The Acts of the Apostles (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries)

Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make them well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops.

My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring them back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the way of error will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say,
       "The LORD will surely exclude me from his people."
       And let not any eunuch complain,
       "I am only a dry tree.
For this is what the LORD says:

       "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
       who choose what pleases me
       and hold fast to my covenant- to them I will give within my temple and its walls
       a memorial and a name
       better than sons and daughters;
       I will give them an everlasting name
       that will not be cut off

There is a dustup these days about the origins of evangelicalism: is it to be traced to the Reformation or to the 18th Century? (Never mind that many just say it goes back to the New Testament itself!)  Andy Tooley, a friend of ours and this blog, is a student of David Bebbington, who is Britain's leading light on the history of evangelicalism, and currently works for the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals at Wheaton College. He wrote a niece piece on evangelicalism and emerging (link here). Bebbington anchors evangelicalism (as we now know it) in the 18th Century where some major influences reshaped Protestantism. Recently some scholars put Bebbington's theories to the test. Thanks to Andy for this post.
 
In a recent review of Michael Haykin and Ken Stewart's edited volume entitled The Advent of Evangelicalism, editor at large Collin Hansen at Christianity Today rightly observes that some sixteen authors discuss several problems with David Bebbington's descriptive framework in the book.  What Hansen does not point out, however, is that nearly all of the contributors end their examinations by confirming the relative soundness of the quadrilateral and, most importantly, affirming Bebbington's thesis that evangelicalism was a new movement that emerged in the eighteenth-century.  [The now well-known Bebbington quadrilateral is that evangelicalism is characterized by Bible, cross, conversion, and active Christian living.]
 
Interestingly, and revealingly, Hansen also chooses to grant authority to a contributor who is not widely recognized to be an expert on the topic on which he has chosen to write. He then incorrectly suggests that this contributor makes the strongest argument as to why evangelicalism is not an eighteenth-century innovation.   Hansen emphasizes this, I believe, because both he and this contributor are interested in shoring up Reformed theology and a particular type of Reformed Evangelicalism, a trait they share with the editors of the book.

In the penultimate paragraph of Hansen's review he lists a series of "ifs" with which I disagree. Why is Evangelicalism less credible if it is not completely rooted in the Reformation?  Why also is it less credible if it happens to be more deeply rooted in the various Enlightenment movements of the 18th century than one would like or have thought?  Perhaps my failure to agree with Hansen on these "what if" scenarios stems from my belief that the mixing of culture, in this case the English and Scottish enlightenments, with Christian belief and practice is not only inevitable, but it possesses the potential to bring vitality to Christianity.

And I believe this mixture that characterized the emergence of Evangelicalism during the Great Awakenings of the 18^th century did indeed bring a new vitality to Protestant Christianity as it became much more focused on activism through a devotion to missions.

There is, of course, much more to be said, but Hansen's review presents its readers with an incorrect picture of Evangelicalism and the dangers facing it if it is indeed an 18th Century innovation.

Obama's assurance to the pope that he would read the Vatican document on bioethics ... on the plane to Africa. "Dignitas Personae" (dignity of a person) condemns abortion, artificial fertilization and embryonic stem-cell research.

"He sure seems to signal to the Vatican that they are going to attend and listen" on these issues, said Schneck.

It was a far different picture of Obama's relationship with Catholics than before his speech/honorary degree at the University of Notre Dame commencement, when more than 60 bishops wrote letters objecting to the event and Catholic protesters turned the area around Notre Dame into a circus.

"What a long way we have come in two months," said Schneck. He predicts we'll see a "pragmatic, businesslike and cordial" relationship between the Vatican and Obama--unlike relations between Obama and some American Catholics.

• Much is made in missional circles about incarnating Christ, about being Christ, imitating him, right where we are.  Amen to that!  It is difficult to talk honestly, though, absent some thick protective theological/western glasses on, about incarnating the Jesus of the NT, about being sent by Jesus as Jesus was sent by the Father, without talking--a lot--about healing the sick, casting out demons and having prophetic insights as we announce his reign--wherever we are.  As Wimber's doin-the-stuff story makes painfully clear, only someone with theological training and/or church experience would read the NT and think Jesus' disciples don't do that kind of stuff as they embody and announce him to others.

• Do we in the missional movement really want to try to embody Christ to the broken people of the world, say we're his apprentices, and announce that he is Lord above all powers without the kind of actions that pretty much defined Jesus' own ministry and signaled the power and character of his reign?

• As much as the Vineyard become famous/infamous for some amazing 'stuff' that God would do through seemingly anyone in their meetings, the meetings weren't Wimber's focus.  He was disappointed that the Vineyard Movement, in his words, 'never became the evangelistic movement that [he] hoped' for.  Ironically, those in the missional movement now are motivated by the same desire Wimber had to bring Jesus to 'the streets', to everyday life and relationships, not just 'the meetings.'

• Many folks have rightly pointed out the similarities the missional movement has with Anabaptists.  Well, if it makes anyone feel any better, Anabaptists were doin' this stuff in spades at their inception, but eventually stopped, which is a surprisingly common tale for western denominations as the Enlightenment and natural human tendencies took hold.

• Another valuable and obvious strand within the 'missional' movement is the conviction that the Church in the West needs to take the stance or mentality of missionaries within a post-Christian/pagan/secular culture.  Again, amen to that.  If we analyze, though, not only Jesus' own actions as he pursued God's mission, but also the initial missionaries that he sent out, we are again confronted with the role that healing, demonic expulsion and the prophetic gifts have in that work.  Indeed, even in today's world, such activity is more common in missionary work than in established churches.
  

