RJS,
Thanks for all that you contribute to this blog. I am grateful for both your scholarship and your humility. But these are two pretty big questions to process:
“??? Should we let our culture and our science reform our understanding of the nature of the incarnation and the nature of sin? If so ??? how?”
and
“How do we articulate the Gospel of the identity of Jesus Christ for our day and age?”
I think, if we are honest in our estimation of our lack of complete understanding, we must constantly be reforming our understanding of just about everything. I would, however, suggest that the “how” part of this needs to temper cultural and scientific “advances” with the witness of the Holy Spirit in us today as a continuation of the progression of that same witness throughout the history of the Church.
And your second question is what the Emerging Church is all about, isn’t it? How do we communicate who God is and what Jesus is all about and how we are created to swirl around in that perichoretic, interdependent reality.
…still processing here. But I trust that the Holy Spirit is able to work in those who are open to learning and joining God is what he’s doing these days.

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves who the “our” refers to in the statement, “Should not our evolving understanding of human biology and the nature of the world around lead us to reshape…?” It seems to me that this would refer to a sub-culture of some sort, such as the scientific/academic community. I have a friend who thinks I am a head-in-the-sand believer because I don’t buy everything he claims as “proof”. But I have one question for him and the rest of the scientific community: How is it that you can assume that God has put some sort of hedge around human scientific investigation? Is everything we observe in nature automatically 100% irrefutable proof, and therefore can serve as a legitimate basis for theological articulation? As long as there are spritual powers in this world that work against God and his people, I think we need to be very cautious about our claims, especially in regards to how they might affect our theological foundations. Perhaps we feel that God is obliged to the scientists among us to “keep out the devil.”

How do we articulate the Gospel of the identity of Jesus Christ for our day and age?
While waiting for my flight at Glasgow airport last month, a young man working for Starbucks moved in the crowd with a plate of coffee samples. The message and the messenger came to me in such a way that may be exclusive to one that was dead in sin, as I was. Therefore, I find it difficult to reign in the words, “Hey, I got a blood transfusion and I feel great.”
Is the scientific community (the majority.) dazzeled by their shortsighted vision as were the Pharisses and do we not recognize that they have no power over us except it be given them from above?
“Needy” is a word that I believe, is reserved for those who haven’t experienced the reality of being kept by Life. That understanding Life is more important than loving Life and confirming Him as and therein.
With our banner over us, our victory cry is not that God could be doing something today as He was two thousand years ago, but that He is still the same One and He still knows what He is doing. Sin, did not throw Him into a tailspin. Neither will we.
?????? Should we let our culture and our science reform our understanding of the nature of the incarnation and the nature of sin? NO!!! That is, not without the Holy Spirit.

RJS, I hardly know where to begin. To respond to your post properly might require an entire book in itself, and I’m certainly not up to it. Richard in comment #2, though, is right: the scientific community is dazzled by their shortsighted vision (even though he lacks certainty in the area of verb/pronoun agreement).
Galatians chp 4 (our old friend Paul) is as good a place to begin as any: “Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”
The first thing that jumps out at me here is that “the fulness of time” occurred two thousand years ago, not “in the light of our late modern understanding of paleobiology and evolution” (your words), and centuries before “the full-blown Chalcedon definition” (your words again, or maybe Shults’s, it’s hard to tell which is which in your post).
You or Shults ask the question, “Should we let our culture and our science reform our understanding of the nature of the incarnation and the nature of sin? If so ??? how?” and four paragraphs later you or he answers the question by asking it again in negative form: “As all expression of God???s truth is culturally formed, should not our expression of the incarnation be reformed in the light of our late modern understanding of paleobiology and evolution? Should not our evolving understanding of human biology and the nature of the world around lead us to reshape and reform our articulation of biblically founded Christology?”
The whole post makes some sweeping statements as true, not the least of which is “As all expression of God’s truth is culturally formed…”. The ultimate expression of God’s truth occurred in Bethlehem and at Calvary and in an empty tomb two thousand years ago — when the fulness of time had come. (And what did culture have to do with that? It was a breaking into a particular culture, yes, but with eternal verities.) Before then, according to Paul, we were children, servants, in bondage. Now, though, with the Spirit in our hearts crying, Abba, Father, we are not only sons but heirs of God through Christ.
Now there’s something really dazzling.
The answer to the question, “Should not our evolving understanding of human biology and the nature of the world around lead us to reshape and reform our articulation of biblically founded Christology?” is plain and simple: No.

