Calvinism/Predestination

Right, wrong or indifferent, I admit my philosophy towards scripture up front: first, I must begin and end with the character of God as He has revealed Himself in scripture, and second, I must consider the full consequences of accepting a certain interpretation of scripture; and these two are intimately intertwined and they are the lenses by which my reading of Gods Message is colored. Now lest one accuse me of placing philosophy first in order of priority and authority over above “God’s Word”, an example is necessary: Say there were a verse in the bible that seemed to attribute darkness to God who is clearly and explicitly revealed as Light, I would feel compelled to wrestle with the “darkness of God” verse until I came to some sort of understand that proved to be non-contradictory to the explicit motif of His “Lightness”. My goal therefore is to be faithful to the scriptures, but (and making an appeal beyond the written word) I also and more importantly (lest I fall into a sort of “bibliolatry”) desired to be faithful to the God of the scriptures.

It is with this biblical hermeneutical philosophy as a back drop that I am prepared to explain why I reject Calvinism and Determinism (or Predestination; though Determinism is not exclusively a Calvinistic term, i.e. Arminians believe in a ‘foreknown’ determined future, none-the-less, in the context that I am entreating it, Calvinism and Determinism [predestination] will hence forth be interchangeable). Please note: what follows is not a polemic against Calvinism; that is, I’m not going to pull together a string of verses that may ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ Calvinism. My goal here is that while there certainly is a strong case for (and against) Calvinism in the bible by way of a proof-text approach, I wish to explain why I reject Calvinism forthright and not attack or build an exhaustive case against it.

Why I Am Not a Calvinist

There are many possible reasons why I reject Calvinism. For example, I was raised in a Pentecostal/Wesleyan free-will tradition that may have made me predisposed to rejecting divine omni-determinism, yet there have been many raised in the free-will tradition who after many years in church and after faithfully studying God’s word (and certain writers) has exchanged their free-will tradition for an omni-determined one. So appeal to my tradition alone is not enough to conclude why I reject Calvinism today. Some might suggest that because I find it heartless to suggest that God wills and ‘renders certain’ for many (most?) people to go to hell for all time just to glorify Himself, that I have placed my emotions in charge of my brain, and that is why I reject Calvinism. There may be some truth here as well, but I must add with force that if this were the case I doubt I would have spent serious time in the past investigating Calvinism from the writings of Calvinists’ in order to see if they can be reconciled with the God revealed in scripture. In other words, I believe I have given Calvinism a fair intellectual hearing and so to conclude that my emotions have gotten in the way would – I believe – be an unfair, emotional and anti-intellectual response from my critics.

Another factor, it may be said, is that I have chosen to embrace certain ‘proof-texts’ over above other ‘proof-texts’, that is, I wholly embrace some texts such as John 3:16 while quietly passing over others such as Romans 9:13. This may be the case also, but if it is, can the Calvinist escape the same charge? How, I would like to know, does the Calvinists handle Hebrews 6 and 10 for example? Of all I have read of Calvinism, these make up two of the most contrary passages for them to explain and indeed most which I have read simply (quietly) pass over such passages. I would like to know, oh Calvinist, how it can be said of someone who is Totally Depraved (T in T.U.L.I.P) that such a one has been “Enlightened… tasted the heavenly gift, and… shared in the Holy Spirit and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come”? And if such a one is God’s elect, how can it be said that if they “have fallen away” that it is impossible to “restore them again to repentance” (cf. Hebrews 6:4-6)? None-the-less, I would rebuttal the charge as unfair since I wholly embrace Romans 9-11 yet radically interpret that text differently in a way that reflects the primary motif of Romans in its entirety – i.e. the question of God’s covenantal righteousness – just as a few Calvinists have found a way to explain – albeit in an unsatisfactory way in my opinion – Hebrews 6 and 10.

There are many more reasons why it can be said that I reject Calvinism (or Augustinian or any other type of omni divine determinism for that matter) but of them all there is one reason which stands head and shoulders above the rest.

The ONE, the Achilles Heel!

Omni-determinism is analogous to a knitted sweater with a loose or frayed end; when that loose end is pulled on, that beautiful sweater, which was crafted with patterns by some of the greatest minds in Church history, slowly then quickly unravels until there is nothing resembling a sweater left and the yarn itself looses all usefulness. In that analogy the yarn is the Bible, the design of the sweater and patters in it are the theory of Calvinism and the loose or frayed end is the Achilles Heel of Calvinism which no body wants to talks about.

That Achilles Heel, that loose end of Calvinism is the question; if God has omni-control and nothing ever (EVER!) happens outside of His will, His plan, and His purpose how does sin escape the hands of God? Calvinists have created a doctrine called Compatibilism as a means to justify their position, but not even Compatibilism gets them off the hook, and the real honest Calvinists are at least willing to admit this much, for such a one there is a fall back position which is found in the word “mystery” (see “Q&A” below)!

What is Compatibilism? Compatibilism is the belief that humans (and angels?) are responsible for their sin because they sin out of the desires of their hearts, but God is the one who gives them their desires! (Hence human free choices are compatible with God’s omni-control.) So because humans (and angels?) do what we want (our desires) we are accountable for our actions and will be judge accordingly, even though we could not have done otherwise because God is the one who gave us our desires! Perhaps an illustration will help. Say a pedophile abducts a little girl, rapes her repeatedly and then dumps her body in a ditch, according to Compatibilism, he did this because God willed it, planned it, purposed it and rendered it certain (for some mysterious so-called greater good) that this would happen, as a matter of fact God is the one who gave the pedophile his desires to do what he did so that the pedophile could not have chosen to do otherwise. Who is responsible for the actions of the pedophile, him or the one who ‘rendered his actions certain’ (i.e. God)? The Calvinist would say the pedophile is responsible since he is the one who desired to abuse the little girl and acted out those desires. But I do not see how God cannot also be held accountable for the very same actions since God willed it, planned it, purposed it, “was in control” of the whole ordeal and made it certain that the event could not have happened any other way. To down size our illustration; say a mother pushers her toddler down the stairs, who is responsible for the preschoolers’ injuries? Obviously the mother is. But what if the father pushes the mother intentionally into the child for the purpose of causing the child to fall down the stairs, who now is responsible, the mother who’s body pressed against the child thus being the direct cause of the child’s fall, or the father who pushed the mother into the child in order to render the child’s injuries certain? I think we would all agree that the responsibility falls on the father given what we know of the scenario! How can we escape this conclusion with God?

The Sweater Unravels! The Dark Side Revealed!

Luther of the reformation was a brave man. Not only was he willing to put his life on the line in his zeal to reform the Church, he was also willing to follow the logical conclusions of his own theology wherever they would lead him; something most Calvinist’ lack the guts to do. What I mean is this, I have a quote somewhere of Luther (who like Calvin, was an omni divine determinist in the Augustinian tradition) in which he admits that there must be a ‘dark side to God’! Let me add unequivocally: if Calvin is right, then so is Luther. If Calvinism is true then so is Luther’s conclusion, there is no way to escape it!

The first human sin, the first angelic sin, every sin since then, every evil act, every desire and inclination of mans hearts, every natural evil, all of it, everything from Adam to Auschwitz, from Sodom to Satan, they all and every act and inclination thereof find their origins in God – if Calvinism is true. If Calvinism is true then darkness is not simply the absence of light, and sin is not simply the absence of holiness, for both find their origins in God.

Pull on this loose string long enough and the yarn of scripture as the Calvinist understands them unravels the whole sweater. Is God perfectly good? He is also perfectly evil. Is God light as the scriptures teach? He is also darkness. Is Satan the father of lies, well no, God is since all lies originate in the intention of God! If we cannot trust what the scriptures teach of Gods goodness, holiness, justice, lightness, that He is ‘the Truth’, and that He is ‘the Light’, and that He is ‘the Way’ to the Father but rather that He is also the Lie, the Darkness and the Way to hell etc. the bottom line is that the scriptures become wholly untrustworthy and we might as well toss them in the garbage because the bible itself has lied about who God is and, as Roger Olson is known for saying, in Calvinism it is difficult to distinguish between God and the Devil!

Calvinism may begin on the scriptures, but it is also their undoing. They may appeal to certain ‘proof-text’ as evidence for their belief, but in the end their interpretation of these ‘proof-texts’ leads to the annulment of the whole of scripture, including the very ‘proof-texts’ they originally appealed to!

The End

I hope I have not been too unfair, or unfairly presented the Calvinist model; but my purpose here was to share quite simply my opinion of Calvinism as the question was presented in the previous blog. There are many writers I respect who hold to the Calvinistic model and I don’t wish to demonize any of them for their views, many brilliant men throughout the ages have embraced omni divine determinism and I am nothing before these giants; but until one of them can explain to little ol’ me how Calvinism can avoid the conclusion above I am bound to the God revealed in scripture to take the position I have.

Sincerely His,
Derek.

Q & A

Q: Most Calvinist will readily say that the bible teaches both that God is in complete control and that he holds humans responsible for their own ‘free’ actions and that we should not push the issue, but rather we should simply believe the scriptures and accept the apparent contradiction or paradox as a mystery. What is wrong with an appeal to ‘mystery’ here?

A: I see a grave mistake in appealing to ‘mystery’ in the light of the logical conclusions of Calvinism.

The great Church philosopher of the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, has become famous for acknowledging that even God has at least one limitation, that is, God cannot do that which is logically impossible to do. For example, God cannot ‘not be God’ and ‘be God’ at the same time (When Jesus came to earth he did not cease to be God, for the scriptures testify that in Him the fullness of the Deity dwelt! Col. 2:9); another example is that God cannot hear ‘nothing’ for the simple reason that ‘nothing’ is the absence of noise and so there is simply nothing to hear, if God could hear ‘nothing’ then ‘nothing’ would then become a ‘sound’, it would be ‘something’ and not ‘nothing’. In other words, God cannot hear ‘nothing’ because that would constitute a logical contradiction, it is logically impossible to hear the un-hearable! (Hold that thought.)