• Another mark of the missional movement is the shift in thinking about the gospel toward the proclamation of Jesus' reign or lordship, over all other powers, about the dawning of the new age amidst the old through the cross and resurrection.  Dave Fitch has argued with many others that in response to this gospel that missional orders must take on practices of resistance (to the judged but operating powers) and practices of engagement that reveal and embody the purposes of the reign of God.  Again, can we faithfully talk about either--as Jesus' disciples--without talking about healing and demonic expulsion?

• One of the 'powers' that the missional movement has rightfully identified for resistance is the Gnosticism that continues to try to drive a wedge between the Church's work and ministry and the good of the physical world.  Another amen! (and I really mean it!) Nowhere is the western Church more Gnostic, though, than its discomfort with the practice of divine healing of the body.  In common western theology, the human body gets thrown in the same disdainful category as the rest of creation--good for nothing but the fire that's a 'comin.  Is that what we believe God's posture is to the physical body and the rest of the physical creation?  No. God wants to heal both.

• Many folks in the missional camp are extremely offended by the 'big-show/big-star-religion' that seems to plague the only (modern) 'healing ministries' they've ever seen.  Ditto.  But as Todd Hunter has said, the answer to wrong-use isn't no-use, it's right-use.  Missional churches have recognized, as have many in the Christian tradition, that power of any kind can be corruptive to one's soul.  Unfortunately, being used as a vehicle of God's power to heal or expel demons, for instance, is no different.  Missional churches, while just as human as any, because of their awareness of and intentional practices against being corrupted by various kinds of power that we must use in our lives and mission, are in a position to minimize corruption as they still actively seek God's power to help others, rather than take a practical 'vow' against it in false piety.

For those who don't follow such news with bated breath - President Obama has nominated Francis Collins to head up the NIH (National Institutes of Health).  This is, in my opinion, a great choice.  He is an accomplished scientist and administrator.  You can see the NY Times article here: Pick to Lead Health Agency Draws Praise and Some Concern. (Photo to right from BioLogos Site.)

I've been following some of the discussion over the last several months as the prospect of Collins's selection has been a matter of gossip and speculation.  I have no NIH funding, the research we do is not sufficiently closely tied to human health concerns, although I have had NIH funding in the past.  So my interest is indirect - anything good for science is good for all science on some level.

I think that the concerns expressed in the article over the hype of the Human Genome Project and its lack of success (on which the jury will be out for a long while yet) is a red herring. Hype is common in science and all of his critics know it and practice it themselves.

But of course Collins is drawing attention for other reasons as well - most significantly his book The Language of God and his outspoken Christian stand.

I find it interesting that there are a few different concerns common around the web.    

Some - a relatively small number  - hold that religion is fundamentally inconsistent with good thinking and thus anyone who holds to a religious belief is suspect for fuzzy brain.

Some fear that religious belief --> theocracy ---> undermines freedom, democracy, good science.

Some fear that appointing him, no matter how good he is, will lend credence to faith as a valid option!

Some fear that appointing him will mislead our youth into thinking that evolution is consistent with faith (from the evangelical side).

I will avoid quoting from blogs and comments on articles here - but I expect the conversation will become rather heated in some arenas.

What gets me is the suggestion by some that his "Biologos foundation" because it seeks to promote a synthesis of science and faith is a conflict of interest - an "unwanted incursion of religion into the public sphere."  I also think it interesting that Collins has been an Obama supporter for quite awhile, yet appointing him raises fears of a return of "the theocracy of George W. Bush" and a cave-in to the religious right.

What do you think?

Above all, my brothers, do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.

Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Over the last year or so I've written a number of posts that have reflected on various aspects of the intersection of science and faith.  These are issues and questions that I've thought about and wrestled with most of my adult life. How should we interpret Genesis or Romans? What does it mean to claim that scripture is inspired? How much of Genesis is historical? Does it matter that Paul thought that Adam and Eve were unique individuals, if he did? How can we reconcile evolution with creation by God? Should we try? Is there room for chance in the universe? How can we reconcile the evidence for common descent with Adam and Eve and Original Sin?  I could go on - but you get the idea.

These kinds of questions have been faced by many Christians over the last hundred years or so - often times contributing to a loss of faith, other times to a withdrawal, or to the development of an ironic faith. See Scot's book Finding Faith, Losing Faith: Stories of Conversion and Apostasy or his CT article on ironic faith for more on these paths.  These are deep questions, how we deal with them has serious ramifications - and the questions are not going to go away.

I have a simple question I would like to pose today:

What is the correct pastoral approach to the issues that arise at the intersection of science and faith?

As we've been thinking through these ideas at the intersection of science and faith I have been persistent that the evidence for an old earth and an older universe is overwhelming - there is no room for doubt here. More significantly I have tried to explain why I find the evidence for evolution and common descent persuasive, and why the idea of a literal Adam and Eve seems difficult to reconcile with the data.

In putting forth my ideas and thoughts I have been more blunt and more honest than is my usual habit.  I have found it useful, as I have learned quite a bit through writing these posts and through the conversation that results.  Some of the posts and comments reflect "thinking in public" more than firm preconviction.

But this blog is a public forum. Anyone can read and anyone can contribute to the conversation (well - as long as they remain civil and on topic). This conversation can help those who have questions and doubts, especially those who cannot find a space for safe conversation off-line.  On the other hand it can challenge the faith of some who might never have needed to confront these issues and question. There is potential for doing good - and there is potential for doing harm.

I am interested in what you think - especially those who are pastors, youth workers, involved in University ministries and such.

What is the best pastoral approach to these questions? Should we be more concerned with potential harm or potential good?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.

The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.