I meant Richard in comment #3.

This was an interesting book, challenging in parts, very good at times and not as strong in others. Particularly, it seemed like LeRon was often calling us to redefine the doctrine in our culture, but kept seemingly calling us back to a more Eastern Christology. I have no problem with that, and think we have much to learn from our Eastern brothers, but I also don’t think we need to act as though this is a fresh vision of theology by any means, but one that is built upon a long, long tradition.
Some negatives were his brief responses and dismissals of some contemporary theologians, which deserve much longer responses in my opinion. Furthermore, I personally wish he would have mentioned more from biblical scholars. I think Bauckham’s “Crucified God” seems to get to similar outcomes as LeRon theologically, but from a different field. Ultimately though, LeRon is a philosopher with a particular specialization in theology, and doesn’t need to address what biblical scholars are saying even if they do agree at points.
This was definitely an interesting book though, and well worth the read. RJS, your questions are very broad! I go back and forth on the science impacting faith question. Sometimes I think the Radical Orthodoxy guys get it right and we need to critique every field with theology and seek a more non-reductionist, theological science. At other times I think I need to start fresh and rethink through all of my personally held doctrines, not necessarily to change them, but to change how I think of them and what words I use to describe them.

Mike and Bob,
Here is the premise:
(1) Science or natural philosophy (and experts can quibble about my wording) does and always has influenced “our” articulation of theology, Christology, and interpretation of scripture. This is true even within scripture.
(2) In this statement the word “our” reflects the collective and individual Christian effort to understand the nature of God, the nature of Jesus, and the impact this should and does have on the world (including “our” collective and individual lives).
(3) Parts of the orthodox creedal statements are worded as shorthand stories to express the understanding of God and Christ in the context of the science and philosophy of 100-400 AD.
(4) If we unpack the intent of the patristic writers and the apostles and evangelists, if we read scripture as God???s story, and the record of God???s interaction with his creation, how can we articulate Christology afresh for our day and age?
My premise (and I think Shults’s) again – the answer is not (1) deny God; (2) deny Christ as God incarnate; (3) deny scripture; (4) assume naturalism as the root of being; or (5) deny human knowing and investigation, regarding it as an invalid approach to the world.
Everyone out there who holds to a sun-centered solar system on the outskirts of a galaxy that is one of many galaxies has allowed science to shape the faith. We need to continue to allow this to happen in a God centered way on our knees before our creator because God is creator.

Let me modify my last paragraph in #7.
Everyone out there who holds to a sun-centered solar system on the outskirts of a galaxy that is one of many galaxies has allowed science to shape the way the faith is talked about – our expression and understanding of the faith. We need to continue to allow this to happen in a God centered way on our knees before our creator because God is creator.
Kyle,
This is not an easy book to summarize – as Shults is abstract in his writing style. In this chapter he gives very few suggested answers, only tries to chart a path forward.

Bob, perhaps RJS is right though about cultural formations. No human has ever been found who can percieve without cultural bias. All perceived expressions of any thing are influenced by the human mind. Even when God speaks we all condition the message according to our cultural bias. The plain fact that we use language to communicate truth is proof of this. Having the “Spirit in our hearts” is a massively culturally dependant statement. It’s inescapable. You ask what culture had to do with the incarnation (Calvary, Bethlehem). Much, I would suggest; after all it was culture (though Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek languages) that gave us the only recording of those events. It was Roman culture that propogated crucifiction. It was Judaic/Roman culture that determined it to be shameful. It was Roman culture that demanded a census. . . .

And another addition to the last paragraph of #7.
Everyone of us who admits that male sperm supplies DNA that combines with female DNA in an egg cell to shape the traits of the child has allowed science to modify “our” expression of the faith from that common in the NT and patristic era. Is this inappropriate?

RJS (#7), the challenge is to cling to a Biblically-informed faith regardless of what science is currently saying or not saying. I agree with your last paragraph, by the way. But up in premise (3) you speak of “the science and philosophy of 100-400 AD” as though it was a monolithic thing. Do you also speak of “the science and philosophy of 1700-2000 AD”? I think not. Science and philosophy are constantly changing, evolving, being superseded. It’s the Word of God that stands sure. This is a concept that seems to frustrate academia, many of whom seem to prefer ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the Truth (present company excepted).
I’m in for it now.