There is a BIG difference between a paradox which we can acknowledge as a ‘mystery’; and that of a clear contradiction which we should either seek to reconcile or if it cannot be done, we should readily abandon. Take for example the Trinity; it took the early church several centuries to develop and carefully articulate the dogma of the divine Godhead, in the end they concluded that we are to understand the Trinity as ‘One Being eternally existing in three distinct Persons’. The Trinity is a ‘paradox’ which humans are incapable of understanding, and so we can refer to it as a great mystery – and it is! But it is not a contradiction. It would be a contradiction if the Church said that ‘God is One Person and also three Persons’, for God cannot be both ‘one person’ and ‘three persons’ at the same time, since that would constitute a logical contradiction (see previous paragraph). But if the Trinity were a clear contradiction, the Church would never have settled comfortably with it as a dogma declaring it a mystery; no way! They would have wrestled with it (as they did) until they could understand it (philosophically) in terms that were faithful to the texts of scripture but also without contradiction!

Finally, (in light of the two previous paragraphs) you will have noticed that I have shown – convincingly I believe though it is doubtful any Calvinist would agree – that the logical conclusions of Calvinism ultimately negates the scriptures, and through Calvinism Gods’ character is irrevocably tarnished to the extent that God’s Word, including the very texts that Calvinism relies on, have become wholly untrustworthy. Calvinism leads to a clear contradiction of the character and nature of God as He has chosen to reveal Himself in and through His Word and so to appeal to ‘mystery’ – I believe – is wrong for any reflective Christian to invoke in this context!

Pagan the Missionary!

Let me introduce you'll to a friend I had back in Bible College, Kris Pagan, and to be sure, don't let his last name fool you, for Kris is anything but! As a matter of fact, from our time together I'd say Kris is one of the boldest Christians I have ever known!

I remember on one particular occasion while we were walking through West Edmonton Mall together we saw a - no joke - elderly woman with leather like skin and layers of makeup on her face sitting in a fortunetellers booth surrounded by every type of witchcraft relic and rosaries and crucifixes of all kinds! Kris turned and said to me, "Hey Derek, do you wanna go witness to this lady?" "Yeah sure" I said, half hoping he was joking, and half praying he was joking. And so off we went.

Kris began with Christ, continued with Christ and ended with Christ the only way a missionary could, as Paul said, "we preach Christ crucified" and again, "For I resolved to know nothing... except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2). Kris fired away the questions, why did she have Jesus on a cross next to those witchcraft relics? Doesn't she know that Jesus rose from the dead, why have him on a cross anyways, he's not there anymore, he's risen (cf. 1 Cor. 15:17)? Doesn't she know what God says about witchcraft, that it is an abomination in His sight (Deut. 18:9-12)? Doesn't she know that her 'powers' come from the demons behind her idols and images (1 Cor. 10:20)? But that Christ died and rose again to set her from from the bondage of the Devil, sin and death (1 John 3:8-10)? (Taken from memory and retooled.)

It was an amazing sight to see Kris in action; is it any wonder that Kris has been active in the mission field ever since (last I heard).

Praise God for Kris and his work.

We have recently reconnect via facebook and the other week he send me this question:

"Hey man, I read your latest 2 blogs, nice work, your a good writer...keep it up. What are your thoughts on Calvinism and predestination?" (Used with permission)

My next blog will be a response to that question.

Thanks Kris for your interest and encouragement.

Be blessed,
Derek

Theology for the Soul

For the First Time… Again

Though I have designed these blog to be theological in nature, every once in a while something touches my heart so that I feel compelled to share it with you. Having said that, in keeping with the spirit of theological reflection, what follows is a refection of how some deeper theological insights bring with them deeper spiritual significance that penetrates my soul.

This past week I visited a small church in town (in which as a side note, the pastors’ sermon was superb!) and one of the songs for worship was the hymn In Christ Alone. I have known the song for many years and have sung it countless times, but this was the first time I’ve sung it (all its’ verse) since I have dug deeper into theological matters of the Atonement. The result were flowing tears as the full significance of what Christ came to accomplish was realized again – for the first time. (It’s always an experience worth noting whenever “the first time” repeats itself).

Theological Background

You may recall when I first began to blog, the subject was the Atonement of Christ, and namely, what theory should be held prominent above the others. At the time I was introduced to the theory of the Atonement known now as Christus Victor, that the primary purpose for Christ’ life, death and resurrection was to overcome the forces of evil, sin and the devil so that Christ did not simply take our punishment, but he also (and more importantly perhaps) gave us victory over the chains that bound us. This view seemed to have been pitted against the popular Reformed view Penal Substitution which teaches that the Atonement was the single act of God pouring out His wrath on Christ on the cross; some authors would go so far as to except the “Substitution” part of this system but reject the “Penal” element; not wanting to portray God as a wrathful tyrant (Greg Boyd champions this view). As I tried to work out my own system I allowed that last part to linger, accepted Christus Victor and moved on to another subject.

Later I read Scot McKnights’ book, A Community Called Atonement, in which he attempts to show how all the theories of the Atonement are equally acceptable and work in conjunction with one another (though I got the sneaking suspicion that McKnight was raising the Penal Substitution view above Christus Victor).

Today I agree with McKnight; God is Holy, no sin can stand in his presence and his dikaiosyne – his justice or righteousness – compels him to judge sin and grant the sinner their wish – separation from his eternal and holy presence. But it is the introduction to the theory of Christus Victor that has truly gripped my heart and I wish it were taught more in churches today; that while Christ did take our punishment on the cross, he also destroyed in one fell swoop the power of the devil and any hold he had on me, breaking the chains of darkness, evil and sin and granting us authority which is found in Him – through his victory which was revealed in the resurrection – and through this God did not simply cover my sins – Jesus did not simply take my deserved punishment – but more fully, He re-created me into a new person in the image of His Son Jesus Christ by means of Christus Victor.

How This Caused Tears To Flow

Sunday morning, with Christ' Atoning work floating around in the back of my mind, we began to sing “In Christ Alone”, and as we did the words of what I was saying suddenly carried with it more meaning then ever before!

When we sang...

In Christ alone, Who took on flesh,
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones He came to save.
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied; [Penal Substitution]
For ev'ry sin on Him was laid—
Here in the death of Christ I live.

I stared at those words while singing with such a glorious realization! But then, when the next set of lyrics appeared I became choked up with tears and could sing no more, I grabbed my chest and closed my eyes tightly in meditation as the communion of singing saints worshipped:

There in the ground His body lay,
Light of the world by darkness slain;
Then bursting forth in glorious day,
Up from the grave He rose again!
And as He stands in victory,
Sin's curse has lost its grip on me; [Christus Victor!]
For I am His and He is mine—
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.

Hallelujah and Amen!

Reflective Christianity – theological Christianity – if I fails to result in practical application that drives us closer to the heart of God revealed in Christ, it is good for nothing.

Praise God and Amen!

Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

The Gay Bible

What follows is so absurd that it is almost not worth the time required to write a blog about. Yet it is also true (in the sense that it will be published) and although it may be a joke to the makers, it is no laughing matter to those who hold the sacred scriptures in such high esteem. The bible is what it is and says what it says, that cannot be changed, but I find it ironic that the homosexual community view this as something which Christians should not get up set at, while they feel it perfectly okay to rough up a little old Christian lady (article, video) and to destroy and vandalize and scandalize in full fledged mockery of churches showing their intolerance towards Christians (article, video).

In spring 2009 a new bible will be published by an American film producer (that's the first clue of absurdity - the advent of the so-called church of Scientology comes to mind!) called The Princess Diana Bible; named the such supposedly because of Diana's "many good works". But don't be fooled, this bible has nothing to do with the late princess of wales!

"The Gay Bible" - that is what it will come to be known as (already is). It is overtly gay and driven by a strong gay agenda with the ambition to mock Christianity and the Christian bible; God says in it that it is better to be gay than straight. Here is a snit-bit of Genesis, already available for preview; instead of God creating Adam and Eve, he creates Aida and Eve:

"And apes came forth and walked on the earth. And when the apes saw the light they had feelings. They sought comfort. To comfort themselves they created a god. And when they created god in their minds, they were human. And they began to speak to their idea and called it God. And their own creation began to rule them and they bowed down to it." [Gen. 1:26-28]

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Aida, and she slept: and he took one of her ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from woman, made he another woman, and brought her unto the first. And Aida said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of me. Therefore shall a woman leave her mother, and shall cleave unto her wife: and they shall be one flesh.' And they were both naked, the woman and her wife, and were not ashamed." [2:21-25].

"And Noah went in, and his sons, and his husband, and his sons' husbands with him and his daughters and their wives, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood." [7:7]

This is nothing short of an "intolerant" attack, a mockery of the Christian faith as it is portrayed and lived through the pages of God's Word. I find it ironic how often the homosexual community employs the word "intolerance" to define Christians, when yet another example is quite the opposite.

The author of this so-called bible says: "There are 116 versions of the Bible, why is any of them better than ours?" It's as my wife said, that statement is so absurd it doesn't deserve an answer.

Be informed.

Derek

For the actual and more professional reporting of this bible, click here.

Returning to Emergent/Emerging

So I have arrived at a somewhat tentative conclusion regarding the Emergent/Emerging Church (see a previous blog), and in like Emerging fashion, I wish to share where I’m at on my journey.

[From here forward my greatest fallacy is that I will generalize all who fall under the umbrella of “Emergent”. Because the movement is so difficult to define, such generalizations are impossible to avoid, and so to avoid endless qualifications I make only this one: that not everyone who considers themselves to be emergent will agree with the generalizations below, my generalizations are based on the most popular, the most influential, and the most perceived expressions of the movement.]

You may recall my frustration over the seemingly hair-nose pulling task of defining this movement or “conversation”, especially in light of lumping solid respectable orthodox scholars such as N.T. Wright in the same pool as guys like Doug Pagitt. The true difficulty here is somewhat resolved by coming to an understanding and/or making a distinction between the words “Emergent” and “Emerging”.

