Theology for the Masses

Honzo April 16th, 2008

We, as Christians, are among the world’s best at sweeping, dismissive judgments. All one needs to do is subscribe to the Worldview Weekend newsletter to see that. This is not a new trend, however, as evidenced by the following quote by Epiphanius:

Passing this judgment [on them is like passing judgment] on a toothless lizard full of madness, I will go on to the next things, beloved, calling upon God to help our inadequacy and to enable us to fulfill our promise [i.e. to write this book] (Medicine Box, 49)

As dismissive judgments go, likening your opponent to a “toothless lizard full of madness” is pretty sweet. In this case the lizards in need of dentures were the Quintillians and they were dismissed because of their allowance of women as clergy and prophetesses.

I keep wondering how Luke 6:37 fits into all of this, if not in the 4th century, then in the current postmodern context in which we find ourselves.

Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven.

Here’s the rub: how can I actually not judge and still maintain myself?

I consider myself to be a collection of definitions.  I am 6′1” tall.  I like basketball; I hate baseball.  I follow Christ.  I determine that which I am. Well, the things that I can choose - I can’t choose to be a white male, for instance.  I determine this by means of judgment.  I judge for myself that baseball is three minutes of action crammed into three hours.  I determine that math is a good way to use numbers.  I determine that there is nothing sweeter than a drop step or a juke+spin+hook-shot in basketball.  How am I not to judge, which is a command from the One that I follow when judgments necessarily make up an individual?  In other places in the Bible, we are commanded to test the spirits, to determine what is right.  How do we reconcile this?

As best as I can understand it, there is a distinguishment between moral and factual judgments.  We are to make so-called factual judgments about matters and hold them over and above the judgments of others.  On the other hand, we are to refrain from making moral judgments about people and their positions.

While this seems almost self-explanatory, I know I often need reminding of this.  Just look through the archives of masstheology.com, hundiejo.com, or brendoman.com as evidence of this.

What do you do with Luke 6:37?

• Church Fathers , Unity , Women in Christianity
• Comments(14)

Honzo March 30th, 2008

Westminster Theological Seminary Suspended Professor Peter Enns effective at the end of this school year and will take steps to terminate his employment because of a book he wrote back in 2005 entitled Inspiration and Incarnation (review), which calls into question more conservative models of scripture while remaining wholly “[apologetic] and assum[ing] an evangelical faith in scripture from the outset.”¹

Christianity Today has a write up on the suspension :Westminster Theological Seminary Suspends Peter Enns.

What do you think about the suspension? I know we have bloggers and readers that range from each end of the conservative to liberal spectrum when it comes to the verbal inspiration of scripture.

IMHO I don’t think that he should have been suspended at all, but then again, I tend to lean towards academic freedom and exploratory hypothetical theology which is left up to the students and readers to discern. I have not been in a position of power where Jesus’ words about causing one of these to stumble really apply as it would as being dean of a seminary. However, our view of scripture is not without its problems and it sounds like Enns has taken an honest and subtle look at the problem… and he is punished for it. Now, it is highly likely that this controversy will only boost his employability and sales of his book (my copy is on its way right now), but he now has to move his family, tear up his roots in a community, and evangelicals get a black eye from our own hand.

All of this reminds me about the unnecessary perils of venturing into the academic realm of evangelicalism. I want to be an evangelical scholar. We, as a community, are in desperate need of good scholarship if we are to both remain relevant and respected (listened to). But, if I teach or even consider that which is out of line, I am out of a job and perhaps blacklisted amongst the communities I wish/am called to serve. All of a sudden teaching at a small liberal arts college does not seem all that bad.

1. see the linked book review [↩]

• Creeds , The Bible , Unity
• Comments(2)

Travis Gilmore February 6th, 2008

So I found this quote by Alvin Plantinga taken from his magnum opus “Warranted Christian Belief.” To give a little context to the quote, Plantinga had been talking about his Calvin/Aquinas model for the necessity of the “internal instigation of the Holy Spirit” due to the noetic effects of sins. For fundamentalists like Plantinga (and myself) it offers some humor and insight.

“But isn’t this just endorsing a wholly outmoded and discredited fundamentalism, that condition than which, according to many academics, none lesser can be conceived? I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term ‘fundamentalist’. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like ’son of a bitch’, more exactly ’sonovabitch’, or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) ’sumbitch.’ When the term is used in this way, no definition, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you fell obligated first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of ‘fundamentalist’ (in this widely current use); it isn’t simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like ’stupid sumbitch’ (or maybe ‘fascist sumbitch’?) than ’sumbitch’ simpliciter. It isn’t exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like ’stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine’” (Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 244-245).

• Church Fathers , Creeds , Ethics , Love , Othering , Unity
• Comments(6)

Honzo December 16th, 2007

Question of the day (this time with an answer):

How do we, as Christians, conceptualize the Other?

