[I have posted an excerpt from my Th.D dissertation - in progress]
Transcendent Otherness and Authority
One of the consequences of the Renaissance was the displacement of tradition and authority. However, it soon became apparent that the displacement of authority was problematic for ethics and morality, and something had to be done to answer the question. The answer was a turn to the “Book of Nature.” Man needed something that was acceptable to modern views. An alternative that did not offend the new self had to be presented. The “Book of Nature” was man’s way of seeing the design of the Creator in reality and hence a reflection of moral perfection that was desperately needed for self-control. This turn was of course, not the right course of action, but the need for authority was self-evident. Roger Lundin writes,
“The “Book of Nature” was meant to resolve the “problem of many authorities” by providing incontrovertible evidence of the designs of God.”
However, with the romantic epistemology of the self, in which the world was nothing more than a mirror or a projection of the self, the power of the “Book of Nature” lost its authority. Without authority, the goal of hermeneutics dissolves. Lundin comments further,
“With nature drained of moral significance and the locus of meaning shifted so dramatically to the self, the “problem of many authorities became in the romantic tradition the “problem of endless authorities.” In a radically Protestant world, “every being” became not only its own “father, creator, and destroying angel,” but also its own pope and authoritative interpreter.”
The otherness and authority of the text is essential for meaningful hermeneutics. Without these, hermeneutics becomes a subjective exercise with as many authorities as there are interpreters. In other words, norms evaporate into radical subjectivism and extreme individualism. With this, we witness the death of God and metaphysics. The self becomes the measure of all things and for each self there is a different measure. Meaning dies an agonizing death and communication is like a ship at sea without a compass or a map. It does not navigate to where it ought to go; rather it ought to go wherever it navigates. If the goal of hermeneutics is transformation, then change remains a presupposition for engaging in the discipline. Otherwise, what is the point? Some travelers on this journey would contend that hermeneutics is merely about understanding. However, that merely begs the question of why understanding is so important in the first place. We seek to understand, not merely for the sake of understanding, but so that we may be moved, affected, or changed on the other side of that understanding. In other words, we seek the difference in life that understanding promises. The degree of transformation that understanding engenders, depends on the nature of the communication we are engaging and interpreting. Nevertheless, without the transcendent other, change becomes an exercise of pure subjectivism. Not only is there no compelling reason for change to begin with, there is no way to know if change is really for the better. One person’s projection of heaven is another person’s projection of hell. Who is say? Whose projection is best? In addition, who is to say if we are actually in heaven or hell, or some place else as far as it goes? Without otherness and authority, there is really no way to tell.
[Taken from: The Evolution of Jesus: Hermeneutical Foundations of the Emergent Church - A Case Study for Presuppositional Hermeneutics]
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Evangelical Feminism and Christianity
Feminism and Christianity, some would argue go hand in hand. On the other hand, others would contend that the two are like trying to mix oil and water. Proponents would suggest that the feminist movement is about freedom from oppression and so too is Christianity. Opponents of the feminist movement would argue that feminism is a radical manifestation of female autonomy and as such is just one more act of idolatry. Both camps have very distinct methods by which they arrive at an understanding of what Scripture teaches on the subject. In fact, both employ, to one degree or another, the use of Scripture as support for the truthfulness of their view.
This article will treat the issues related to the distinctions of feminist hermeneutics and how this movement approaches the text of Scripture. Moreover, because of significant cultural intrusions into the Christian community, it is necessary to explore ways that we inadvertently and unwittingly embrace feminist theologies.
Feminist philosophy attempts to correct the problem of patriarchy and male oppression. Patriarchy is a form of social organization that places the father or the eldest male at the head of the family structure. It should be understood that most feminists consider patriarchy not just potentially oppressive to women, but ipso facto oppressive to women. Moreover, it should also be understood that a feminist is not necessarily a woman. It is anyone who adheres to the tenets of the feminist philosophy. In addition, feminists do not see themselves as wholesale rejecting the teachings of Scripture. They understand Scripture to teach a distinctly feminist theology. They are feminists because they understand that feminist philosophy best reflects the character of God. The only time Scripture departs from a feminist perspective is when the cultural biases of the men who pinned the words in that particular text emerge. Feminists like to have their cake and eat it too. Ann Loades comments
Feminism has certainly infected every area of philosophy, theology, society and politics in Western culture. Politically, women are encouraged by the likes of Simone de Beauvoir to try and improve their social and political position. Kate Millet argues that patriarchy is evident in every aspect of society. As such, women are not treated justly. Notice that patriarchy does not lead to unjust treatment of women, but rather it is unjust treatment of women. One feminist argues that “God’s original intention for women and men is that in work and in marriage they share tasks and share authority.” Gilbert Bileziken claims “that it would be natural to expect some indication of male authority in Genesis 1 if any existed, since Genesis 1 is a text that is permeated with the concept of hierarchical organization.” This is the classic case of looking for something implanted in the text merely on the grounds that the text itself seems to be attacking a favorite view. Since the text contradicts my understanding, it cannot be teaching what it appears to be teaching and therefore there must be an explanation that avoids contradiction and offense.
Even in the area of ethics feminism adopts a different emphasis. Carol Gilligan, in her book, “In a Different Voice,” writes, “When understood from a feminine perspective, ethics are grounded in the maintenance of interpersonal relationships. The feminist view of ethics emphasizes personal moral responsibility.”