Most writers I have come across are aware of a distinction, but almost none (at least that I have read) believe that the distinction is worth pulling out. And so I frequently read authors say things like “… emergent and emerging...” near the start of their book with a footnote below which will say; “some distinguish between ‘emergent’ and ‘emerging’, but for the purpose of my book, the two will be interchangeable”. For example; in Phyllis Tickles’ recent book on the Great Emergence she says that her overview uses the phrase “‘emergent and emerging’ Christians to indicate that the two are not quite the same thing” [p.163].

Perhaps – at least in so far as ‘in print’ goes – Scot McKnight is the only author I have come across who feels compelled as I do to make such a distinction, he says: “I maintain a crucial distinction between two related streams: emergent and the broader emerging movement. Emergent is crystallized in Emergent Village and its leaders Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt. Emerging is a mix of orthodox, missional, evangelical, church-centered, and social justice leaders and lay folks. When I think of this broader emerging movement, I think of Dan Kimball… Alan Hirsch… and Donald Miller” [Christianity Today, 11/08 edition, p.60].

I wholly agree with McKnight that there is a crucial distinction to be made, and I admire his attempt to crystallize that distinction by drawing a clear line between the “Emergent Village” and those emergents who are not part of the Village; but I would probably take the substance of that distinction a step further. For me, the difference between “Emergent” and “Emerging” is the difference between “Liberalism” and “Post-Conservativism”. While post-conservatives seek to sincerely continue in their reform and understanding of things, they – in so far as I understand them – firmly stand within the tradition of solo scriptura as the final authority of all matters pertaining to the faith. On the contrary, those who by-in-large are, or align themselves with, the Emergent Church have sought – either consciously or unconsciously – to displace that authority with something else (see below). And when that happens, when the “authority of God exercised through his Word”, is replaced by an emerging church – which is what it is in order to keep pace and “relevance” with the emerging secular culture at large – Liberalism is inevitable. It’s the old Liberal/Conservative battle of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century all over again; albeit under a new guise and entering in stealth like fashion to infiltrate the Church from the back door.

This assessment may be unfair – I don’t mean it to be and often try and describe a movement in terms which those in the movement themselves would use – but it is how I have perceived the sum-total of Emergent voices.

When Doug Pagitt declares a rejection of the idea of original sin, even after listing several scripture passages which support the age old doctrine, then claims that the doctrine was created by Augustine and is a misreading of these bible passages [p.127 ff.] – without, I might add, attempting to offer a so-called ‘correct’ reading to the passages in question – and that he is not going to let anyone tell his friends and family members that they are “evil to the core” [p.130]; the authority of God as it is exercised through his Word becomes annulled! Is this not Liberal theology? What authority does Doug now have outside of himself?

Phyllis Tickle has suggested that if Doug (and most other Emergents’) were asked what authority they hold to, they would answer “in scripture and the community” [p.151]. This is not to be confused with the Catholic concept of the Authority of Church Tradition and the Scriptures (Church and Bible); for the heart of the Emergent movement is that it is (and always will be?) changing with the emerging culture, and consequently, its’ beliefs must therefore continue to change in order to adapt (and be an effective ministry to?) the culture at large; this is evident in the rejection of ‘original sin’ and the embrace of ‘homosexual relations’ by many within the movement. So unlike the Catholic idea of Tradition and Scripture, which seeks to (1) avoid conflict between the Church beliefs and the Scriptures, and (2) to maintain continuity with each previous generation, the Emergent Church is willing to (1) ignore as irrelevant or explain away frivolously any bible passage that may conflict with the emergent ‘feel’ of the moment (such as Pagitt’s use of the scriptures motif of original sin above) and (2) embrace discontinuity with each previous generation as society changes and evolves.

So authority in the Emergent mind can be expressed in what is called “Network Theory” [p.152]. The Church, capital C, “is not really a ‘thing’ or entity so much as it is a network in exactly the same way that the Internet or the World Wide Web… are not ‘things’ or entities” [ibid]. This concept is called “Crowd Sourcing”: “The end result of this understanding of dynamic structure is the realization that no one of the member parts or connecting networks has the whole or entire ‘truth’ of anything, either as such and/or when independent of the others. Each is only a single working piece of what is evolving and is sustainable so long as the interconnectivity of the whole remains intact” [ibid].

What I gather from all of this is that the Emergent Church plans to remain ‘in process’ in an undefined, perhaps disorganized and organic way. As such, they will evolve naturally and as a community together so long as they remain connected to the whole (must there be a center?), and as they evolve their use of the scriptures will also evolve and their interpretation of it will change in light of each evolutionary leap (if the current social/ecclesial evolutionary leap is the acceptance of homosexual relations, will the next one be an embrace of polygamy?).

But then the question arises; if they must be connected to a whole in order for this concept of authority to work, what then – if anything – is the center or glue that binds them all together? Being that the Emergent Church still (at least currently) call themselves “a Church” and refer to themselves as “Christians”, it seems to me as I read both about the Emergent Church and from their own writings, that the name ‘Jesus’ is tossed around like happy hour at the bar. This is one theme that can’t be missed in the writings of Emergent Christians; from Dagitt (his recent book: A Christianity Worth Believing In; yet he rejects fundamental Christian doctrines), Tony Campolo (with his uncanny allegiance to the red letters in the bible), Brian McLaren (when one reads Brian’s material one can sense the tension between his desire to hold on to many orthodox things and his inclination to move beyond them) and Tony Jones. The latter is surveyed by D.A. Carson in his book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. In it Carson shows how Jones writes to the audience of the seeker-sensitive churches against their anthropocentric way of doing church, and he exhorts them to move toward a more christocentric style of worship [p.36 ff.]; it’s not about ‘feeling’ good, it’s about WWJD, it’s about feeding the poor, making the planet green and things like that.

But now we have to ask ourselves, what exactly did Jesus say and do? In a recent radio interview with WMUZ personality Bob Dutko [I believe it was aired sometime between Nov. 27th and Dec. 2nd, 2008], Doug Pagitt opposed Bob every time he (Bob) re-worded what Jesus said. For example; (this is not an actual example from the program, but a fictitious example of the dialogue that took place), if Bob said, “Jesus said that he is the only way to the Father”, Doug would argue, ‘no Jesus did not say that’; and Bob would be forced to look up the passage and quote it verbatim before Doug would be satisfied. In other words, unless you use the exact words right down to syllabification and accents without ever saying it any other way, it is not what Jesus said. Yet this brings into question all translations of the bible which, according by Pagitt’s standard, is not really what Jesus said either since Jesus didn’t speak English. This in turn calls into question the Greek Manuscripts which we have and by which we translate from, since most scholars believe that Jesus probably spoke predominately in Aramaic, even though the Gospels, some twenty years later, were written in Greek. This in turn concludes that we do not have the “verbatim words of Jesus” and cannot be sure what he said and did.

And so now we have a movement that is built around ‘a Jesus’, an idea of Jesus, an image or icon that can be lifted up like Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. Someone who gave his life as a sacrificial example to be followed; let us copy this example so that the human race may prevail. And so the Jesus of classical Christianity, the Son of God who died (and rose again!) to take away the sins of the world and to make things right has been reduced to a relativistic post-modern idea or icon to be followed as a good example.

So I feel compelled at this point to ask the most terrifying question of all; are Emergents even Christian? What I mean is whether or not they call themselves that, should they be recognized as a part of the Body of Christ, or have they traveled outside the bounds of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ in the fullest and most articulate sense of the phrase? I believe the question itself is a fair one, but it may be impossible at this point to give an accurate answer without over generalizing in terms of salvation; something I am not prepared to do.

Surely there are many and maybe even most within the Emergent movement who are Christians, but I am equally sure that there are some within the movement who hold fast to the name Jesus, yet they have abandoned the tenants of the faith. Wayne Grudem writes; “To say ‘false teaching harms the church’ is perhaps just to state the obvious, but in a day marked by much pluralism and subjectivism it bears repeating. The very existence of the epistles in the New Testament testifies to the importance that the apostles placed on sound doctrine! In the epistles, sound doctrine is taught again and again, and error is implicitly or explicitly corrected. This is the case in every New Testament epistle” [Beyond the Bounds, p.134]. Yet many in the Emergent Church today are singing a different tune, one that exchanges “dogma” and “doctrine” and “correct thinking” for right action, helping people, going good things, and turning the earth green. Yet I ask; can we not have both, did not Jesus teach both orthodoxy and orthopraxy, believe right and feed the poor? But the Emergent alliance with subjectivism, relativism, and political correctness negates such a possibility. We cannot have a “Jesus is the only way” and a “Buddha may be the way also” at the same time.

In one respect I wonder what kind of future the Emergent Church has. Will it fizz out over the text twenty years into a bunch of forgotten rebels from the dawn of the century much the way the Jesus People movement of the 60’s and 70’s no longer exists? Will they retain a lasting effect but ultimately be absorbed into the wider Christian world as the seeker-sensitive churches of the 70’s and 80’s (I owe these thoughts to Carson, p.53)? Or will they snowball ahead into the next Protestant reformation that will change the landscape of Christianity forever (as Phyllis Tickles has suggested)?

I cannot answer these questions, what I can say – from one who was on the brink of joining the ranks of the Emergent and House Church movements, and is climbing back, while maintaining a post-conservative approach to the faith – is that we within the Traditional framework of the faith have a lot to make up for. The sooner we realize this, the better. As a young guy who was raised in the same generation of the Emergents, I was drawn like a moth to the flame as to what they wrote. I was tired and bored of the traditions that seemed to have lost their authenticity; it seemed everything about “church” had lost it’s authenticity from power hungry pastors with serious control issues to “clicks” and “cool clubs” that leave the not-so-cool guy and the not-so-talented guy on the outs. From standard “how-to” evangelism classes which sound more like a sales pitch then sincere missional work, to internal schisms that destroy lives and cause many to abandon the faith. The Emergent Church – frankly – sounds good. But without orthodoxy, without right thinking about what Jesus said, the absolutes he claimed and the teachings of those he commissioned, there can be no true Way, but only a form of the Way (by doing good things) but without its substance (denying its power – which is the true and absolute Gospel – cf. 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 3:5; Romans 1:16). If orthopraxy does not meet orthodoxy there can be no Christianity. If good works does not meet right belief there can be no following of Jesus, what he did and taught!

Yet in this criticism of the Emergent movement, there is a crucial point for us to learn: “Movements [such as the Emergent Church] are diverse, complex and frequently (for better and for worse) called into being because the traditional churches are failing, or perceived to be failing, in some way” [Carson, p.54]. The very existence of the Emergent Church is a call for the rest of us to examine ourselves, not just individually, but corporately!

Pray for the Emergent Church, and pray for the rest of us also, as Jesus taught; “Our Father in heaven / Holy is your name / Your Kingdom come / Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”.

Derek

Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views

I just finished a Perspectives book on the subject of the Doctrine of God; the four contributors and their positions are Paul Helm (Classical Calvinism), Bruce Ware (Modified Calvinism), Roger Olson (Classical Arminian) and John Sanders (Open Theism).

1. Paul Helm was the first (suitably so) essayist; the responses to his essay by all three opponents (Olson, Sanders and to a lesser extent, Ware) seemed for the most part to criticize Helm on the same points, showing consistently where Helm went wrong. What's interesting is that they did not so much criticize Helms position (in regards to Classical Calvinism), there was no space for that after they quite easily dummied Helm by showing how inconceivable it is that someone with his credentials could be so mistaken or misleading. Olson took him to task swiftly and decisively, making Helm look silly. For starters Helm audaciously and arrogantly claims that Classical Calvinism is simply "the Tradition" of Christian belief, so that Classical Calvinism, unlike the other positions, is actually no position at all. Classical Calvinism is simply "the Tradition", and all the other "positions" are deviations from this tradition; this belief of his is simply unsustainable!

Helm opinion is (and was made so) demonstrably false, and for someone with Helm's credentials, it might even be suggested that he is intentionally misleading those who may enjoy his position and who know no-wiser. Another eyebrow raiser, is that while Helm criticise John Sanders and his Open Theism, and Bruce Ware and his Modified Calvinism, I found it interesting that he did not criticize Roger Olson and his Classical Arminianism. When he criticized the Arminian position, he ignored Olson and built his critique around a small fringe or subset group of Arminians who believe in Middle Knowledge as it is articulated my William Lane Craig. It was Olson (along with Helm, Ware, and Sanders), who was the fourth contributor to the book at hand, not Craig, why was it then that Helm avoids Olson's discussion of Classical Arminianism (with his view of Simple Foreknowledge), and brings up a position which has no place in the discussion and purpose of the book at hand?

2. Bruce Ware was the second essayist and I must admit, I was not fully prepared for it. Having read many Calvinistic material in the past, I expected more of the same old dogmatic, mean-spirited, arrogance that I've perceived from them (see Helm above), but not a hint of this was evident in Ware. His was one of the best articulated and most persuasive and fair-minded arguments for the Calvinists perspective of the doctrine of God which I have come by to date. Furthermore, Bruce's acknowledgment of the difficulties with the Classical Calvinists Perspective and his attempt to address and work out some of those difficulties and many of the ideas he purposes are commendable; thus his perspective, "Modified Calvinism".

Throughout his presentation, Ware sought to base his position firmly within the confines of scripture. As an Evangelical Christian, I must admire this commitment; his was a reminder of some of the difficulties I must overcame in articulating a Modified Arminian scripturally based perspective on God. All in all, I respect - though disagree - with Ware's presentation and conclusions.

3. I like Roger Olson; he's a graceful, sharp-witted and reasonable thinker who is open though not easily persuaded by other ideas and positions. I expected Olson's articulation of the Classical Arminian perspective to be the best essay in the book, I was disappointed for two reasons. For starters, it would have been nice to see a more biblical defense involving some specific examples and references. Under the subject of Biblical Evidence he says; "demanding biblical 'proof' of free will is something like demanding proof that George Washington believed in a free market economy rather than communism... the surest biblical 'proof' of libertarian freedom of will lies in the attempt to square divine determinism with God's goodness in the face of sin, evil, and hell" [p.159]. While I agree, as an evangelical Christian it would have been nice to see some scriptural 'proof' anyways.

Secondly, to the question of whether or not Simple Foreknowledge results in a determined future, Olson says "Just because God 'sees' the future does not mean it is determined" [p.157; he recommends Alvin Plantinga's God, Freedom and Evil for a philosophical argument showing that Simple Foreknowledge does not necessitate a determined future]. However, I cannot see any possible way to avoid that conclusion: God sees the actual future - what will happen, not what may happen - therefore the future cannot happen in any other way then how God sees it, otherwise God would be mistaken. Therefore the future is determined by his foreknowledge. Aside from these two points, it is always a pleasure to read Roger Olson.

4. John Sanders was the fourth and final essayist and his position, Open Theism, is beyond a doubt the most controversial one in the book. None the less, his essay - for what it's worth - was quite simply the finest of the four; but don't take my word for it, in a moment I'll quote the responses by Olson (who's favorable to Open Theism) and by Ware (who has written books against Open Theism). I think Sanders entered the discussion knowing he was doing so espousing a position as the "fringe" outsider in the group, and having to defend Open Theism in the past from every possible angle (Sanders, God Who Risks), his was a targeted, methodical, systematic, philosophical, biblical and seasoned defence of Open Theism.

Olson said: "I am not prepared at this point to adopt open theism even though I feel the force of John's arguments, and I do not see what core doctrines of the Christian faith would be negatively affected by it" [p.250]. Olson provides two reasons why he has not accepted the openness view, both of which, I judge, are in consequential.

Ware, who is diabolically opposed to Open Theism, gives an even stronger favorable review of Sanders essay, even though he rejects his system completely, he says:

"John Sanders should be commended for writing a very fine explanation and defense of the openness view... his lucid description of features of his model, his able defense through biblical and theological support, and his astute address of major objections that have been raised to the openness view commend this chapter as a clear and compelling treatment of the open view that Sanders espouses. As one who has interacted with openness literature for many years now, I gladly acknowledge that Sanders has done a superb job representing his own view, showing both a clear grasp of central issues and a maturity in his presentation that no doubt is the result of working hard on these issues over many years." [p.251-252]

I agree with Wares assessment.

Conclusion: As a whole I strongly recommend Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views. Paul Helm is the odd ball out because he doesn't really seem to know what is going on, that fact aside, the dialogue between Ware, Olson and Sanders is very helpful in working out and understand a doctrine of God. Two thumbs up.

In Christ,
Derek

Mexico Mission '08

[Above: We gave food and clothing to this little girl and her family; and through it we were blessed beyond measure.]

Mexico Mission '08
When I was in grade nine I watched a music video called I Pledge Allegiance to the Lamb which portrayed early Christians, from Stephen down through the ages, persecuted and killed for their faith in Christ. I can date my desire to visit the Colosseum in Rome to that day. I went there for my honeymoon, and although the experience was incredible, and the sights were breath-taking, still I was a little disappointed. Standing in the Colosseum did not evoke within me the emotions which I had fully expected. I thought that if I stood in the place where many were most probably martyred for their faith that I would – on some mystical level – relate to them, and in a very distant fashion I would be able to connect with the world of the first disciples.

When I was in Reynosa Mexico last week, though I did not ‘see’ the world of the first Christians, since I stood there on the opposite side of the globe; what I did see most certainly evoked within me some emotions which connected me to someone infinitely more prominent then the early disciples. When I saw the poor, and the lives which they lived, I felt as though I, for the first ‘real’ time perhaps, saw through the eyes of Jesus. In retrospect, given a choice between returning to Rome or visiting a place like Reynosa Mexico again, my hearts desire would certainly be the latter.

In blog like fashion, I’ll try and keep this brief and hit perhaps one or two highlights before turning my attention to a specific event.

While in Mexico we built a home for a Christian eight member family. The family lived in a poorest of the poor neighborhood where their current home was built out of scrap wood, old skids, metal or body parts of cars (such as a hood or roof). There was no floor; walking on the dirt ground outside, you continued to walk on the same dirt ground inside. For a family of eight, they had two mattresses which all eight members shared and which sat on the ground. Their only seating areas were two old ripped up van seats that sat in their yard. They had a small (really small) outhouse behind the house and behind that was a small squared-off area where they “showered”, and by showered I mean they take a bucket of stale and very dirty bug infested water out back and bath (this is out-side). I could go on (and many of their neighbors had it worse), but I’ll stop here just by saying that amidst all this and worse, they were a very happy musical family. (They had two old drums and a cymbal which hung from a tree which they beat on with sticks that were tied together. When someone from the mission team gave the dad a pair of old drumsticks he began to cry saying that no one had ever given him a “musical instrument” before, then he carried those drumsticks around telling everyone that someone gave him an instrument). We built them a house similar to the one on Little House on the Prairie, loft and latter included. We bought them new mattresses, curtains for the windows, and a dinner table with eight chairs – they’ve never been able to sit down and eat as a family before, a luxury we take for granted.

We also traveled the neighborhood delivering food, clothes, blankets and other necessities to as many families as possible. It was an incredible experience.

Movie Night with the Jesus Film
Mid week we traveled to another part of the city, a place were the citizens were a little more well off, and set up a make-shift out door Movie Theater. In a public park we put up a large white screen and set up several chairs then announced throughout the area that there was going to be a free movie for all to see – it was the Jesus Film put out by Campus Crusade in Spanish. No sooner did the film begin when the chairs were filled with curious strangers, and what’s more, the side walks were filled, kids on bicycles and families stopped in their cars on the streets; we had a packed… park, if you will.

I was amazed with the intensity of those who watched, enthralled. I thought, if this were in a park in Windsor, people would laugh at it, mock it, and leave. But then I was more amazed that when the film ended no one moved. No one got up off their chairs to leave, and so our missionary leader picked up a microphone and began to preach the Gospel, by sharing his testimony. The people leaned in, hanging on every word of this strange thing they were hearing. When he was finished his testimony he asked if anyone wanted to become a follower of this Jesus he was talking about. Nearly everyone stood up and crowded around him as he explained to them the ways of being a transformed follower of Christ; they all accepted the invitation.

Then when all was said and done, he exhorted them to find a local God-fearing bible believing church; gave them all New Testaments and – to my despair – sent them all away.

In that moment – the moment of silence that followed their new birth – as they pressed in, they leaned in, they did not want to go, they were hungry, they wanted more, much more, all I could think is, “now what?”

Having never been involved in Missions this way before, I wanted to see how our full-time missionary leader would follow this up, I wanted to learn from his ten years of experience. What would he do in this moment of silence, after introducing these to Christ, how would he conclude this incredible evening filled with hungry souls craving more.

He sent them home. Shows over ladies and gentlemen; thanks for accepting the invitation, here’s a bible for you willingness to be involved; now have a good evening. Of course he did not say any of that, but he might as well have.

Those people were pressing in, hungry for the Gospel of Jesus Christ; hungry for more. I remembered Jesus’ lament, “The harvest in ready but the workers are few”.

Another thought had occurred to me; this is how the Mission work of Paul and the first disciples worked! This is how Christianity spread far and wide so fast! This is how it was supposed to continue!!! When I say ‘this’ I mean with one terribly huge element which my Missionary leader simply totally absolutely dropped the ball on; which is why the ‘this’, the power of the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is made visible in the New Testament, the world transforming church planting epidemic known as ‘the Church’ was missing from our leaders work. And why many that day may not continue on in the hope they had heard.

I’m speaking here of communion! As I watched the crowd lean in, wanting, craving, almost desperate for more, I imagined we were in the first century and Paul was the Missionary preacher. What would he have done? The crowd wanted more; Paul would have given it. They would have selected a home of someone there; the crowd of strangers and misfits, now family, would have met in a home and bonded, he would have taught them and they would share each others burdens. Then they would have gone out and told their friends and family members about this guy they met named Jesus. Their friends and family members would have come and week after week, (perhaps day after day) he would have met with them and instructed them and they would have grown quickly into a solid body of believers. His time with them would have been anywhere from three to seven months to up to about two years. And that community would be more powerful and more effective a church in that city arguably then any church in North America is today!

Is this fanciful thinking? Perhaps; but maybe not; maybe I was witnessing the grounds on which the first churches began. And perhaps our missionary leader missed out on the opportunity of the ultimate fulfillment of his calling.

I read Viola’s home church material and have been nearly persuaded that what he purposes is simply unpractical in places were the church is entrenched two millennia deep in tradition. But after the experience in Mexico, I wonder if Viola is preaching to the wrong crowd; it’s as Jesus said, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. The established church of North America with all its faults is what it is and cannot erase two thousand years of history – for better or for worse – over night. But there is a mission field with a ground which is ready and more then willing to be established, and I think the first century approach may be the way to go.

Be that as it may, tears filled my eyes as I remember eightteen years earlier taking the same steps of faith as those Mexicans that day, and to the same message, the very same film (in English of course) as they. I was incredible touched that week, and I hope that I was as much a blessing to the Mexican’s as they were to me, for it was a tremendous blessing to be able to give as I did to them.

I am deliberating at the moment, but I will most likely return next years with my beautiful Mexican wife in tow. Pray for me and this decision and of course for the money we’ll need to raise again.

Derek

Campolo, Homosexuality, and the Gospel

Campolo and my Early Twenties

Tony Campolo has been very influential for me during my early twenties. I have seen him preach on various occasions at various locations, met him at least twice, got him to autograph one of my books he wrote and enjoyed a pastor’s lunch-in with him on one particular occasion.

His thoughts on how Christians should view homosexuality have also been very formative for me (see: Speaking My Mind by Campolo). During my teens and early twenties all homosexuals were in sin – in my mind; they all ‘chose’ to be homosexual (God would never ‘create’ a homosexual was the argument), and my tolerance for them was somewhere around zero. Then a friend told me once that he had a friend who was gay and a Christian. I argued with him that this is possible, the two are antithetical; none-the-less he told me that his gay/Christian friend denied himself and chose to live a celibate life knowing that practicing homosexuality was an abomination to God. This insight blew my mind!

Campolo clarified this point for me in his book, Speaking My Mind, when he said that while the scriptures condemn a homosexual lifestyle, they say nothing of homosexual orientation; and that scientist still as yet do not know what ‘causes’ homosexual orientation. We Christians should show the love of Christ towards those of a homosexual orientation rather then condemn them all to hell and run in the opposite direction.

Campolo and me today

Tony Campolo recently published a new book for “Red Letter Christians” as a “guide to politics” in light of the upcoming election.

While browsing through I was not surprised to find a chapter again on homosexuality; only this time he deals less with whether or not it’s biblical, but rather, should Christians stand in the way of homosexual union (a.k.a. marriage). Throughout he argues that we Christians should not impose our personal convictions of our personal faith onto anyone else, not least on practicing homosexuals. Instead we should have compassion on homosexual couples because they do not receive the same benefits which heterosexual couples receive, (if a homosexual partner dies, for example, his lover will not get anything of the will); and in this way we may show the ‘love of Christ’. The point being that Christians should not make homosexual marriage a ‘voting issue’.

All of this boils down to the fact that I have my faith, I have my beliefs, I have my convictions, I have my religion and I should in no way impose my personal religion onto someone else’s lifestyle.

I have discussed this issue before with friends; when we preach the ‘gospel’ – so our consensus went – we do so personal. We do not worry about ‘how’ they are living until ‘after’ we get them saved, and only then do we say that ‘so and so is sin, and now that you are a Christian you must abandon these things’.

Still, after reading Campolo’s thoughts I walked away struggling; there simply was something wrong with the picture he was painting for me; and consequentially, this challenged the consensus I had with my friends; namely, this idea of a ‘personal’ faith that does not impose itself upon the lifestyle of the ‘unsaved’. And this, again, boils down to something else; namely, the Gospel: what is it and how does it work. Is it a personal invitation to a personal relationship or a public ‘proclamation with expectation’? And this boils down to something else, namely, how Campolo’s Gospel (and that of Billy Graham and me and my friends and this whole generation for that matter) is Post-Enlightenment individualism and not necessarily Jesus’ Gospel preached by Paul.

So yet again, Campolo’s writings have influenced me, though not in the direction – I’m sure – which he would have hoped.

The ‘Wright’ Gospel of Paul

As I suggested in my previous blog, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not so much (though of course it is a part of this) leading individuals to Jesus that they might become ‘saved’. The Gospel is much more then that; the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a story. It is the story of a King; one who proved himself that he is King, not so much in the death he died, but by the resurrection which ensued.

And when the early Christians – not least Paul himself – declared this Gospel, the announcement was an aggressive affront to the powers that be, namely, that Jesus is Lord, not Caesar, and not your gods and goddesses. For Caesar is mortal, placed on earth to serve the true King of kings, and your gods and goddesses are mere cheap imitations, be it man-made statues or the demons behind them.

This means that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the announcement that he is the true King of the universe was not reserved for one on one evangelism – for this would hardly call for mass persecution – it was an affront to the secular political, religious and social structures of the day.

Tony Campolo – not to mention McLaren and perhaps many others, as recently this is becoming very popular – are drawing a distinction that separates preaching the gospel, which is an individual to individual thing to do they say, and being a social activist while avoiding imposing ‘Christian morals’ onto the lifestyles of others. I fear that Campolo, in his rightful zeal to address the issues surrounding ‘social injustice’ – something that perhaps the ‘church’ (corporately) has become lax on and for which Campolo is to be commended for – that he many be sliding down the greasy hill of losing sight of the biblical concept of the true Gospel altogether. While social justice is good, our calling is not too send people to hell with food in their stomachs, but to warn them of the hell they are in for; namely, that they are serving a false god, be it money, power, sex, or whatever else.

N.T. Wright says it best, and Campolo and others would do good to return to the scriptures – and not just the red print – and remember what the Gospel of Jesus Christ truly is; “As soon as we get this right” says Wright, “we destroy at a stroke the disastrous dichotomy that has existed in the people’s minds between ‘preaching the gospel’ on the one hand and what used to be called loosely ‘social action’ or ‘social injustice’ on the other. Preaching the gospel means announcing Jesus as Lord of the world; and, unless we are prepared to contradict ourselves with every breath we take, we cannot make that announcement without seeking to bring that lordship to bear over every aspect of the world.” [What Saint Paul Really Said, p.154]

If Jesus truly is Lord of the world, and if we as Christians are called to announce (i.e. preach) this Gospel, then what are we to say of homosexual union? That it is none of our business? That if we meet one on one I won’t speak ‘negatively’ about your lifestyle, I just want to tell you about Jesus’ love. Is that what we are supposed to do? Or should we stand true to our calling and the scriptures by declaring that your god of sex, your modern day Aphrodite is a cheap imitation of the One who is God, namely Jesus, the Spirit and the Father! And that you must cease and desist serving your false god and giving in to the flesh of your demons, the desires of this world; to serve the true King who came to set this world straight.

‘Jesus is Lord’, that is the Gospel; a declaration with expectation; this is what the early Christians announced; this is why they were persecuted.

Tony Campolo has much to offer, and I still enjoy gleaning from his stories and experiences (I just purchased a goody - Let Me Tell You A Story). This blog is not really or primarily about homosexual unions, it's about reforming and continuing to reform in my own personal thoughts (pensees) and of course, "blogging out loud". The heart of this blog is about reforming my thoughts on "the Gospel" - this is post-conservativism in progress.

Derek

[P.S. my heart breaks over Ray Boltz decision to give in to his demons after battling those desires for so long. I hear his songs today and feel sorrow for him; in Set Sail he sings “there’s not a chance you can fail”, or “I pledge allegiance to the Lamb, with all my strength, with all I am”, and my heart weeps. He says that today he feels closer to God then ever since he has come out of the closet. I believe him. I’m just not sure it’s the same God. It’s easy to be close to a god who endorses your every decision; it is not so easy to be close to a God who sacrificed Himself by means of a brutal crucifixion so that you may find life more abundantly; a life that calls you to ‘deny yourself, take up your cross’ and follow Him. Ray Boltz said in an interview, I do not want to ‘deny’ who I really am any longer. This is another way of saying, Jesus is not for me, he calls me to ‘deny’ myself, and I frankly don’t want to do that any longer; so I’ll serve my desires (Aphrodite? Golden Calf?), and call it “Jesus” or “Yahweh”. What a shame]

Greg's continued thinking of Christus Victor

Hey folks,

I came across a short and interesting blog on Christus Victor and Penal Substitution (and a little Open Theism), and thought, for those who are interested in this stuff you may enjoy it.

http://www.gregboyd.org/uncategorized/a-christus-victor-and-penal-substitution-view-of-the-atonement/

D.

On Mark 8:53 and "The Gospel"

What does the short phrase "The Gospel" mean to you?

For me, the Gospel defined was almost like some type of abstract “good news” – “gospel” after all means “good news” (euangelion) – and so the good news as I understood it was simple: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household!” (Acts 16:31, NRSV).

But what does it mean to “believe on the Lord Jesus”? And what is it are we to “believe” about Him? That he existed? That he was/is Lord, as in “sir” or “master” or what? This passage mentions nothing of the cross, of the resurrection, there is no mention here of either the substationary sacrificial work of the atonement for man’s sins, or of Christus Victor? (I think Luke gave us the short-hand account of the story)

In my study of koin Greek one of the verses I was given to translate in an exercise was Mark 8:35: “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; and whoever will lose his life on account of me and my gospel, will save it” (my translation).

As I habitually do, I cross-referenced my translation with other popular translations for accuracy sake and here’s how some of them end:

NRSV: “… for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.”
NASB: “… for My sake, and the gospel’s will save it.”
NIV: “… for me and for the gospel will save it.”
ESV: “… for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.”
NKJV: “… for My sake, and the gospel’s will save it.”

Though “the gospel” is (obviously) a perfectly good translation of the passage in question since the definite article (tou = the) is present, nonetheless, the phrase tou euangeliou is in the possessive case which means that someone owns this “gospel” that Jesus is talking about, and since the antecedent to “the gospel” in this text is Jesus (“on account of me and …”), Mark 8:35 can (maybe should) be translated: “on account of me and my gospel”.

The “gospel” is not any old good news, and neither is it simply an “invitation” to accept or reject Jesus undefined. The gospel is more then “believe on Jesus and be saved”. The Gospel is His Gospel; the Good News is His Story! The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Story of Jesus Christ – the entire story - first lived (recapitulated), then told (and retold). Most importantly, the Gospel is a herald; it is a proclamation, a declaration with expectation: JESUS IS LORD! SERVE HIM!

N.T. Wright argues that the word “Gospel” (euangelion) in the first century Roman world, especially through Paul’s usage in reference to King Jesus, was understood as a royal herald, he adds, “When the herald makes a royal proclamation, he says ‘Nero (or whoever) has become emperor.’ He does not say ‘If you would like to have an experience of living under an emperor, you might care to try Nero.’ The proclamation is an authoritative summons to obedience – in Paul’s case, to what he calls ‘the obedience of faith’.” (Wright has in mind here Romans 1:5).
(See: Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, ©1997, p.45; a pastor friend loaned this book to me)

The next time the word Gospel comes to mind don’t simply think of it as an invitation, but rather think of it as it was meant to be understood, - to quote myself above – “as a declaration with expectation!” The Gospel is the proclamation of a King: Jesus was born in a manager, preached among men, was crucified by those he sought to save and rose from the dead which is the “proof” in the pudding.

Jesus is Lord of the Universe (Col. 1:15-20), serve Him, love Him, and love they whom He loves.

Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

Mexico Mission

Hi Folks,

... I just finished my current thoughts on three related areas that are all part of a larger subject, what I'll call here the "question of 'doing' church". These were my current - by no means authorative - thoughts; and as dangerous as it is to expose one's thoughts to a wider public (making myself subject to cannon fodder) on sensative issues, I feel a need to apologize for having offended anybody's sensibilities knowing full well that "doing" church, and the issues separating Traditional, Emergent, and the House Church can be - indeed are - very sensative to many.

----------------------------

On to brighter things: when push turns to shove, theology means little if it is all talk and no walk (as the Emergence say), so - for those two don't know - in two weeks from today I will be serving in a Mexico orphanage and building homes and handing out food to the homeless.

I have been wanting to go on a short term mission for many years now, and - finally - opportunity has invited me to go!

As the days draw nearer I grow more anxious (in a good way); please pray for me, pray for the team I am going with and pray - most and above all - for changed, transformed, impacted, and revolutionized lives, hearts and souls, both theirs - the ones we mission to - and ours - the ones who are doing the missioning.

"Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me " - Jesus

Be blessed in the Lord who birthed you.
Derek

On The Emergent Church

The Emerging Church, what is it?

I have no idea! Well, actually, I have some idea, but nothing that can be nailed down and solidified. I cannot say – neither can anyone else I think – precisely what the Emergent Church is. I’ll say it here for the first time, and I’ll probably say it again and again in future blogs: defining the Emerging Church – who they are and what they believe – is akin to nailing Jell-O to a wall.

I pick up books like Phyllis Tickles, the Great Emergence, and – being the historical buff that I am – I love it. Tickle is a cultural analyst and the book is a look at where we’ve come from (analyzing the past) in an attempt to determine where exactly we are and where it is we are going. Oddly enough, this book is endorsed on the one hand by a post-conservative theologian, Scot McKnight, and on the other hand by a Lesbian Ordination Supporter, the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori (she’s not just Reverend, she’s the Most Reverend for heaven’s sake!)

I picked up two books by Brian McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy and Secret Message of Jesus, and failed on both accounts, to finish them (I will try again in due time, I’m stubborn that way). McLaren seems, on nearly all accounts, to love a good game of dodge ball, especially if the balls that are being thrown at him are tough theological “where do you stand on these issues” questions! You just never know where this guy is coming from.

Theologian, Scot McKnight, is said to be Emergent (or Emerging – see below); at the very least he is sympathetic towards the Emerging Church. I enjoy his post-conservative thoughts on the Atonement (though I don’t agree with his entire position) in A Community Called Atonement, but more to the context of this discussion, he has two articles in the September’s issue of Christianity Today, one on the Emerging Church, the other on McLaren’s Emerging Theology. I enjoyed his light criticism of McLaren’s theology; let me quote a paragraph:

“I wish more believers would follow McLaren’s cue and think about the implications of the Bible for global and systemic issues; that Christians would return to the Bible and ask, “What, then is the gospel?” as well as it’s necessary follow-up, “How do we live out the gospel today?” For far too many, the gospel preached is not leading to any serious engagement with the global crises of our time.
“But that doesn’t mean I don’t have questions about McLaren’s theology.”
Scot McKnight, McLaren Emerging, in September ’08 issue of Christianity Today, p.62

McKnight goes on to pose tough questions to McLaren on Clarity, on the Cross, on the Kingdom and on the Church. I like this guy, he’s open to the good which the Emerging Church may be offering us, while simultaneously challenging its flimsy foreskin!

I tried – twice now and both times to no avail – to read An Emergent Manifesto of Hope edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. The reason – I believe – that I was not able to get through it was 1. It was so full of crap – def. k-rap means nothing, empty, hallow, void of substance etc. etc. – crap; and 2. For all of its many words, it lacks anything for anyone to grab a hold of (which I suppose is the point).

Then there are those who always distinguish between Emergent Christianity and Emerging Christianity. The difference? Beats me.

Then there are Emergent “leaders” (I have one in particular in mind) who has gone so far as to claim proudly that he is a “Christian Panenthiest” (god is in all things) and recently I’ve picked up a book by Doug Pagitt (A Christianity Worth Believing In) who’s theology is so full of crap (see definition for “crap” above) that it makes me wonder how these guys can hold on to any truth what-so-ever. (Oddly enough this book is wildly endorsed by a Post Conservative Pastor and absolutely brilliant theologian, Greg Boyd, one can only wonder how.)

Then, to my surprise, I come across respected theologians who are considered “Emergent” in many respects because of their use of the prefix “re” in their theology (rethinking Paul, rethinking Heaven, rethinking Justification etc). I have in mind here conservative theological heavy-weight scholar, N.T. Wright, who opposes same-sex union and fights for a High View of scripture, but is challenging many popular Christian concepts such as Eschatology, Election, Paul, Scripture etc., to the point of angering other heavy-weights such as John Piper (see Pipers, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright).

And I wonder; how can you put a conservative minister like Wright in the pond called Emergent (or Emergence) with guys like Doug Pagitt and his Panenthiest buddy? What is Emergence for heaven’s sake!? (Jell-O to a wall)

Then I pick up an interesting book off the shelf called, “Why We Are Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be”, and I’m intrigued. In the introduction the authors begin a list… and on and on… for about two pages. The list goes like this: If you like…, if you believe…, if you agree…., if you read approvingly…, etc. etc., and it continues like that for nearly two pages while I’m going: “yes I agree with that… Well I kind of agree with that... I do agree with that... I don’t really agree with that... Yes I read this person... I would say yes to that...” then the authors conclude, if you’ve agreed to most of this, then you just may be Emergent”. I’m going “aaaaahhh”, especially because about two months before a friend of mine had demonized anything having to do with the Emerging Church with a disdain akin to running from leprosy, and here I just may be one.

