Theology for the Masses

As I was preparing for something this afternoon, I came across this passage in Inspiration and Incarnation.

“[F]rom one perspective, the entire narrative structure of the Old Testament is fueled by the back and forth, give and take between God and Israel.  The Old Testament portrays God as a being who can be acted upon, a being whose actions are in a meaningful sense of the word contingent upon what his people do: if they obey, then God will bless; if they disobey, then God will curse.  I am well aware that from a philosophical point of view, one can answer this quite simply by saying that God may acts as if his actions are contingent, but in reality they are not.  My concern, however, is with the Bible and what it says, with how God acts in scripture.  I am not all comfortable with describing God in a way that leads me to dismiss this dimension of how God himself wishes to be known.”  – Peter Enns Inspiration and Incarnation p.105.

What do you think about this?

I like the way Peter Enns articulates the problem of myth and biblical studies, especially given our discussions on the term.

The Following is from Page 40 of Inspiration and Incarnation:

Christians recoil from any suggestion that Genesis is in any way embedded in the mythologies of the ancient world.  On one level this is understandable.  After all, if the Bible and the gospel are true, and if that truth is bound up with historical events, you can’t have the beginning of the Bible get it so wrong.  It is important to understand, however, that not all historians of the ancient Near East use the word myth simply as shorthand for untrue, made-up, [or] storybook.  It may include these ideas for some, but many who use the term are trying to get at something deeper.  A more generous way of defining myth is that it is an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we?  Where do we come from?

I think that is a definition we can all agree upon, no?

I, like a lot of the Christian side of the blogosphere, have taken more than a fleeting interest in the Enns/Westminster controversy.

For a run down of what the hub-ub is all about, check out Kingdom People :: The Peter Enns Controversy:

1. Enns has been criticized for emphasizing the human nature of Scripture over against the divine.
2. Enns has written that the first chapters of Genesis are firmly grounded in ancient myth, which he defines as “an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins in the form of stories.”
3. Enns claims that Scripture is inspired and inerrant, however the way he describes Scripture seems to counter that belief.
4. Enns does not seek to harmonize seemingly-contradictory parts of Scripture because he believes the diversity of Scripture is complementary.
5. Enns rejects the idea of objective unbiased historiography.

Here is an exchange between Paul Helm and Enns about Helm’s review of Enns’ book.

• Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament by Peter Enns Review by Paul Helm
• A Response to Paul Helm’s Review of Inspiration and Incarnation
• Analysis Extra: ‘Inspiration and Incarnation’ one more time

Here is an interesting (and instructive) review of Helm’s review by Cdero’s Weblog entitled Bible Monopoly. Here are the central tenets of Bible Monopoly:

* An unwillingness to deal with the plural complexity of interpretation
* A failure to wrestle with the difficult matters of Biblical scholarship
* A failure to see the provisional nature of scripture
* An obsession with turning honest interaction with extra Biblical data into an evil foe of orthodoxy
* A tendency to use past theologians (the one’s they agree with) as the standard of Biblical interpretation

To say on top of what people are saying about this situation, check out Google’s Blogsearch and Technorati’s watchlist.

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 [↩]

May I present part 2 of my pictoral tour of the Creation Museum! You’ll remember that we left last time secure in the fact that we can trust God’s Word ™ over the evil, corruptive forces of Human Reason. We saw how God’s Word ™ had been preserved throughout the centuries, despite the fact that evil persons such as Jews and Catholics had tried to corrupt it. And so now we turn to the modern incarnation of this (apparently) ancient war: the defense of Creationism in the face of Darwin’s bastard step-children, the evil Evolutionists.

The First Four Days (In the Blink of an Eye)

The couple of rooms are pretty much what we expected. We were treated to “scientific” Old-Earth “theories” based on Human Reason (read: foolish atheism) claiming that Creation is more than 6,000 years old. We saw various computer models illustrating how Young Earth science made better use of the available evidence, and how (surprise!) the Museum’s understanding of this evidence is perfectly in line with God’s Word. (It’s so comforting to know someone has it all figured out!) And at one of the unfinished displays, we were treated to an example of the Museum’s ever-vigilant dedication to undermining the rhetoric of Human Reason.

Clever, no?