In addition to this, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza asserts that “women have special insight into truth and knowledge. Consequently, only women can interpret the Bible properly.” To those of us in a conservative church, having been immersed in a conservative tradition, these comments seem very eccentric. However, these views are migrating, more and more, into the mainstream of conservative evangelicalism. As genuine participants in the Christian community, we are obligated to recognize these shifts within our own ranks and as such, respond to counter all ungodly views and practices that threaten the believing community. Every predication that threatens truth is a threat to the faith community. Hence, not only does such a response require an understanding of the issues at hand, but it also requires a great deal of courage. We all just want to get along. However, in the Christian community, getting along requires the practice of purging the community of error and evil that often tends to move stealthily into its ranks. Thus that work is hard; it is dirty; and most often, it is unpleasant. We have been conditioned to avoid anything that is hard and unpleasant. So how do we proceed to purge ourselves of these ungodly cultural tendencies? First we must understand our roles and what they imply. Second, we must understand our value to our heavenly Father and each other. Next, we must know where to look for these attitudes in ourselves. Finally, we must be able to spot these attitudes in our neighbors and act accordingly. The rest of this article will deal with these four areas.
What do I mean by understanding our roles and the implication of those roles? In the beginning, God created man, male and female. He later reflected on that creation and said that it was very good. I cannot image a holy, perfect, loving Father, like God, being so satisfied with something, that He called it very good. When God created man and woman in the garden, he did so for his own glory. We came into existence by God, for God. We are here because he wanted us here. God is never does anything in a capricious or arbitrary style. He had a very specific purpose in mind for man and woman when he created them. We are to understand that purpose and respond to it positively. Man is created to serve and glorify God by being his authoritative leader. Woman is created to serve and glorify God through willful, gracious submission to the authority and leadership of the man. Paul instructed Timothy that he did not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over man, but to remain quiet because Adam was created first, and then Eve (I Tim. 2:12-13). By referencing our first parents, Paul is pointing to an axiomatic universal structure. Man leads and is in the position of authority and the woman is to submit to that leadership.
What is our value to the Father and to one another? Being redeemed by the blood of Christ places great value on our worth in the eyes of our heavenly Father. However, it is only through Christ that this value comes. Outside of him, we are useless God-hating sinners worthy of death. Hebrews 12:5 says God only disciplines those He loves. God cares for our true well-being, as biblically defined. Since we are valued by God, we should also value one another. A husband values his wife by serving her, protecting her, keeping her home functioning, providing for her, making her feel secure in life’s basic needs. Neglect in these areas sends a woman the signal that you do not value her. A woman values her husband by honoring him, respecting him, and submitting to his leadership. If she challenges everything he does, she sends him the signal that she does not value him.
Where do feminist attitudes most appear? The feminist attitude in conservative churches appears in women that reject the biblical teaching on the roles of men and women ipso facto. A woman may freely criticize her pastor and reject his leadership. One should not understand this as simply differing with the pastor on something he preached from the pulpit. That happens from time and time and that alone is not refusal to submit to male leadership. However, going to the pastor and calling him on the carpet is another matter entirely. That is not her place. That is unequivocally contradictory to Paul’s command in I Tim. 2:12-13 and 1 Cor. 14:35. Women who reject this view of Scripture use all kinds of excuses for why they do so. Some women can be heard grumbling that those men, ‘the elders,’ are not God. They are just a bunch of fallen sinners the same as the rest of us. This is also asserted about the pastor and the husband. Some women think they only have to submit to their husband if he is meeting their personal standards of excellence. In other words, a husband has to earn their submission. While it is unquestionably true that a husband has clear mandates from God about loving and serving his wife, Scripture never places conditions on female submission to the male. These are just a few examples of how feminist philosophy appears in the Christian community. By trusting her husband, her pastor, and her elders to carry out their God-ordained roles, a woman honors God and submits to Him. By rejecting male leadership, a woman also rejects God. You cannot reject God’s word without rejecting God (Jn. 8:47)!
How do we when we see feminist philosophy in the faith community? We address it directly and without hesitation. It is a scandalous sin for a woman to put off the leadership of man. This is God’s ordained structure from the very foundation of creation. He created man and woman with specific roles that are equally designed to honor, serve, worship and glorify him. When feminist theology and philosophy infects our thinking to the point that we begin rejecting the sanctified order of God, it is time for repentance in humility and fear. We are to submit to each other and hold one another accountable to live godly lifestyles. When we see others within the Christian community wavering on the feminist issues, we have no choice but to speak with them in love, pulling them out of the flames of error.
This article will treat the issues related to the distinctions of feminist hermeneutics and how this movement approaches the text of Scripture. Moreover, because of significant cultural intrusions into the Christian community, it is necessary to explore ways that we inadvertently and unwittingly embrace feminist theologies.