RJS, by “last paragraph” I meant your original one in #7.

whoa … that was intense! too intense without an adequate supply of coffee. Thanks RJS for introducing me to the book, sounds like something I should read. As the governor of California once said; “I’ll be back…”

jose (#13):

A lot of this discussion is getting beyond me, but here are a couple of initial impressions.
I think the key to RJS first question is in the word “understanding.” Should contemporary culture and science reform our “understanding” of theology? Sure. It is clear throughout church history that we understand and express theology differently. However, culture and science should not, and cannot, reform the “reality” of theology (incarnation, sin, etc). I feel that some of the initial responses inserted “reality” for “understanding” which causes some fear, as it would me. I don’t think RJS is suggesting science changes reality.
But I also agree that science needs to be humble. Yes, science informs faith but faith informs science. Perhaps the best summary of this is from Francis Collins, whom RJS has blogged on: “Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul – and the mind must find a way to embrace both realms.” So we can’t allow science to be the ultimate reformer…that is the role of the Holy Spirit(and the Scriptures he inspired, I might add!).

phil (#9), so if the fulness of times were our era, then Christians of the future might wear lethal-injection syringes around their necks? Is that what you’re saying?

Bob, my point is that even the phrase “fulness of time” is interpreted according to the cultural bias of the reader. So do we let science have a role in this interpretation or not? I would say yes!
Science (particularly physics) teaches us things about both causality and time (it’s relative nature to speed, the need for a force to act apon another force to produce an outcome, the need for energy to remain the same in a closed system). Can these understandings shape the way we think about this “fulness” of this “time”? Certainly, physics sure help us understand where the boundary of the natural world is.
Historic inquiry (arguably a science) teaches us something about the wider conditions that were present during this “fulness of time” that the text simply does not provide. Can our broader understanding of the world in 33AD (ish) give us insight into what “fulness” might mean? Again I would say yes.

RJS,
Perhaps it would be helpful for some readers if you explain why you think modern science is on a better footing than some of the science of earlier times.

RJS,
You said, “This is not an easy book to summarize – as Shults is abstract in his writing style. In this chapter he gives very few suggested answers, only tries to chart a path forward.”
You are absolutely correct. It was a brief book in many regards, but extremely dense due to his abstract writing style and the content. There was often that I was wishing he would say more, and maybe he did but I just missed it.

When we begin to understand the implications of biological evolution, what does it mean to compare the first Adam and the fall with the second Adam and the perfect obedience of Jesus? What is the problem that Jesus as God incarnate came to solve?
Even if some form of evolution occured, there must have been a first human. As Gerald Schroeder put it in his Science of God, it may be that Adam had parents but was the first homo sapien who had whatever extra spark makes us humans. But however it worked, there’s no reason to assume there wasn’t a first human. And there’s no reason he couldn’t have introduced rebellion against God into our nature.
I don’t think evolution forces us to change how we look at the mission of Jesus.
As to the incarnation itself, the fact that our understanding of pregnancy has changed has no bearing on the central point of the incarnation — God worked a miracle (i.e., did something naturally impossible) to make Jesus in a unique way. The fact (if true) that the apostles thought in terms of spirit and matter doesn’t change anything.
In other words, though the debate over the mechanisms involved may have changed, I see no need to worry that the theology needs to change.
How do we articulate the Gospel of the identity of Jesus Christ for our day and age?
God became human to rescue humanity from the consequences of our rebellion and bring us into a loving relationship with Him and each other.

The content of what is “orthodox” today is the result of resolution of arguments that continued for centuries after the New Testament was committed to writing. It did not spring forth fully formed from the NT; indeed, an evolution of Christologies can be discerned within the NT itself (e.g., John Knox, “The Humanity and Divinity of Christ”). It appears the debate about the incarnation came no where near being “settled” until an unbaptised (at the time) emperor got involved.
In science, theories and models are generated to explain the data. The notion of the incarnation is analogous to a scientific theory in that it is an attempt to explain the “data” of the life and resurrection of Jesus. These attempts to deal with the data — which may be a legitimate encounter with the divine — are necessarily affected and colored by the cultural context of the time (and this context includes the prevailing contemporary “science”, which we have by now substantially revised).
Unless we wish to canonize the thoughts and speculations of theologians, church leaders and even politicians who lived centuries after the fact, then indeed Christoloy, as well as any other dogma or tenet which has come out of the Bible and/or early church history, should continually be reconsidered. How would we, from our point of view, respond to the “data” of the life of Jesus, if we were not already prejudiced by the conclusions of the third and fourth century Christians that have been handed to us?