Oh, and in case you were wondering (I know I was), the reason you should care about this is that believing in an Old Earth undermines all Christian doctrine and theology. Apparently unless you believe that Genesis 1-11 is literal, historical fact, then you are an evil, pagan.

Day Six (because who really cares about plants and birds? no one. that’s who.)

Whew… two whole rooms without people? It was almost getting to be too much! Fortunately, by the time we got through the second room, we were treated to a documentary film that chronicled all six days of creation in a relatively short time period (even shorter than Six Days! man, these Museum people are GOOD!). Once we’d been properly prepared, we were shown into the Garden of Eden.

I learned so much in this room! Did you know that all animals were vegetarians before the Fall? True story.

Who’s going to blame this guy for loving pineapple? Not me, that’s for sure.

They were so tame you could feed them!!

Did you know that no animals or plants were toxic or venomous before the Fall? TRUE STORY. Did you know that before the Fall, Eve never looked Adam in the eye!?! TRUE STORY! Don’t believe me? Not only was it in the video we watched; I got photographs!

Let’s go to the film:

Note Adam’s strong, upward gaze. He’s in control here, folks!

Oh Eve! You’re so demure and feminine! Oh, by the way, while you were off frolicking, the Outdated Stereotype store phoned; apparently your model is being recalled.

Dinosaurs in the garden? That you can FEED WITH YOUR HANDS?!? I know, I know. You’re thinking, “This is too good to be true!”

Oh, and alas, you were right. All good things must end. And so we come to the one scene where Eve finally looks Adam in the eye: when she offers him grapes. Or a pomegranate. Or something. I always thought it was an Apple.

The Devil Made Me Do It (Sin and Fallout)

Surprisingly, the serpent (who was Satan) did not have legs. Before or after the Fall. I was disappointed. So, apparently Adam and Eve ate the fruit, got kicked out of the Garden and God showed them how to make animal sacrifices. I have this awesome picture of Adam and Eve wearing deer skins and standing behind altar on which are lying the two slain deer, fully skinned. I can’t find the pic, but I’ll keep looking. Consider the implications – God skinned these two deer and made Adam and Eve wear the skins, probably while the poor things were still dying. That is awesome because little kids come see this museum. Oh, and in case you were wondering, the theory that Genesis 3’s claim that God made them clothes of skin is actually God showing them how to sacrifice is actually rabbinic oral tradition. Yes, the same Oral Tradition that was condemned as evil about 4 rooms ago. What’s that? No, that’s not a contradictory display. You can only find something contradictory if you’re using Human Reason, and we’re not doing anything even remotely resembling something reasonable here at the Museum.

And I’m sure you were wondering, but the animal sacrifices were insufficient because humans and animals are unrelated. This was the one and only place in the entire museum I found them giving explicit reasons that Evolution allegedly undermines Christian doctrine. Apparently, if evolution is true, then we can all just do animal sacrifices. Somehow. But since the bible says that animal sacrifices weren’t sufficient (which, to their credit, it actually does, in Hebrews – though of course they don’t bother with such things as citing references) then apparently evolution can’t be true. Now, can someone please tell me where the Bible ever gives “we’re not related” as a reason animal sacrifice isn’t valid?!?!

Anyway, now we move onto the hall of Sin. This is the room I described from last post with the gray walls and the black-and-white photos featuring the consequences of sin. They were (in order): An African kid starving, A Wolf eating raw meat and looking menacingly at the camera/audience, A mushroom cloud, Bones from the Holocaust, A Woman screaming as she gives birth, A Tornado, Heroin (complete with a spoon and needle, WTF? exactly how educational is this museum supposed to be?! here kid, THIS IS HOW YOU FREAKING TAKE HEROIN!)* and A Graveyard.

Sin is bad. And don’t forget that it’s all because you forgot to listen to God’s Word and started thinking for yourself. Human Reason will pump you full of drugs, genocide you with radiation, make you have babies and take you to Kansas where a wolf will eat your heart while you starve to death.

Also, since you were curious, it was at this point that animals started eating meat and being venomous. Apparently God had build the potential for these things into various animals, but did not reveal them until after the Fall. In a rare fit of exegetical fantasy, the Museum presents Isaiah 11:6-9 (which is an apocalyptic passage) as proof of this clearly sound theory. I find it fascinating that this idea is so completely insane that even Museum realized that no one would believe this unless they could find a Bible verse to throw at it. Fortunately, we don’t need to pay attention to context when citing. Context sounds a little too much like Human Reason for our tastes. God’s Word is God’s Word! We don’t need no context!