Feminist philosophy attempts to correct the problem of patriarchy and male oppression. Patriarchy is a form of social organization that places the father or the eldest male at the head of the family structure. It should be understood that most feminists consider patriarchy not just potentially oppressive to women, but ipso facto oppressive to women. Moreover, it should also be understood that a feminist is not necessarily a woman. It is anyone who adheres to the tenets of the feminist philosophy. In addition, feminists do not see themselves as wholesale rejecting the teachings of Scripture. They understand Scripture to teach a distinctly feminist theology. They are feminists because they understand that feminist philosophy best reflects the character of God. The only time Scripture departs from a feminist perspective is when the cultural biases of the men who pinned the words in that particular text emerge. Feminists like to have their cake and eat it too. Ann Loades comments
“Feminist interpretation is here understood as presupposing that the Bible is still read and heard and preached as an authoritative text in communities of belief and worship.”It should be noted here that ‘authoritative’ does not necessarily mean authoritative in the sense of the traditional orthodox understanding of authoritative. Here is means that by using reason, imagination, historical insight, reflection on human experience and whatever other resources we can muster, the Bible somehow mediates to us a God who enables human beings to be most fully themselves. And therein lays the key to a feminist understanding of Scripture. God desires that women are enabled to be most fully themselves. It is difficult, in my opinion, to understand how a definition could be more porous than this one.
Feminism has certainly infected every area of philosophy, theology, society and politics in Western culture. Politically, women are encouraged by the likes of Simone de Beauvoir to try and improve their social and political position. Kate Millet argues that patriarchy is evident in every aspect of society. As such, women are not treated justly. Notice that patriarchy does not lead to unjust treatment of women, but rather it is unjust treatment of women. One feminist argues that “God’s original intention for women and men is that in work and in marriage they share tasks and share authority.” Gilbert Bileziken claims “that it would be natural to expect some indication of male authority in Genesis 1 if any existed, since Genesis 1 is a text that is permeated with the concept of hierarchical organization.” This is the classic case of looking for something implanted in the text merely on the grounds that the text itself seems to be attacking a favorite view. Since the text contradicts my understanding, it cannot be teaching what it appears to be teaching and therefore there must be an explanation that avoids contradiction and offense.
Even in the area of ethics feminism adopts a different emphasis. Carol Gilligan, in her book, “In a Different Voice,” writes, “When understood from a feminine perspective, ethics are grounded in the maintenance of interpersonal relationships. The feminist view of ethics emphasizes personal moral responsibility.”
In addition to this, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza asserts that “women have special insight into truth and knowledge. Consequently, only women can interpret the Bible properly.” To those of us in a conservative church, having been immersed in a conservative tradition, these comments seem very eccentric. However, these views are migrating, more and more, into the mainstream of conservative evangelicalism. As genuine participants in the Christian community, we are obligated to recognize these shifts within our own ranks and as such, respond to counter all ungodly views and practices that threaten the believing community. Every predication that threatens truth is a threat to the faith community. Hence, not only does such a response require an understanding of the issues at hand, but it also requires a great deal of courage. We all just want to get along. However, in the Christian community, getting along requires the practice of purging the community of error and evil that often tends to move stealthily into its ranks. Thus that work is hard; it is dirty; and most often, it is unpleasant. We have been conditioned to avoid anything that is hard and unpleasant. So how do we proceed to purge ourselves of these ungodly cultural tendencies? First we must understand our roles and what they imply. Second, we must understand our value to our heavenly Father and each other. Next, we must know where to look for these attitudes in ourselves. Finally, we must be able to spot these attitudes in our neighbors and act accordingly. The rest of this article will deal with these four areas.
What do I mean by understanding our roles and the implication of those roles? In the beginning, God created man, male and female. He later reflected on that creation and said that it was very good. I cannot image a holy, perfect, loving Father, like God, being so satisfied with something, that He called it very good. When God created man and woman in the garden, he did so for his own glory. We came into existence by God, for God. We are here because he wanted us here. God is never does anything in a capricious or arbitrary style. He had a very specific purpose in mind for man and woman when he created them. We are to understand that purpose and respond to it positively. Man is created to serve and glorify God by being his authoritative leader. Woman is created to serve and glorify God through willful, gracious submission to the authority and leadership of the man. Paul instructed Timothy that he did not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over man, but to remain quiet because Adam was created first, and then Eve (I Tim. 2:12-13). By referencing our first parents, Paul is pointing to an axiomatic universal structure. Man leads and is in the position of authority and the woman is to submit to that leadership.
What is our value to the Father and to one another? Being redeemed by the blood of Christ places great value on our worth in the eyes of our heavenly Father. However, it is only through Christ that this value comes. Outside of him, we are useless God-hating sinners worthy of death. Hebrews 12:5 says God only disciplines those He loves. God cares for our true well-being, as biblically defined. Since we are valued by God, we should also value one another. A husband values his wife by serving her, protecting her, keeping her home functioning, providing for her, making her feel secure in life’s basic needs. Neglect in these areas sends a woman the signal that you do not value her. A woman values her husband by honoring him, respecting him, and submitting to his leadership. If she challenges everything he does, she sends him the signal that she does not value him.
Where do feminist attitudes most appear? The feminist attitude in conservative churches appears in women that reject the biblical teaching on the roles of men and women ipso facto. A woman may freely criticize her pastor and reject his leadership. One should not understand this as simply differing with the pastor on something he preached from the pulpit. That happens from time and time and that alone is not refusal to submit to male leadership. However, going to the pastor and calling him on the carpet is another matter entirely. That is not her place. That is unequivocally contradictory to Paul’s command in I Tim. 2:12-13 and 1 Cor. 14:35. Women who reject this view of Scripture use all kinds of excuses for why they do so. Some women can be heard grumbling that those men, ‘the elders,’ are not God. They are just a bunch of fallen sinners the same as the rest of us. This is also asserted about the pastor and the husband. Some women think they only have to submit to their husband if he is meeting their personal standards of excellence. In other words, a husband has to earn their submission. While it is unquestionably true that a husband has clear mandates from God about loving and serving his wife, Scripture never places conditions on female submission to the male. These are just a few examples of how feminist philosophy appears in the Christian community. By trusting her husband, her pastor, and her elders to carry out their God-ordained roles, a woman honors God and submits to Him. By rejecting male leadership, a woman also rejects God. You cannot reject God’s word without rejecting God (Jn. 8:47)!