How should we treat these people, both to their face and within our communities while they are not present? They think that they know how to best relate to that which is “wholly Other” - whether it be God, gods, the numinous, whatever you want to call it(s). We think we know how to as well. What do we do with such an impasse? Shall we let loose upon them the canon and be done with it? Do we assume all roads generate the same journey?

A good friend of mine and fellow author here at Theology for the Masses, JR Madill, navigated these very issues a few weeks ago in a talk on Christianity and Pluralism. Now, I don’t want to give away what he had to say, but I do want to say that I found his reply to be quite good and worthy of your consideration.

 

 JR Madill - Christians and the Other: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

• Culture , Imagio Dei , Othering , Unity
• Comments(2)

Honzo September 14th, 2007

The 189th Christian Carnival is up at Diary of 1.

The theme for this week is Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Every post has a Bonhoeffer quote as an introduction, either from his work or from a biography of his life.

Check it out!

• Unity
• Comments(0)

Honzo August 9th, 2007

I would encourage all of you to read Rose’s thoughts on being of one mind.
Rose’s Reasonings :: Will We Ever Be “Of One Mind”?

While you are at it, what does it mean to be truly tolerant? What good is diversity? Are these good things? Are these bad things? What definitions of each are you using?

• Unity
• Comments(5)

Honzo August 2nd, 2007

Hank, over at Think Wink displays a wonderful example of the venerated Charles Spurgeon and his polemics: Spurgeon and Arminian Prayer.

In it Spurgeon misappropriates all sorts of Arminian theologies. There is no reference to any actual Wesleyan or Restorationist prayers, nor does the prayer actually employ the whole or for that matter, any actual Wesleyan or Restorationist, or Arminian doctrines.

It does, however, make for a wonderful straw man. He constructs a prayer that consists of the partial Arminian doctrines and mixes them with elements that are completely foreign to Arminian, Restoriationist, and Wesleyan theologies. Continue Reading »

• Unity
• Comments(10)

Honzo June 18th, 2007

Challies wants to hear from those that have become Reformed in theology on the following issues:

As you began to understand Reformed principles, what were your greatest and most pressing questions about this system of theology?

What aspects of Reformed theology most troubled you and were the most difficult to reconcile in your mind?

What resources did you turn to to help you explore the Reformed faith? Was it only Bible study that led you to Reformed beliefs or did you rely on secondary sources as well? Which were the most helpful resources (teachers, books, web sites, etc)?

Are there still questions that remain? Are there certain aspects of Reformed theology that you continue to wrestle with or that you simply do not understand?

How confident are you now in your ability to understand, defend and apply the principles of the Reformed faith?

Challies dot com :: Becoming Reformed

• Calvinism vs Arminianism , Unity
• Comments(2)

Hank June 16th, 2007

This past week was the Southern Baptist National Convention. Dr. Jerry Johnson of Criswell College in Dallas Texas held a discussion on Calvinism, with Dr. Danny Akin and Dr. Mark Coppenger, and on speaking in tongues, with Dr. Russell Moore and Pastor Dwight McKissic. They were very good. Calvinism was more like a discussion of the five points and tongues was a debate. Click here for Calvinism and Tongues. Or you can go to Jerry Johnson’s website.

• Calvinism vs Arminianism , Creeds , Practices , Unity
• Comments(2)

Honzo June 12th, 2007

…or rather: inerrant links. Following my post on Deep Dish (Chicago) Inerrancy, I have come across some links on the doctrine of inerrancy that I would like to share with you.

Chrisendom:: The inerrancy series – Chris Tilling argues against the Chicago statement on several fronts. This is actually a six part post series that concludes with a podcast. I have read the posts, they are pretty good, but I have not listened to the podcast. Perhaps his best entry is on the historical basis of the doctrine.

Parableman :: Inerrancy and Infallibility – Jeremy distinguishes inerrancy from infallibility and suggests that the doctrine of inerrancy is much weaker than the doctrine of infallibility.

Wonders of Oyarsa :: Fighting with the Bible - Wonders of Oyarsa wonders about how to deal with the troubling parts of the Bible and takes a page out of Job’s book.

blog.kennypearce.net :: Biblical Inerrancy – Roundhouse on the topic

JollyBlogger :: The Reformed View of Inerrancy; Evangelicalism and Inerrancy; and Inerrancy again – The Blogger that is Jolly defends the Chicago Position. This is a good read.

Sven’s Theology and Biblical Studies :: Inerrancy – This was an interesting post. Sven makes several interesting claims. Among them is the charge that inerrancy is a type of “scriptural Apollinarianism” and that the inerrancy debate is a function of modernistic dualisms, not a function of the texts themselves.

I would like to get some of your opinions on this important issue. Do you subscribe to inerrancy? If so, how do you formulate it? How do you deal with the issues that people bring up?

• Creeds , Culture , Unity
• Comments(0)