My point with this blog is to address the reason why I have not written a blog on the Emergent Church up to this point – I’m not clear as to what or who they are exactly. It is also to give a word of caution the next time someone wishes to lump all Emergent thinkers and sympathizers into a giant liberal shark tank of “church haters”. For after a short quiz they may discover themselves, that they too are Emergent.

Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

Current Thoughts On The Home Church

For enoumerous reasons which I won't get into here, (see my last two blogs) I would be considered the perfect candidate, ripe for the picking, for the “Home Church” movement led by Frank Viola, for the “Emergent Church” movement led by Brian McLaren and for other movements that are seeking ways to 1. Do church the way it was done in the days of Paul (Viola) or 2. Do church in a way that will emerge along with the emerging culture (McLaren).

And I admit that I have fallen prey to these two “shifts”. I have eaten up George Barna’s book “Revolution” and Frank Viola’s books “Pagan Christianity” and “Reimagining Church”, and admit to having truly enjoyed them; Pagan Christianity and Revolution in particular are jam packed with “facts” that can hardly be denied (whether or not you we agree with their conclusions). I find myself less interested in McLaren’s emerging Church; but have been heavily influenced as of late by moderate emerging thinkers (Wright, Olson, McKnight; men who are more conservative and theologically competent).

Yet inside I am a little boy wishing to hold on to the days of old; the days (for me) when the pastor (or youth pastor) was not just a man who cared, but was a man who taught also. And when church (for me) was not just a place to go, it was the place to be, it understood the concept of fellowship even if it had never heard the word – koinonia.

And so as I said in a previous blog, I am not prepared to give up on “church” – that is, the institutional church - the way it is understood today. (Read that sentence again if you only skimmed it, for it is very important for my position).

Many of my friends have picked up the baton handed to them by Viola and Barna which carries the motto “Stop doing church and start being Church”. By this they usually mean, “Stop doing church the way it is done today and start doing Church the way it was done in the first century” (I'll qualify this statement below, stay with me, I believe I am being fair).

The argument goes, lets get back to first century Church: doing away with the Pastors “office” (didn’t exist back then); doing away with Bishops and Elders “offices” (Bishop, Elder and Shepherd-teachers are synonymous in the N.T.) and doing away with the distinction made between “professional” and “lay” Christians; doing away with the church building; with tithing; with planned “worship” (perhaps even with instruments?).

Part of me wants to embrace this motto – at least its intentions – whole heartedly; while another part remains reserved.

My biggest problem with the motto is that - it seems to me - to be a word game. Stop doing church and start being Church. It sounds nice but let’s think about this for a moment shall we. So let’s say we’ve stopped “doing” church in order that we might start “being” Church. What does it mean that we “be” church: Shall we gather together for fellowship? Yes. Shall there be teaching in our midst? Sure. Shall we financially take care of each other? Most definitely! Should we continue with the sacraments? Of course! Shall we be a light to our community and the world, corporately? Heck yah! So then, if by “being” church we are “doing” fellowship; teaching; sacraments; evangelism and the list goes on, then are we not by “being” the Church also “doing” Church. Don’t we “do” what we “are”?

What they mean by the phrase “Stop doing church and start being the Church” is “stop doing Institutional Church and start ‘doing’ first century Church”. And so the motto is - so it seems to me - slightly deceiving and should truthfully go “stop doing church your way and start doing church our way”; and of course “our way” is a strong reference to the way of the first century church. But they word the motto intentionally as “…start being the Church” because (and here's the qualification referred to above) they wish to emphasis the absolute requirement of what it means to “be” Church. When you become a Christian you ‘become’ the Church by definition (this point, I think, is a positive re-emphasis that the Home Church movement has offered to remind us of). This swinging of the pendulum is to counteract or combat nominalism within the Churches all over the world: “yah, I’m a Christian because I ‘go’ to church” – a wrong but all too common attitude. However, the motto itself strongly implies that everyone who is “doing” institutional church are not “being” the Church. Yet this goes back to our previous criticism: once you stop “doing” institutional church and start “doing” first century Church, you are still doing church! Can you not “do” and “be” at the same time? Or rather, don’t the two go together like “hand-in-glove” (James – the Message)? Faith and works?

I wish to add a point here that space won’t permit me to elaborate presently: I am not convinced that doing church the way it was done in the first century is necessary, or even possible on a large practical scale! But we should (I believe) continue to go back to the scriptures and ask: could we be doing church better? I believe we could; particularily speaking: in our concept of preaching/teaching, our concept of fellowship, and our concept of giving - all of which can - I believe - be done "better" (by 'better' I mean more biblical and therefore more beneficial to the body of Christ) if we would be willing to return to the scriptures afresh.

Just my current thoughts on the Home Church,

Derek

P.S. if you agree with the statement above: “we should continue to go back to the scriptures and ask: could we be doing church better?” Then you just may be Post-Conservative.

www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

Interrupting Your Regular Blog For...

[ I interrupt your regularly scheduled blog (current thoughts on the Home Church movement) to share a word about my last blog (Local Pastors and Ex Cathedra)… ]

I made two mistakes in my last blog; the first was to use my current pastor as an example within the blog which gave off the impression of unfairly “demonizing” him. When intention is weight against perception, perception wins every time. And so while he squarely fit the pattern which I have observed which I believe is harmful to the body of Christ, a LOT more tact, mercy and godliness would have been prudent on my part. And secondly, I feel that I simply over generalized and did not add enough qualifications to the blog to be fair. Truth is, I know many great men who are pastors and I would never wish to paint these men with the brush I used to characterize an abuse of the pulpit and God’s Word I have seen in so many others.

A few positive examples:

I ran into a pastor (not literally) just yesterday and had such an encouraging encounter that I had to boast about it to a friend after he left. When I finished telling her about it she gazed in dream like fashion into nothing and said with a smile, “I wish more pastors were like him; quirks and all” - I have to agree.

I’ll never forge meeting with an Anglican minister a year or so ago, a brilliant and smiley man of God who is a man of the collar and also rides a motor cycle (go figure), I’ve met him a few times since and am seriously considering making semi-regular visits to his church.

And how could I forget about one of my best friends! I lived with him for awhile and got to see the “man behind the pulpit”, bed-head and all. I spent every day in church with him while he kept fixed office hours even though his was not a large church; where he passionately prayed on certain schedules while no one was watching (except me… peeking around the corner!)

I had a meeting with a Baptist minister awhile back who was very very encouraging to talk to. Not only was we well educated, and had a big heart, not only does his congregation love him and nothing negative ever comes out of his church, not only does he preach solid holiness compassionate sermons… he also likes Tim Hortons coffee (which is a prerequisite for any friend of mine :-) )

I have two friends who are both in fulltime youth pastorial ministries, one in Chicago and the other near Toronto, both of whom I have no doubt are incredible at the ministry they feel called to do.

Not to mention a least a couple of guys I went to Bible College with who were fair minded men with big hearts for people - they are now in the ministries (so far as I know) and I no doubt believe them to be the real deal.

All these just to mention the ones that came to mind while I typed; surely I could personally think of more examples.

It’s always the rotten apples that are the most visible; so here are just a few of the golden delicious. With a little luck and a lot of prayer I hope my further blogs will be written with greater wisdom and godliness, even while I critique and think through one view against another.

Happy Thanksgiving to all you Canadians out there!

Derek

Saving Darwin 2

Disappointing: That’s one way to describe Giberson’s book, Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. Another way to describe it (from a different angle) could be found in the word interesting or the phrase worthy to have as a part of one’s library.

Perhaps if the title of his book was something to the effect of: Saving Darwin: A 20th Century Historical Analysis of the debate between Creationists and Evolutions, I would give this book two thumbs way up (well maybe not way up). But because the subtitle makes the claim to be able to offer a solution to the apparent antithesis of Christianity and Evolution, and because it fails at nearly every point to even address this (supposed) topic - and worse, it never once addresses the “How” question of the subtitle - I walked away very disappointed.

The Introduction and final chapter are the only two places were Giberson directly addresses the idea of a Christian believing evolutionist (citing himself as an example), and in neither of those chapters (nor anywhere else in the book to my dismay) does he even come close to answering the question of “how” (compatible theologically?). Throughout the book he seems to think that statements such as “well everybody is doing it” (remember grade school?) should be authority enough to persuade people to accept his position. He often makes statements such as the scientific community all agree such and such; most theologians believe such and such, or throughout church history such and such wasn’t an issue (this last point I’ll discuss further momentarily). My mom taught me that if everyone else jumped off the bridge does that mean that I should to? Good point mom!

The closest he gets to offering a solution to the problem comes out like this; “Speculations such as these are above my pay grade, of course, and best left to theologians” (his speculations we’ll get to momentarily). It seemed to me as though his attitude was something to the effect of a shrugging of the shoulders with a nonchalant; “Evolution is fact! Christianity is true. There is the mess and it’s for the theologian to clean it up!”

Or put another way: “Here’s the antithesis, I don’t care about reason (logic or sense); you clean it up!” (he actually says "scientists don't care about reason", that worries me.

So what kind of speculations was he referring to? Well, he suggests that if the bible writers (i.e. Paul, Luke, Isaiah, Ezra et cetera) and the early church Fathers knew about evolution as we do, they certainly would have included the rest of the animal kingdom in the redemption plan; he goes on to say, “Still, I find no compelling reason to think that the central message of Christianity is incompatible with humanity’s kinship with the rest of the animal world”. At this point I reached for the closest theological book on my shelf that might shine some light on this subject, Roger Olson’s Mosaic of Christian Beliefs, and here’s what I get: “Whether all evolutionary explanations of biological development of species are naturalistic is a discussion that lies beyond the scope of this book”, and “Whether [evolution] should be added to the list [of alternative Christian consensus of creation] is still a matter of disagreement and sometimes heated debate” (pages 164, 163 respectively). So I suppose I’m left still waiting for either a scientist or a theologian (or, ideally, both) to show how Evolution and Christianity are compatible.

But lets examine how they are incompatible, and why (contra to Gibersons apparent naivety, which probably explains why he never offers a “how”) it really, really matters! The key doctrines of Redemption, the very purpose for the Son coming in the flesh, the very purpose for the cross and resurrection hangs in the balance!