How do we when we see feminist philosophy in the faith community? We address it directly and without hesitation. It is a scandalous sin for a woman to put off the leadership of man. This is God’s ordained structure from the very foundation of creation. He created man and woman with specific roles that are equally designed to honor, serve, worship and glorify him. When feminist theology and philosophy infects our thinking to the point that we begin rejecting the sanctified order of God, it is time for repentance in humility and fear. We are to submit to each other and hold one another accountable to live godly lifestyles. When we see others within the Christian community wavering on the feminist issues, we have no choice but to speak with them in love, pulling them out of the flames of error.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Good News
Paul Tripp writes,
You cannot escape sin because it dwells within you. All the things you learn get twisted by its power. You can't outsmart it or buy your way out of it. You can't move to escape it. This is why the coming of the King is the best of news. Change is possible! You can stand amid the harshest realities of sin and have hope that will never disappoint you (Rom. 5:1-5). That marriage can change. That teenager can change. That church can change. That friendship can change. That bitterness can be put to death. That compulsion can be broken. That fear can be defeated. That stony heart can be made soft, and sweet words can come from a once-acid tongue. Loving service can come from a person who once was totally self-absorbed. people can have power without being corrupt. Homes can be places of safety, love, and healing. Change is possible because the King has come! [Tripp - Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands, pg. 6]Notice that no where does Dr. Tripp assert that we can actually bring these profound changes about as a result of our own will power or intellectual capacity. The good news is that the King has come! He has arrived and because of this, we can have genuine hope. Jesus proclaims this glorious facts throughout the gospels, but Luke 4:18-19 records one of the most profound announcements in all of Scripture:
“THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, 19 TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.”Now that we have this good news, the question is, 'what will we do with it?' Will we appropriate it into our lives? Will it become that which drives our thinking, our speaking, and our behavior? Will we believe it? And finally, will we share it with others? Will we share it with others by living it out in front of them AND by speaking this truth in love? Change has arrive because the King has come!
Sunday, April 4, 2010
The Lost Message of Jesus - Steve Chalke
As I read more and more of Chalke's book, it seems clearer that he has an agenda that is clearly based on philosophical presuppostions from the start. At the core of Chalke's point seems to be the idea that Jesus came with a radical message that offended the established religious power of His day. It seems as if Chalke desires to compare Jesus' relationship to the religious powers of His time with the EC and the established church of our day. He seems to want to operate on the premise that it is good to radically depart from the established church simply for the sake of departing. One senses the method of Descartes and his orphan in Chalke's idea. Mind you that Chalke so far hasn't made a single attempt to make his case with Scripture. He simply points to Jesus' handling of situations, in particular His offenses of the established religious leaders and leaves one to believe that he thinks he has made his case. What Chakle fails to do is establish a valid connection between what the EC is attempting to do and what Jesus actually did. Moreover, Chalke fails to demonstrate just exactly how conservative evangelicalism is the modern parallel of the ancient legalism propogated by the Pharisees of Jesus' day. He simply wishes for us to take him at his word. For all we know, the EC could be the Gnostics of John's day and the established church could be the parallel of the apostolic church of John's day. After all, what is good for Chalke's subjective approach is equally good for my own subjective approach, is it not?
Commenting about Jonathan Edwards' sermons, Chalke says,
It seems quite clear that Chalke desires to substitute the image of God found in Scripture and preserved in the Christian tradition for thousands of years now for one that he and his partners find acceptable. And what "kind of god" is it that Chalke desires? Chalke discusses why Moses had to be hid in the cleft of the rock while God passed by. Typically it has been accepted that the reason was because no human could ever see God and live because of the aweome holiness and power of all that God is. But Chalke has a different take on this notion. He says,
Commenting about Jonathan Edwards' sermons, Chalke says,
Commenting on Edwards' sermon, the academic Ola Winslow reflects, Two centuries and more later, this is still a grim sermon on the printed page and delivered to a packed auditory under the strain of 1741, it would have been almost unbearable.Preaching like Edwards' has been all too resentative of the portrayal of the gospel by the Church over the last few hundred years, and, by implication, of any popular understanding of the message of Jesus. [Chalke - The Lost Message of Jesus, pg. 56]Chalke then proceeds to assert that love is "the very quality by which the New Testament defines him" [God]. No one who has ever read the Bible honestly and read Jonathan Edwards' sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in light of the Scriptures, would ever condemn the sermon as a false portrayal of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Contrary to being unloving, it is one of the most profoundly loving sermons ever delivered to the church in modern times.
