known) world" but he is also interested in possibly going further into Spain (Rom 15:24, 28). Much of the early church believes Paul journeyed to Spain, and we seem to have manuscripts that suggest it, such as 1 Clement 5. We don't know if Paul made it there, though Clement and other manuscripts seem to suggest that he did.

Either way, Paul claiming the authority of Israel's God and taking this to the already established (fledgling?) church of Rome was a strong example not only of a miracle (given the transportation and fiances required for such a letter, delivered by a woman no less [Rom 16:1-2 indicates Phoebe carried the letter and implies a possible teaching role as she explained the words Paul had written, though Barth accepts the poorly mistranslated 'Junias' and indicates that he is less likely to accept the role of female apostles in a footnote, "Epistles to the Romans" pg 535-36]). For strong textual/exegetical cases for Junia as an apostle, see footnote.

Either way, this commentary is fascinating (save for the unfortunate aspect of "Junias"). Especially for those interested in a more theological treatment of Romans.

For a bit of background, enjoy it here.

--Nick

FOOTNOTE

Eldon J. Epp, "Junia" (the entire book is a textual treat).
Richard Bauckham, "Gospel Women" pgs. 166-169.
Philip Payne, "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pgs. 65-7.
Cranfield, "Romans" Book 2, pgs. 788-90.
Dunn, "Romans 9-16" pg. 894.

Tony Jones & the Progressive Christian Blog Challenge

Jones:

I’ve been writing recently about the problems with liberal Christianity, and I had a thought this morning. It was prompted by a recent phone conversation I had with the managing editor of a major publishing house, combined with my faithful listening to the Theology Nerd Throwdown podcast, and the silliness of all the hand-wringing about Chik-fil-A.

These have prompted me to think that progressives have a God-talk problem. That is, progressives write lots of books and blog posts about social issues, the church, culture, and society. But we don’t write that much about God. That is, we don’t say substantive things about who God is, what God does, etc.

You might say the same thing about conservative Protestants (i.e., “evangelicals”). But the thing is, their people pretty much know what they think of God. It’s well-known and on the record.
Progressive/liberal/mainline theology, on the other hand, has a PR problem. We might think that people know what we think about God, but they don’t. It’s clear in the comments on this blog and elsewhere.

It really struck me yesterday, when listening to a recent edition of the TNT podcast, in which Tripp repeatedly and forcefully said things about who God is and how God acts. He didn’t relativize those statements with qualifiers, and he didn’t cowtow to political correctness or academic jargon. That was jarring to me because it so rarely happens.

Thus, I have a challenge:

I challenge all progressive theo-bloggers to write one post about God between now and August 15.

For me, I'm quite curious to see what my progressive brothers and sisters come up with. As someone who doesn't really consider himself progressive, I'd love to see how this would unfold. What attributes of God are de/emphasized, etc. Should make for an amazing discussion.

Oh course, why should progressive bloggers have all the fun? ;)

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick