February 2007 Archives

Dear Holly,

What you tell me about your older brother doesn't surprise me, but I agree with you that it is really sad. It's not very often that things like this are so clear -- your brother is working in an evangelical church, he has some emerging leanings because he's a youth pastor, he and some friends decide to have a group study comparing Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis and Brian McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy ...

... and then they compose a notebook of all their observations, a few elders get nervous and the pastor and elders make a decision to ban all study of Bell's and McLaren's books. (By the way, Holly, did you ever observe that there are about 220 reviews of Bell's book at Amazon? and 113 of McLaren's book.)

You ask me the big one: "What should I tell my brother?" Here are my suggestions:

First, pray for him and for his church. Pray for yourself.

Second, your brother "accepts" (you said you thought it was really "capitulating to") his pastor's authority and the decision of the elders, but you think he'll be miserable. When a group study had done what you say they did -- compare key doctrines and show differences between these two thinkers and then chart out all the things everyone liked and disliked -- you know they've vested serious interest in one of the most important things Christians can do: think critically together about current trends in light of biblical theology. For the life of me ... I wonder if the elders might have been better off participating with that study group.

Pastoral authority is a double-edged sword, sometimes used to help and other times improperly to divide the body. But I don't like that pastors or elders would put some books on a ban when at least (you didn't mention others) one of them (your brother) was a pastoral leader in the church -- and the group was thinking critically and not naively about the books. And the minute you ban a book you've got yourself a problem -- you increase interest in the book and you drive some folks away. (Which you say the pastor thinks is a "sign of election," or non-election -- which I'm guessing is what you meant.)

I think the way to deal with Rob Bell and Brian McLaren is to read them, look them in the eye, assess their eyes against the Bible, and render evaluation. Tell me, Holly, if you could "ban" one thing for Christians what would it be? Would it be Rob Bell or Brian McLaren or something or someone else? (I'll be interested in your answer if you take this on as a serious question -- and if you do I know you'll have lots of interesting things to say.)

What I'm saying is this: the pastor and the elders, probably for pastoral reasons, have overstepped their limits. Leaders pastor and guide. The only way for lay folks to grow into their gifts with responsibility is to learn to think biblically for themselves -- and banning doesn't allow it.

Third, now here's what I suggest you do: I suggest you ask your brother to spend some time in prayer and then meet with a mentor (outside that church) and then figure out how to raise the issue of banning books with the pastor and the elder board in a non-threatening (if firm) way. It could be a weekend retreat where he shares with them what they learned, where they differed, and how he thinks this is actually training Christians for critical engagement in our world.

And I suggest this: that you ask your brother to figure out a way to get the pastor and elders to think about this question: Why in the world is Rob Bell so attractive to so many young Christians? (In other words, get them to think critically about Rob Bell.) And then get them to do the same with McLaren. It has probably occurred to you that, if they do read Bell and McLaren, they just might come up with the same observations your brother's group came up with. Now I'm getting mischievous: if that happens, you might get your brother to suggest to the pastor that he is doing a good job teaching the lay folks if they are coming to such similar results.

I've got to leave; Kris and I are about to go to the airport.

You know what I know: my suggestions are ideal. There is a real chance that this could lead to a breakdown in relationships. I hope they can pursue working together, getting beyond differences, but sometimes these things don't work out. New wine often bursts the old wineskins. It should. Empowering lay folk through good teaching and critical thinking skills is a good thing.

Blessings,

Scot

On March 17, I’ll be speaking at North Point Community Church in Atlanta, primarily to their Starting Point leaders. I’ll be speaking about the nature of the gospel and how we can best engage our culture. North Point has made this event available to a limited outside audience for a modest fee. So, if you’re interested, please visit this site and click on the Starting Point Training link under “Events” to register. I hope to see you there!

The psalmist believes God is righteous and has spoken words in Torah that are right and that can guide God's people. But those two convictions are at odds with others: they evidently don't believe either of his convictions. How does he respond? Here are his words:

139 My zeal wears me out,
for my enemies ignore your words.
140 Your promises have been thoroughly tested,
and your servant loves them.
141 Though I am lowly and despised,
I do not forget your precepts.

143 Trouble and distress have come upon me,
but your commands give me delight.

His utter zeal -- undeterred commitment -- wears him down, annihilates him because his enemies ignore God's words. He is grieved by the ignorance of others.

In spite of his enemies' approach to the words of God, the psalmist tests the promises of the Torah and loves them. He tests the words of God.

Tested as he might be, he will not forget the precepts. He will not forget.