It seems quite clear that Chalke desires to substitute the image of God found in Scripture and preserved in the Christian tradition for thousands of years now for one that he and his partners find acceptable. And what "kind of god" is it that Chalke desires? Chalke discusses why Moses had to be hid in the cleft of the rock while God passed by. Typically it has been accepted that the reason was because no human could ever see God and live because of the aweome holiness and power of all that God is. But Chalke has a different take on this notion. He says,
"In Exodus 33, God is not hiding from Moses, but he is hiding the immeasurable suffering caused by that love. No-one could bear to see a face wrung with such infinite pain and live."The idea is that God is so hurt and injured by man's rejection and man's own self-inflicted pain that God did not want Moses to see the pain in his own face because Moses would not be able to handle it. And so God hid Moses in order to spare Moses the awful experience of seeing all this pain in the face of God. Chalke wants a god who is more human than he is god. He wants a god who is more concerned with social causes and the liberation of the socially oppressed than He is with the truth or with the salvation of sinners from an eternal hell. This theme continues to emerge as I make my way through the book. While I was hoping for a cogent, scholarly treatment of why the church has completely missed the point of Jesus' message, all I am seeing at this point is another preacher who rejects the biblical image of a sovereign, holy, God who judges sin and saves undeserving sinners for one who is the great social divine in the heavenlies who desires that we establish a socialist state here on earth, stamping out poverty and taring down the establishment of the privileged and the wealthy. At the end of the day, this seems to be the same old cloak we call "autonomy" with the latest fashion design attached to it.
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Lost Message of Jesus - Steve Chalke
The Masai
Chalke tells a story of Vincent Donovan, a Christian missionary working with the Masai in Tanzania, East Africa. It seems that the Masai believed in a god and that this god favored their tribe above all others. Donovan told them there was a High God above all others and that the Masai should consider leaving their tribe in order to search for this High God. After some time, a Masai elder broke the silence. He asked a very pointed question: Has your tribe found the High God? Have you known him? What an opportunity for Donovan to share the gospel of Jesus Christ! But is that what he did? Did he launch into a sermon similar to the one Paul preached to the Greek philsoophers at Mars Hill? Here is Donovan's answer:
Chalke tells a story of Vincent Donovan, a Christian missionary working with the Masai in Tanzania, East Africa. It seems that the Masai believed in a god and that this god favored their tribe above all others. Donovan told them there was a High God above all others and that the Masai should consider leaving their tribe in order to search for this High God. After some time, a Masai elder broke the silence. He asked a very pointed question: Has your tribe found the High God? Have you known him? What an opportunity for Donovan to share the gospel of Jesus Christ! But is that what he did? Did he launch into a sermon similar to the one Paul preached to the Greek philsoophers at Mars Hill? Here is Donovan's answer:
"No, we have not found the High God. My tribe has not known him.For us, too, he is the unknown God. But we are searching for him...Let us search for him together. Maybe together we will find him." [Steve Chalke - The Lost Message of Jesus, pg. 23-24]Chakle praises this response and claims that Donovan was freeing these people from their tribal view of their god. But in freeing them of this view, what did he provide them in exchange? Nothing! He addmitedly had nothing to offer them. For he too had not found God. Is this the message that Christ sends us out to proclaim? We are to go into all the world and release people from their tribal view of God? In the end, isn't it just as true that Donovon would have free the Masai from their tribal view of God by providing them with the biblical one? Rather than his agnostic approach, the exclusive gospel of Christ would have also moved them from their tribal view of God just the same. But Chalke doesn't seem to take that into account.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Lost Message of Jesus - Steve Chalke
As many of you know, I am in the middle of concluding some academic work in the area of theology, and more narrowly, hermeneutics. Hence, I am writing my dissertation, entitled, "The Evolution of Jesus: Hermeneutical Foundations of the Emergent Church [EC]." To that end, I am engrossed in a variety of the materials from those who are associated with the EC movement. Steve Chalke just happens to be one of those EC associates. Mr. Chalke wrote a book in 2003, entitled "The Lost Message of Jesus." I will be making some epigrammatic and some not so epigrammatic comments concerning the contents of Mr. Chalke's work and the reasoning he employs to arrive at some of his conclusions. Without further ado, I wish to point out a fascinating contradiction at the very outset of "The Lost Message of Jesus." Due to my research load, my comments regarding the EC over the next several months will be more pithy than not, and certainly more pithy than usual. In his book, Chalke makes this assertion:
"It has been said that every great leader or teacher has one core message that permeates everything they do and say.....And it's equally true of Jesus." [Chalke - The Lost Message of Jesus, pgs. 15-16]Here Chalke asserts that Jesus' teaching can be summed up under one major theme just like that of other great teachers like Marx, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Freud. Yes, Chalke not only does he place Marx and Gandhi within the same class of great teachers, he places Jesus there as well. I wonder what Mr. Chalke means by use of the adjective, "great." Chalke continues with another incredible assertion:
"My aim in the chapters that follow is to demonstrate that the core of Jesus' life-transforming, though often deeply misunderstood, message is this: The Kingdom, the in-breaking shalom of God, is now available through me." [Chalke - The Lost Message of Jesus, pg. 16]Now let me add this one warning so that people don't run out and purchase this book: anytime an author uses the word "lost," or "hidden, secret message" in the title of their book, it should be seen as a "red flag" which means that what is inside is worth less than the cost of the paper required to pen the message in the first place. Notice that Chalke has now provided us with a summary or theme of what he thinks Jesus' message was and is. The many messages of Jesus can be summed up in this core theme, according to Chalke. But then Chalke adds one more assertion:
"To assume that we have got Jesus "pinned down" or "summed up" is not simply arrogant but stupid, and in the end inhibits our ability to communicate his unchanging message to an ever-changing world." [Chalke - The Lost Message of Jesus, pg. 19]This is not an apparent contradicition. Rather, it is a violent contradiction of the worse sort. In fact, I am not sure anyone could succcessfully pull off a more violent contradiction than this one. In one breath, Chalke asserts a summation of Jesus' core message and then in the next one, only three pages later, asserts that anyone who does what he has just done is not only arrogant, but stupid. There, pithy enough?
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Counterfeits of Saving Faith - A.W. Pink
In closing this first article we will endeavour to point out some of the particulars in which this non-saving faith is defective, and wherein it comes short of a faith which does save. First, with many it is because they are willing for Christ to save them from Hell, but are not willing for Him to save them from self. They want to be delivered from the wrath to come, but they wish to retain their self-will and self-pleasing. But He will not be dictated unto: you must be saved on His terms, or not at all. When Christ saves, He saves from sin—from its power and pollution, and therefore from its guilt. And the very essence of sin is the determination to have my own way (Isa. 53:6). Where Christ saves, He subdues the spirit of self-will, and implants a genuine, a powerful, a lasting desire and determination to please Him.
Again; many are never saved because they wish to divide Christ; they want to take Him as a Saviour, but are unwilling to subject themselves unto Him as their Lord. Or, if they are prepared to own Him as Lord, it is not as an absolute Lord. But this cannot be: Christ will be either Lord of all, or He will not be Lord at all. But the vast majority of professing Christians would have Christ’s sovereignty limited at certain points; it must not entrench too far upon the liberty which some worldly lust or carnal interest demands. His peace they covet, but His “yoke” is unwelcome. Of all such Christ will yet say “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).
Again; there are multitudes which are quite ready for Christ to justify them, but not to sanctify. Some kind of, some degree of sanctification, they will tolerate, but to be sanctified wholly, their “whole spirit and soul and body” (1 Thess. 5:23), they have no relish for. For their hearts to be sanctified, for pride and covetousness to be subdued, would he too much like the plucking out of a right eye. For the constant mortification of all their members, they have no taste. For Christ to come to them as a Refiner, to burn up their lusts, consume their dross, to utterly dissolve their old frame of nature, to melt their souls, so as to make them run in a new mould, they like not. To utterly deny self, and take up their cross daily, is a task from which they shrink with abhorrence.
Again; many are willing for Christ to officiate as their Priest, but not for Him to legislate as their King. Ask them, in a general way, if they are ready to do whatsoever Christ requires of them, and they will answer in the affirmative, emphatically and with confidence. But come to particulars: apply to each one of them those specific commandments and precepts of the Lord which they are ignoring, and they will at once cry out “Legalism!” or, “We cannot be perfect in everything.” Name nine duties and perhaps they are performing them, but mention a tenth and it at once makes them angry, for you have come too close home to their case. Herod heard John gladly and did “many things” (Mark 6:20), but when he referred to Herodias, he touched him to the quick. Many are willing to give up their theatre-going, and card-parties, who refuse to go forth unto Christ outside the camp. Others are willing to go outside the camp, yet refuse to deny their fleshly and worldly lusts. Reader, if there is a reserve in your obedience, you are on the way to Hell. Our next article will take up the Nature of saving faith.
Pink, A. W. (19--). The doctrines of election and justification. Swengel, Pa.: Reiner.
Again; many are never saved because they wish to divide Christ; they want to take Him as a Saviour, but are unwilling to subject themselves unto Him as their Lord. Or, if they are prepared to own Him as Lord, it is not as an absolute Lord. But this cannot be: Christ will be either Lord of all, or He will not be Lord at all. But the vast majority of professing Christians would have Christ’s sovereignty limited at certain points; it must not entrench too far upon the liberty which some worldly lust or carnal interest demands. His peace they covet, but His “yoke” is unwelcome. Of all such Christ will yet say “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).
Again; there are multitudes which are quite ready for Christ to justify them, but not to sanctify. Some kind of, some degree of sanctification, they will tolerate, but to be sanctified wholly, their “whole spirit and soul and body” (1 Thess. 5:23), they have no relish for. For their hearts to be sanctified, for pride and covetousness to be subdued, would he too much like the plucking out of a right eye. For the constant mortification of all their members, they have no taste. For Christ to come to them as a Refiner, to burn up their lusts, consume their dross, to utterly dissolve their old frame of nature, to melt their souls, so as to make them run in a new mould, they like not. To utterly deny self, and take up their cross daily, is a task from which they shrink with abhorrence.
Again; many are willing for Christ to officiate as their Priest, but not for Him to legislate as their King. Ask them, in a general way, if they are ready to do whatsoever Christ requires of them, and they will answer in the affirmative, emphatically and with confidence. But come to particulars: apply to each one of them those specific commandments and precepts of the Lord which they are ignoring, and they will at once cry out “Legalism!” or, “We cannot be perfect in everything.” Name nine duties and perhaps they are performing them, but mention a tenth and it at once makes them angry, for you have come too close home to their case. Herod heard John gladly and did “many things” (Mark 6:20), but when he referred to Herodias, he touched him to the quick. Many are willing to give up their theatre-going, and card-parties, who refuse to go forth unto Christ outside the camp. Others are willing to go outside the camp, yet refuse to deny their fleshly and worldly lusts. Reader, if there is a reserve in your obedience, you are on the way to Hell. Our next article will take up the Nature of saving faith.
Pink, A. W. (19--). The doctrines of election and justification. Swengel, Pa.: Reiner.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Use to be Made of the Doctrine of Providence
John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion
No man, therefore, will duly and usefully ponder on the providence of God save he who recollects that he has to do with his own Maker, and the Maker of the world, and in the exercise of the humility which becomes him, manifests both fear and reverence. Hence it is, that in the present day so many dogs tear this doctrine with envenomed teeth, or, at least, assail it with their bark, refusing to give more license to God than their own reason dictates to themselves. With what petulance, too, are we assailed for not being contented with the precepts of the Law, in which the will of God is comprehended, and for maintaining that the world is governed by his secret counsels? As if our doctrine were the figment of our own brain, and were not distinctly declared by the Spirit, and repeated in innumerable forms of expression! Since some feeling of shame restrains them from daring to belch forth their blasphemies against heaven, that they may give the freer vent to their rage, they pretend to pick a quarrel with us. But if they refuse to admit that every event which happens in the world is governed by the incomprehensible counsel of God, let them explain to what effect Scripture declares, that “his Judgments are a great deep,” (Ps. 36:7). For when Moses exclaims that the will of God “is not in heaven that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us? Neither is it beyond the sea that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea and bring it unto us?” (Deut. 30:12, 13), because it was familiarly expounded in the law, it follows that there must be another hidden will which is compared to “a great deep.” It is of this will Paul exclaims, “O! the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his Judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?” (Rom. 11:33, 34). It is true, indeed, that in the law and the gospel are comprehended mysteries which far transcend the measure of our sense; but since God, to enable his people to understand those mysteries which he has deigned to reveal in his word, enlightens their minds with a spirit of understanding, they are now no longer a deep, but a path in which they can walk safely—a lamp to guide their feet—a light of life—a school of clear and certain truth. But the admirable method of governing the world is justly called a deep, because, while it lies hid from us, it is to be reverently adored. Both views Moses has beautifully expressed in a few words. “Secret things,” saith he, “belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever,” (Deut. 29:29). We see how he enjoins us not only studiously to meditate on the law, but to look up with reverence to the secret Providence of God. The Book of Job also, in order to keep our minds humble, contains a description of this lofty theme. The author of the Book, after taking an ample survey of the universe, and discoursing magnificently on the works of God, at length adds, “Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him?” (Job 26:14). For which reason he, in another passage, distinguishes between the wisdom which dwells in God, and the measure of wisdom which he has assigned to man (Job 28:21, 28). After discoursing of the secrets of nature, he says that wisdom “is hid from the eyes of all living;” that “God understandeth the way thereof.” Shortly after he adds, that it has been divulged that it might be investigated; for “unto man he said, Behold the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom.” To this the words of Augustine refer, “As we do not know all the things which God does respecting us in the best order, we ought, with good intention, to act according to the Law, and in some things be acted upon according to the Law, his Providence being a Law immutable,” (August. Quest. lib. 83 c. 27). Therefore, since God claims to himself the right of governing the world, a right unknown to us, let it be our law of modesty and soberness to acquiesce in his supreme authority regarding his will as our only rule of justice, and the most perfect cause of all things,—not that absolute will, indeed, of which sophists prate, when by a profane and impious divorce, they separate his justice from his power, but that universal overruling Providence from which nothing flows that is not right, though the reasons thereof may be concealed.
No man, therefore, will duly and usefully ponder on the providence of God save he who recollects that he has to do with his own Maker, and the Maker of the world, and in the exercise of the humility which becomes him, manifests both fear and reverence. Hence it is, that in the present day so many dogs tear this doctrine with envenomed teeth, or, at least, assail it with their bark, refusing to give more license to God than their own reason dictates to themselves. With what petulance, too, are we assailed for not being contented with the precepts of the Law, in which the will of God is comprehended, and for maintaining that the world is governed by his secret counsels? As if our doctrine were the figment of our own brain, and were not distinctly declared by the Spirit, and repeated in innumerable forms of expression! Since some feeling of shame restrains them from daring to belch forth their blasphemies against heaven, that they may give the freer vent to their rage, they pretend to pick a quarrel with us. But if they refuse to admit that every event which happens in the world is governed by the incomprehensible counsel of God, let them explain to what effect Scripture declares, that “his Judgments are a great deep,” (Ps. 36:7). For when Moses exclaims that the will of God “is not in heaven that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us? Neither is it beyond the sea that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea and bring it unto us?” (Deut. 30:12, 13), because it was familiarly expounded in the law, it follows that there must be another hidden will which is compared to “a great deep.” It is of this will Paul exclaims, “O! the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his Judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?” (Rom. 11:33, 34). It is true, indeed, that in the law and the gospel are comprehended mysteries which far transcend the measure of our sense; but since God, to enable his people to understand those mysteries which he has deigned to reveal in his word, enlightens their minds with a spirit of understanding, they are now no longer a deep, but a path in which they can walk safely—a lamp to guide their feet—a light of life—a school of clear and certain truth. But the admirable method of governing the world is justly called a deep, because, while it lies hid from us, it is to be reverently adored. Both views Moses has beautifully expressed in a few words. “Secret things,” saith he, “belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever,” (Deut. 29:29). We see how he enjoins us not only studiously to meditate on the law, but to look up with reverence to the secret Providence of God. The Book of Job also, in order to keep our minds humble, contains a description of this lofty theme. The author of the Book, after taking an ample survey of the universe, and discoursing magnificently on the works of God, at length adds, “Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him?” (Job 26:14). For which reason he, in another passage, distinguishes between the wisdom which dwells in God, and the measure of wisdom which he has assigned to man (Job 28:21, 28). After discoursing of the secrets of nature, he says that wisdom “is hid from the eyes of all living;” that “God understandeth the way thereof.” Shortly after he adds, that it has been divulged that it might be investigated; for “unto man he said, Behold the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom.” To this the words of Augustine refer, “As we do not know all the things which God does respecting us in the best order, we ought, with good intention, to act according to the Law, and in some things be acted upon according to the Law, his Providence being a Law immutable,” (August. Quest. lib. 83 c. 27). Therefore, since God claims to himself the right of governing the world, a right unknown to us, let it be our law of modesty and soberness to acquiesce in his supreme authority regarding his will as our only rule of justice, and the most perfect cause of all things,—not that absolute will, indeed, of which sophists prate, when by a profane and impious divorce, they separate his justice from his power, but that universal overruling Providence from which nothing flows that is not right, though the reasons thereof may be concealed.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The Discipline of Critical Thinking: Phronesis
It is now time to take the five steps involved in Critical Thinking and put them into practice. Perhaps the best approach in demonstrating how the Discipline of Critical Thinking is to be worked out in day to day life is to use an example that most people can relate to.