Brian (#19) ~
You ask, “Perhaps it would be helpful for some readers if you explain why you think modern science is on a better footing than some of the science of earlier times.”
As a social scientist myself, I would reply that the “common” perception that science and scientific theories are simply opinions (fads that are here today and gone tomorrow) is a rather silly notion. Good science builds upon good science. So, of course, science today is on better footing than it was in earlier times…and is on a poorer footing than it will be in future times. Take a very simply physical pseudo-science example — the “science” of producing automobiles. Who would argue that modern science behind cars isn’t better today than it was in the 1950′s?

Ron #21-
“Unless we wish to canonize the thoughts and speculations of theologians, church leaders and even politicians who lived centuries after the fact, then indeed Christology, as well as any other dogma or tenet which has come out of the Bible and/or early church history, should continually be reconsidered.”
I have to go with Scot on this one, when he wrote:
“I???m appealing, the way a mouse does before a lion, for Evangelicals to enlargen the latter end of this process and reconsider its relationship to both the orthodox creeds and to the powerful processes that were established in such creeds. This little heresy of mine can be called orthodoxy. If we do this, and if we recognize that there is a drama played on different stages in different locations to different tunes, we will come to terms with three things: (1) the authority of the canon, (2) the sacredness of the creeds, and (3) the need to engage each culture with that canon in light of those creeds.”
Scot goes on to write, “I see only two live options for us: either we embrace canon and creed as a singular moment when God was at work through his Spirit in the history of the Church, or we relativize both canon and creed and throw everything back on history or individual conscience. Evangelicals, as I read us, have taken a third option, and it seems inherently inconsistent: we have opted for divine providence in the canonical process but not a divine providence in the creedal process.”

Todd (#22),
There are some ’57 Chevy owners who might not buy your example.
Along with the cumulative structure of science, I would say that the utilitarian value of modern science is a strong reason to think it will not be overthrown to the degree that much early science has been. It simply works at a level that previous theories did not.

Rick,
Where are you getting the quote from Scot? And how does it apply to the topic at hand? (Or perhaps Scot will reply.)

Brian,
Basically you are right – there are details we can discuss, and many scientists (eg. Dawkins) want to draw unwarranted philosophical conclusions – but the bottom line is empirical, it works or “fits” – and often in entirely unpredicted and unintuitive ways.

I like what Ron said in #21. Just as we have scientific theories and models which provide explanations of what we observe in the natural world, theologies are religious theories which attempt to explain what we observe when reading scripture. While we may see the narratives, poetry, parables, histories and (dare I say it) mythologies of our Bible as God speaking to us and a record of God’s interaction with people thousands of years and miles away, our understanding of what God is telling us – our interpretation of His message varies and changes according to our context. For Christians,the beliefs that God created the world and whatever is in it; that He made a covenant with the Jews to bring salvation to mankind; that Jesus is His son, at once human and divine; that Jesus lived, taught, died and was resurrected – these are our spiritual “facts” (which are not necessarily the same as historical facts). But theologies, whether Reformed, Catholic, Eastern or progressive, are theories which seek to explain evidence from scripture, using reason, logic, cultural perceptions, etc.
But sometimes theories are wrong. Ptolemy’s cosmology was accepted as fact for 1,000 years. It made sense of the observable information, it was extremely accurate at prediction and it was biblically consistent. But it was wrong and the theological understandings which were inextricably bound up with Ptolemy’s geocentric universe had to change. There was a paradigm shift. The theological theories of original sin, the “fall”, a literal Adam and Eve and a 6,000 yr old earth are inconsistent with what we currently know about the age of the earth, human evolution and human psychology. It is not blasphemous to look at the evidence as they had to in Copernicus’ day and eventually decide that they were not interpreting scripture correctly, or that scripture was not designed as a science textbook.
I do not see evolution as being inconsistent with scripture. What I see is that current scientific theory is inconsistent with certain theological theories – like original sin. If we can loosen our grip on our theologies perhaps we can see what truths scripture has for us, if we assume that current scientific theories about the age of the earth and the origin of man currently provide the best explanation for observable facts.

The Best of August…in my world | Homebrewed Christianity

[...] The Best Theology Book I Read ? Scot is now blogging on it [...]

RJS #25-
I will simply responding to Ron’s look at the reconsideration of orthodoxy (#21).
Here is the post that has Scot’s quote:
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1092

Correction in #28-
That should start “I was simply….”