What could possibly be next? Oh, we haven’t talked about incest yet!

The Fallen Community

Note in this picture (of Cain, Abel, Adam and Eve), that Adam and Abel are inside the wall, while Cain and Eve (who is pregnant, but not with Seth!) are in their appropriate positions outside the wall.

Also note that Mike’s arm is outside the community.

So, Cain kills Abel (who was apparently the first prophet, more rabbinic Oral Tradition!) and then takes his sister as a wife. But isn’t that incest? Isn’t that something the Bible forbids?! Oh silly. Genetic drift hadn’t happened yet, and God’s Laws are pragmatic, not moral. So calm down. Plus, you’re gay. What’s that? Oh, well on a display called “Who did Cain Marry?”, we find this statement (reproduced verbatim):

“Since God is the One who defined marriage in the first place, God’s Word is the only standard for defining proper marriage. People who do not accept the Bible as their absolute authority have no basis for condemning someone like Cain for marrying his sister.”

Were you paying attention? If you don’t conform to our white-middle-class-fundamentalist view ::ahem:: we mean, our biblical view of marriage, then you don’t have any room to talk. So take your liberal Reason and go home.

The Flood was a cool display. Apparently Noah hired a bunch of guys to help him build the ark, but they all thought he was crazy. We know this because the displays were animatronic and talked. Yeah, they were that creepy. Some pictures:

They actually showed all the people dying. Again, I’m impressed. There are babies on that rock. At least they’re not shying away from the implications. Of course, these are also all pagan evolutionists, so… well… they probably deserved to die in the first place. I mean, they helped Noah build the ark. So they don’t have an excuse.

Sadly, not life-sized. Even sadder, not biblically accurate. Apparently the biblical specifications don’t build something that would actually float. So a Navy simulator came up with this version. However, and we would like to make this very clear: using a Navy simulator to fix something in the Bible is not using Human Reason to augment God’s Word. What we at the Museum are doing here is completely different from what we’re criticizing everywhere else in the Museum. Somehow.

Fun fact: because we can’t account for how rapidly species have changed after the flood, we are going to tell you that “these differences suggest God provided organisms with special tools to change rapidly.” No word on what those special tools were, but my guess is Craftsman. Also, if you were curious how the various animals got to the different continents, it turns out that they used rafts made of dead trees (killed in the flood) that float on the ocean currents. No, I am not making this up. The Museum people made it up. And they have a video simulation to prove it:

The Museum concludes with videos of college students who don’t believe in God. These are the victims of the Enemy. Given that the Museum’s primary demographics are Elderly persons and parents with young children, this is a brilliant piece of propaganda to encourage giving. The Elderly can fight against the ever-more secular Universities to get us back to those mythic “good ole days” and parents with young children can fix the problem before their kids get there. The final station is a well-produced, well-acted and (relatively) well-written 20-minute video gospel presentation. At the beginning, a guy compares a T-Rex tooth to the Bible, apparently because both are old and cool. Other than this, nothing from the Museum’s previous 2.5 hour tour appears or is referenced in the video. Somehow this is meant to prove that the Gospel is dependent on a literal reading of Genesis 1-11.

Oh Those Terrible Lizards!

I was getting pissed – we’d gone through the whole museum with almost no reference to Dinosaurs! Fear not! They had their own separate exhibit, complete with Job quotations and models!

A great question! And one we were exited to have answered.

The Leviathan and Behemoth in Job were both dinosaurs. Yes, really. Go ahead and go read their descriptions in Job 40-41. Yeah. They could breath fire (at least Leviathan could). Don’t you know that’s where dragon legends came from? No, we’re not joking. Why are you laughing? I mean… consider knights…

See?! Knights in the middle ages hunted dragons to extinction. We even watched a 10 minute video (of which I purchased a copy) explaining all of this in lucid, rational terms. Why are you laughing?

And with that, we left. We managed to doge most of the museum people, who all wanted to know what we thought. I’m sure they thought those were tears of joy.