Evolutions Acid

Why make an issue of Evolution at all, asks Giberson, as he, time and again, cites examples of individuals who have made peace with both God and Evolution and are totally disinterested in the subject (though ironically never offering a “how”). “I hasten to point out,” says he, “[creation] is a secondary doctrine for Christians” (p.10). “Christianity”, he goes on to say, “Is primarily about Christ… And [this belief is] not threatened by Darwin’s dangerous idea” (p.11). There are only two secondary (thus insignificant) doctrines of Christianity that the acid of evolution dissolves:

What of the Fall?

“Evolution does, however, pose two challenges to secondary Christian beliefs: the fall of humankind, and the uniqueness of humankind” he says (p.11). He goes on to show - rightly - how belief in Evolution constitutes a rejection of the doctrine of the “fall” of creation into sin, (thus denying the primary [in relation to Christ] Christian doctrine of Original Sin and/or the Sin Nature, and the need for Redemption - i.e. affecting the doctrines revolving around Christ - herein lies my problem with Giberson’s proposal. He seems to be oblivious to this crucial connection). He claims to offer, however, an alternative to the doctrine of the fall, placing this idea in the constructs of evolution.

Darwin’s book On The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection stands on the hypothesis of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest. The Christian doctrine of the Fall stands on the hypothesis of “human sinfulness” he says (not that we have a sin nature, but that we sin says Giberson), and so Giberson asks, “what does it mean to be sinful?” he answers his rhetorical question: “When the rubber hits the road, sinfulness is mainly selfishness” (p.12). So what is the difference between survival of the fittest and selfishness? Nothing, for only the selfish survive, the unselfish fail to survive because they are not willing to do what it takes to survive. Therefore, all are alive, all are selfish: all are sinful.

Premises 1: The selfish survive
Premises 2: Selfishness and sinfulness are synonymous
Conclusion: All who survive are sinful

Giberson says later that God could not have created mankind because if he did, he did a bad job (citing the poor constructs of knee and hip joints). In his mind, Giberson is actually protecting God (if he exists) by removing a bad design from God’s hands. For this reason (among others) he rejects God as creator. Then to contradict himself, he says in another spot: “[evolution] rules out certain mechanisms that God might have used to create the world, but others remain”. So on the one hand God is not the creator, on another hand he is; which is it I wonder? Or maybe (in wild and untamed speculation) God created only part of the universe, “God apparently did not create the entire universe and everything in it” he also says (p.10 emphasis added). Which part did God create I wonder?

And so God did, or did not, or maybe only partly did - or maybe something else - I’m dizzy - create the universe. One thing we can say for sure (or rather… maybe), is that sin did not result from a fall from a good creation, but through the process of evolution and natural selection (i.e. there was never a good creation, and never a good creator God. Now imagine going to your bible and removing every hint, every explicit and implicit reference to God being the good creator God… how much of your bible do you think would remain? Don’t tell me this idea of Evolution does not seriously affect the Christian religion!)

What of the Uniqueness of Mankind?


Giberson says - rightly - “Once we accept the full evolutionary picture of human origins, we face the problem of human uniqueness.” He explains how modern science has shown that everything of humans - “intelligence, upright posture, moral sense, opposable thumbs, language capacity” - have evolved slowly over time and concludes - rightly - “This provocatively suggests that animals, especially the higher primates, ought to possess an identifiable moral sense that is only quantitatively different from that of humans.”

To site an example, Giberson tells of one particular primate who showed an uncanny resemblance to human compassion by saving and watching over (until it healed) a little birdie, and then concludes “This story is close enough to that of the Good Samaritan to make it hard to treat morality as a purely human attribute” (p.14). So now it’s not about being “dead in your trespasses and sin” and finding salvation in the work of Christ; oh no… now it is simply about being morally good, doing the right thing. The cross of Jesus had no real significance except to show us an example of how not to be “selfish” (i.e. sinful - remember above). Surrrre, this doctrine does not affect Christianity at all, especially not the primary doctrines revolving around Christ; riiiight.

So how, exactly, should we understand the non-exclusivity of the human race (no longer particularly made in the image of God) in light of the scriptures; here's what Giberson says: “Does the ‘acid’ of our evolutionary kinship with the primates” he asks “dissolve anything of importance to Christian theology? I am not convinced that it does” he said…

Wait for it…


wait…


for…


it…


Ah, yet again there is no further explanation; there is no “how”. In the words of my beautiful wife, “so just because he says it, it will be”, again failing to offer up a “how” (well, he does suggest that the bible writers wrote in ignorance of the facts and therefore would not have made the human race exclusively important if they knew, so evidently they weren’t even inspired - man oh man, why don’t we just join the Jesus Seminar and be done with it, that’s where this is going).


Other Arguments:


Later on he says that Christians have never made a big issue of the age of the earth, so why are we so adamant today?

The argument that Christians have never made an “issue” over the age of the earth is absurd! He is literally bordering on ludicrous at this point (I almost can’t believe he teaches at a Christian College with logic like this). Let me explain.

No issue was made because all agreed the earth to be relatively young; in other words, the age of the earth was a non-issue prior to the Enlightenment! It’s like today; no one is making an issue over whether the sun is “hot” or whether the earth is “round” or whether gravity exists - because all agree.

But if a respected scientist where to declare that the sun is not hot, but actually cold, then the temperature of the sun would become an issue. The issue would not be created by those who believe the sun to be hot then, but the issue would be created by those who believe the sun to be cold; the first would simply be responding to the latter.

In the same way, the issue of the age of the earth - or more prominently, whether or not God created the earth, which is the real issue - was not created by the Creationist or Intelligent Design(er), but rather by the evolutionist - of whom the former where simply responding to the latter.

Why can the Gap Theorists, the Day-Age Theorists, and the Creation Scientist all lock arms against the Evolutionist? Because the age of the earth is not the issue, but rather, God as Creator is! (Not to mention the “fall-out” of rejecting the exclusiveness of the human race and a Fall from a good creation.)

And the question of whether or not Christians throughout the ages unanimously agreed on this point is beyond doubt (despite the claims of Giberson). The oldest creed in Christendom, one adhered to by all branches of Christianity declares this as the first and foundational point for all other creedal points: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth” (the Apostles Creed).

To know that the early Fathers (by and large) viewed the Hebrew creation account as actual (though sometimes layers thick with meaning like in the case with Theophilus or Oregin) is sure, I recommend in particular a book by Peter C. Bouteneff, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives ©2008. Any other book on the history of Christian thought will also reveal this fact.

There is more at stake here then meets the eye - and much more then Giberson realizes as he casually sweeps aside two key, historical and most prominent doctrines of the Christian faith, the Fall of mankind (resulting in the need for redemption and thus inseparately connected to the doctrine of the Atonement and purpose of Christ) and the exclusiveness of the Human Race (as divine image bearers and covenant bearers of the Living God - see McKnight’s A Community Called Atonement, p.17 ff.) as secondary and irrelevant. To do away with this we must do away with most of the Old Testament (the Jewish idea of God is based on Yahweh being the Creator God Almighty, see Wright, Climax of the Covenant) and most of the New Testament (the Apostles Creed reflects the importance of God the Creator in the Christian faith not to mention the very words of Jesus and Paul addressing the reality of the Creation and consequently the purpose of the Cross). I think by this point we’ve already jumped in bed with the Jesus Seminar and produced a few unreasonable offspring.

This leaves us with what? Belief in the historical Jesus, yet we can’t trust the accounts handed down to us, so why then did he died? Who knows? Maybe it was simply a gigantically tragic accident. Did he rise from the dead? This is hard to deny given all the evidence, so he must not have really died, he must have survived the crucifixion, hooked up with Mary the whore, moved to France, made babies and died in peaceful bliss. Maybe Dan Brown was right after all!

Yet Giberson, despite all logical inconsistency, despite all reasonable inclinations, despite his own scientific worldviews he shrugs his shoulders and says “Jesus was God and was raised from the dead”, then chops this up to some emotional childhood attachments and the fear of spending the rest of his marriage in the outhouse.

Despite what is often preached from pulpits and soap boxes, belief in Jesus (undefined) does not “save” someone any more then belief in birds allows someone to free-fly.

The bulk of the book - the full body of literature like meat and condiments in between of two very thin buns - does not reside in the discussion of “how to be a Christian and believe in evolution” but rather is a 20th century historical account of the debate between creationist and evolutionists in the courthouses of the U.S.A. with some subtle (or not so subtle) jabs along the way. He claims, for instance, that he can trance the “roots” of the modern creationist movement to Ellen White, a Seventh-Day Adventists co-founder, longest and most revered leader and a prophetess (with visions of all sorts):

“The key ideas being promoted under the banner of “scientific creationism” originated in Ellen White’s “visions.” And the ideas might have stayed within the cloisters of the tiny Adventist sect, had not a clever amateur geologist named George McCready Price started to bang the flood-geologist drum. Even Price won but few converts, and it wasn’t until Whitcomb and Morris produced the masterful The Genesis Flood that the argument took off.” - Saving Darwin, p.142

Guilt by association - the oldest trick in the book! If he doesn't get you with his "Everybody's doing it" tactic then perhaps his "guilt by association" tactic will do it. Both are tactics of intimidation; neither worked on me.

So there you have it. Oh and one more thing; Saving Darwin could probably have been cut by about at least 1/3 its size just by cutting back some of its redundancies.

So is it possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution? It would seem so, not wanting to judge Giberson’s Christianity (having no good reason to do so). However, is it intellectually and theologically possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution, can these two opposing views be reconciled? The verdict is still out, but if Giberson’s book is any indication I’d have to say no.
Just my thoughts on Saving Darwin,

- Derek

After thought: Currently, a small army of Open Thiests are in process of writing a series of essays on “Open Theism and Evolution” which will be combined in a book sometime next year; I look forward to reading it.