Rick,
Good stuff – but… what does it mean to accept the creeds? And what does it mean to “embrace canon and creed as a singular moment when God was at work through his Spirit in the history of the Church?” I don’t know – the singular moment idea bothers me a bit.
Actually, this should be a question for Scot, not for you. The wrestlings of the early church, leading to the ecumenical creeds, placed some ideas firmly out of bounds of orthodoxy. But I do think that we would do well to consider the creeds within cultural context. Some of the nit-picking was cultural not eternal. I also think that we need to read Paul in light of his context ??? or we will misinterpret the point.
So, Paul, in Romans 5, talks about sin through one man leading to death and the one act of righteousness leading to justification of life to all men. Is the point here sin through Adam – or justification of all men through Jesus Christ? Certainly we expect Paul to talk about the atoning work of Christ in the terms that would make sense to his audience of Jews and God-fearers, and as I understand it, most of the early gentile converts were first “God-fearers” familiar with the Jewish story. Paul expresses the work of Jesus in the language and culture of the time. A different understanding of early human history invalidates none of his key points, but leads us to articulate the story a bit differently. My view of inspiration is that Paul unerringly preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ and justification through Jesus ??? but he does so within his context.
Same with the creeds ??? the words that expand the Apostles’ creed to the Nicene Creed establish the nature of God as Trinity ??? Father, Son, and Spirit. But some of the words used arise from specific arguments of the day that have little relevance for us at all. What is the essence of orthodoxy here ??? continuing their squabbles, or affirming the historic Trinitarian Godhead, and expressing this in terms appropriate for our day and age?

“What is the problem that Jesus as God incarnate came to solve?”
That this the question for this age.

Jonathan, #32: A great point. Did God in design a world that would develop a problem which needed solving? Or has his plan all along been to be invovled in the development of a universe that He could love and that would learn to love Him in return? Pahaps He came to show a way, rather than solve a problem?

RJS #30-
Thanks for your thoughts. I am with you on the articulation and expression focus- including in light of scientific advancements. However, that is somewhat different than Ron’s “reconsidering”.
I slightly lean towards a paleo-orthod. view, so in addition to comments on the role of Holy Spirit, I put a lot of weight into the proximity of the early church fathers to the apostles. When looking at the creeds, we are talking about a limited number of issues, based upon Scripture, the Rule of Faith, and earlier primitive creeds. Not a lot of room for too much clouding.
Finally, looking at cultural contexts is helpful, but they do not automatically hide truth, especially when put forth through/with God’s inspiration.

I really like LeRon. I have another of his books, approaching one of the problems from anthropology. I heard him first at a Science/Religion conference that featured Pannenburg….

The, what seems, ever on-going seperation debate between religion and science remind me of a joke I heard many years ago.
Man (religion) talks to his doctor and tells him that he want’s to kill his wife (science) because he can’t stand her because they just don’t get along. The doctor, concerned about the man’s state of mind tells the man that if he has to kill her, then to kill her with, copulation, so called love.
After about a month, the doctor decides to go by the man’s house and check on how the man is doing, in hopes that all is resolved. Upon reaching the man’s house, he finds the wife happy and whisteling while mowing the lawn.
He greets her and asks where the husband is, she happily reply’s that he is in his bed in their bedroom. The doctor enters the house, goes upstairs into the bedroom and sees the man hallowed eyed, thin to the bones, looking out the window and replying to the doctor’s greeting, “Look at her Doc, happy as can be. Little does she know that she’s only got a couple of weeks left to live.”
The insight that I have, or is health to me, is that every moment in time, as I grow older, I am taken from my past and introduced to my future, my (our) “Abba” Father, and if that means a sacrifice of understanding science, or OR, so be it.
Jesus was concerned about our past and we walk on it now rather than sink in it. Science will always be the untamed frontier when trying to express what science points to, the image of God in itself rather than in the man revealing it to man. Jesus in the hands of dynamics rather than dynamics in the hand of God.
I trust that with a new heaven and earth there is a new science which the former is a shadow of, and that science is understood and overshadowed by Love.
Todd #22 I agree, the engineering of today’s cars is better than my 1954 Ford Crown Victoria. The big difference, to me anyway is, it only took me about 40 minutes to travel 30 miles. Today I it took me twice as long for 33 miles. I would trade off that engeneering in a second.

Excuse me, the OR was ment to signify OS (original sin.)

Richard,
I am not always sure what you trying to get at but whatever it is you do it so poetically! Your posts always make me feel warm and fuzzy, even when I suspect I might strongly disagree with your point. Funny joke, BTW. I did get that.