Distress leads him back to the righteous God and he finds God's commands utter delight -- delight in delight, delightful delight, or delightful delightfulness. He delights in God's right laws.

A God who is right prompts in the psalmist a love for the right things -- the right people, the right laws, the right God, and to a grief over what is not right.

Here's my simple contention: if you believe God is in control of all, then you are driven to think either (1) that catastrophes are divine judgments or (2) that God has surrendered "control" to cosmic or human forces. When 9/11 occurred, many of us watched with horror, pondered, and prayed, but very few of us had the moxie to think we "knew" what God was doing. When the tsunami devasted the Pacific coastlines, when the earthquake jolted Iran, or when Katrina buckled the knees of New Orleans, was God judging or has God surrendered the world to cosmic forces? Steven Keillor, in his new book God's Judgments, takes on this theme, takes on Christians for their lack of nerve, critiques "worldview thinking" (more later), and proposes a Christian theory. We'll look at this book for awhile.

I begin with an admission. 9/11 shook me and I gave a response to a small audience at NPU about "God's presence in his seeming absence" as we sought answers from under the rubble. I stated in my classes that OT prophets would "know" what was going on; I didn't. I also yearned -- and still yearn -- for discernment or a method for knowing how to make meaning of historical events like this. I wanted -- maybe you did too -- a prophet to stand up and tell us what God was doing, to make meaning out of a horrible event.

I joined left, right, and center in being repulsed by the quick responses of Falwell and Robertson.

But, if we believe God is in control, what can we know? That is the question Keillor asks. Are we afraid to press to the conclusion that our theological logic leads? Do our humility that we might be wrong and the politically-insensitive reality or public discourse combine to silence the Church? Do they eviscerate from the Church a conviction that the Christian faith -- with its Old Testament and New Testament sense of history -- involves a philosophy of history? Are we surrendering our concept God is control?

Keillor, in three quick chps, shows that the media had theories but none of them had to do with God, that right-wingers and left-wingers as well as centrists were quite confidently united in the view that 9/11 was not a judgment from God, and that the Christian worldview (next week) actually prevents Christians from entering into the biblical sense of God's control of history and the Christian's confidence to come to terms, by faith, with what God is doing in history.

The conservative patriot sees markets and military as consistent with God's design for the USA and that "prophetic cries of judgment" are unacceptable because they are "unpatriotic" (41).

Centrists fear the use of exclusivist religious language will destroy the conversation of democracy.

Leftists, with "its version of the Enlightenment utopian project" seek "a people, idea or force to being justice to history: the proletariat, socialism, science, revolution, diversity, multiculturalism" (43).

Keillor's question is this one: Why was the nation attacked? He does not seek to answer why specific individuals were in the symbols that the attackers struck.

There has been a yearning for a book like this one to be written; no one seems to want to write it; will anyone agree with it?

NB: I've read two chps and the spine has already snapped and pages have begun to fall out; I hope the arguments are more stable.

This is part two of RJS's review of Vern Poythress, Redeeming Science.

Vern Poythress in his book Redeeming Science begins with a thoroughly Christian worldview. God is the creator of the world. Everything came into being by Him and through Him (Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1-3). God revealed Himself and reveals Himself through special revelation (scripture) and general revelation (providence and nature, laws of physics …). We all know however, that the real sticking point is the apparent conflict between the interpretation of the data arising from exploration of God’s word in general revelation (science) and the interpret of God’s word contained in the special revelation of Scripture. So how is this apparent conflict to be reconciled?

In Chapters 5-10 of his book Poythress discusses the nature of Genesis, the role of science and the dating of the earth, and the relative merits and flaws of several possible interpretation of Genesis:

1. 24-Hour-Day view: “Literal” reading of Genesis 1 and following - often supplemented by Flood Geology to account for the geological/biological discrepancies.
2. Mature Creation Theory: World brought into being in a short period of time (6 days - probably 24-hour days) with an appearance of age. Reconciliation with science then does not deny the science but simply asserts that Genesis teaches that God created the world in a short period in the form that would have arisen through his created natural process.
3. Religious-Only Theory: Scripture is only intended to address matters of religious not scientific fact.
4. Local Creation Theory: Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3 assert God as creator of all, but the specific descriptions following in Genesis only refer to a small region of the world around the Garden of Eden in modern day Iraq.
6. Gap Theory: There is a large time gap between Genesis 1:1 and the remainder of Genesis. Most of Genesis only refers to the restoration of creation after the fall of Satan.
7. Day-Age Theory: Each day in Genesis refers to a long period of time, an “age” of billions, millions or thousands of years. Each day-age is of a different length. As I understand it this is the view championed by Hugh Ross and his organization. Audio files of lectures describing his approach can be found on the Veritas Forum website.
8. Intermittent Day Theory: The suggestion here is that each day of creation described in Genesis is a “real” day, but the text is silent on vast periods of time between the specific days of creation.
9. Revelatory Day Theory: This theory holds that the days of creation in Genesis refer to the days over which God revealed his creative work to Moses. It recounts the vision through which Moses was inspired to write his account, not the actual days of creation.
10. Framework Theory: The days refer by analogy to God’s work and the account in Genesis is a literary framework describing God’s work in creation, not a literal account. Among others Lee Irons champions this approach and describes it in a lecture available here.
11. Analogical Day Theory: God created the world in six days of work followed by one day of rest - but these days of divine work are an analogy rather than an identity with days of human work.

Poythress considers only three of these alternatives as attractive: Mature Creation, Framework, and Analogical Day, although it should be noted that the distinctions between the Analogical Day and Framework theories are subtle.

The mature creation option raises several objections that Poythress considers less than convincing. Most notably: Mature creation implies God as deceiver and mature creation invalidates scientific investigation. Although Poythress doesn’t set much stock in the God as deceiver objection, I find this argument compelling - in part because of the willful appearance of age argument that Poythress discusses, but more importantly because of the intricate and unnecessary web of evidence contained in the fossil record, the geological make-up of the earth, and especially that embedded within the DNA of living creatures. If God did not create the world over billions of years using the laws of physics and the processes of evolution, he intentionally created the world to look as though he did, in exquisitely subtle and functionless ways. A more detailed discussion of the genomic evidence can be found in Francis Collins’ book “The Language of God” or in lectures he gave for the American Scientific Affiliation in 2002 and 2006 (http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2006Collins.mp3, http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2002Collins.mp3).

Despite his unwillingness to rule out the Mature Creation view - Poythress does not feel that the evidence contained in the special revelation of scripture requires this view and instead prefers the Analogical Day interpretation. In coming to this conclusion Poythress borrows from the approach of John Calvin, who took the view that in the inspiration of scripture God is speaking to ordinary people in ordinary language appropriate for all times and all conditions. God accommodates Himself equally to the understanding of the ancient Israelite and the modern engineer and our understanding of scripture should reflect this fact. Our interpretation of scripture should not attempt to impart an unintended technical meaning. Two key citations from Calvin come from his commentary on Genesis - particularly the passages dealing with Genesis 1:6 and 1:16, although there are additional examples in his consideration of other issues and other passages of scripture. As an example consider the following excerpt from the commentary on 1:16:

16. The greater light I have said, that Moses does not here subtly descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, … Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. …Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendor of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God. (The complete passage is available here.)

According to the Analogical Day interpretation the description of creation represents an analogy between the work of God stretching over six divine days followed by a day of rest, and the work of humans in understandable terms, laying groundwork for both the Sabbath day and the Jubilee year commanded in Leviticus. God speaks and teaches through analogy and thus accommodates his revelation to human understanding. In the interpretation of Genesis Poythress also suggests that we should look to different cultural approaches to time - including our current obsession of keeping to the clock and the more interactive experience of time tied to the rhythms of human existence.

"If one goes to Genesis 1 with a clock orientation, one focuses primarily on how long it took, as measured by a clock. But if one goes to Genesis 1 with an interactive orientation, one asks what important events took place, and what was their human social meaning. (139)" The rhythm of work and rest speaks to the ordinary human experience.

In the context of his discussion of the three attractive alternatives, Poythress also deals with two other objections to an extended creation.

First the Mature Creation view falsely implies that plant and animal death came about before the fall and future death would come about with or without the fall and in the other two views death came about before the fall. Considering this, Poythress concludes that nothing in scripture necessitates the view that all death originated with the Fall -- only the death of mankind created in the image of God. The second objection is that all of these views undermine the biblical teaching about Noah and the flood. But the objections raised here again presuppose a modern worldview of the earth and the extent of the earth and the nature of the earth as a globe hanging in space. Again, God is speaking in scripture to ordinary people in ordinary situations at the time scripture was recorded and we must not allow our presupposition and assumptions to determine how the scripture must be interpreted.

So - a couple of questions here: In interpreting scripture, especially Genesis and creation, but also other passages and other issues, is it appropriate to include the understanding that God was speaking to ordinary people in ordinary situations in terms and ideas and analogies that they would understand? Given this accommodation, is it reasonable to view the general revelation of the Word of God in nature, learned through science, as filling in the blanks so to speak and revealing more of the mind, nature, and language of God?