A good example to conduct an exercise in critical thinking, in my opinion, is the recent election. Current President Barak Obama ran on the promise of two key words: Hope and Change. He stated during his campaign that he was going to fundamentally change the Armerican system, and that this change would serve to usher in a new hope. In the years leading up to this promise the American people had experienced a devastating terrorist attack which threatened our very way of life. And just as this experience was being put behind them, they experienced a financial crisis, the like of which had not been felt since the Great Depression. Within 7 seven years, Americans experienced a shattering of their confidence to the very foundation. They experieced fears that had previously been written off as impossibilities. The culture was ripe for anything that promised a return to the secutiry and confidence it had once taken for granted. Enter Barak Obama and an electrifying message that was all too easy for desperate hearts and uncritical minds to latch on to.
Proposition: If elected President, I will fundamentally change the American system!
The proper response of a critical thinker is to ask the question "what kind of fundamental change are we talking about? Do we really need fundamental change? Can you really deliver on your promise, assuming we do need this fundamental change? But too many Americans were so upset with the circumstances to pause, and apply these preliminary questions to the situation. Aristotle said that if we are to be succesful, we must first ask the right preliminary questions! How many Americans really stopped and ask these questions before they made their decision.
Secondly, what reliable and valid evidence did Mr. Obama provide in order to support his proposal of fundamental change? Did he propose economic models that have been tested elsewhere? And if so, how have those models held up in good times and how are they holding up now? Are those models insulated from the economic crises we find ourselves in? How is the healthcare system in those models?
Third, are there alternative ways of interpreting what Mr. Obama means by change? Are their alternative ways of interpreting the evidence that has been provided which he claims suggests that the old model of capitalism has failed? Can one really assert that a system that has been around for centuries has finally failed only a few months into a crises? Could it be that the capitialism is dead announcement is politically motivated more than the result of an actual assessment of the system itself? Wasn't it a bit early to make such a pronouncement? And couldn't one really say that such a profound and startling view was irresponsible given the timing of when it was made?
Fourth, what additional evidence is being offered, or is available for examination and evaluation? One can look very closely at the historical background of Mr. Obama in order to understand what his worldview is and from there deduce where this ideology is taking us. One could also examine the experiment of other countries to determine if similar models are working. Finally, one may examine the economics of the program to determine if it is affordable and perhaps what it would take to pull it off in terms of cost. The point here is not whether you agree or disagree with the President's philosophy. Rather, the point is that you are willing, able and ready to think more critically about what you are being asked to believe.
Fifth, based on all the questions that have been posed and the evidence that has been presented, laying aside all personal biases, what is the most likely outcome of your assessment of the proposal of change and hope that you have been asked to believe? Far too often people put on their blinders and hold true to one party or one man for all the wrong reasons. And for others, they have become so accustomed to just accepting their favorite party's offer that they don't even bother to determine if it is the best thing for the long term health and growth of our nation. In the end, the discipline of critical thinking is exchanged for mere convenience and the path of least resistance. There is an unjustified optimism around the supposed infallibility of our country and lifestyle that is built upon an arrogance, the like of which is unmatched by any generation preceding it. At least other generations had to prove themselves through hard work, sacrifice, suffering, wars, market collapses, etc. But this generation remains confident for no other reason than that it "is." The lack of critical thinking skills may not be the sole cause of the collapse of western culture, but it will certainly be one of those most fundamental characteristics that will do its part to contribute to the collapse.
It is now time to elucidate on what a distinctively Christian approach to critical thinking looks like. Since I am working in the field of hermeneutics it only makes sense for me to leverage that work by addressing one of the most interesting methods in hermeneutics in modern Christian culture: feminist hermeneutics. In order to understand what I mean by feminist hermeneutics, some qualification and amplification is useful. What is the central contention of feminist hermeneutics? That is to say, what are we being asked to believe by those who embrace a feminist interpretation of Scripture? Ann Loades writes,
The Feminist Assertion: The Bible was written in order to remove all obstacles that stand in the way of us becoming most fully ourselves. (With ourselves meaning who we are most comfortable being).
What are we being asked to believe? We are being asked to believe that the purpose for Scripture is to assist us in becoming the person we are most fully comfortable being. Is this really the purpose of Scripture? Does Scripture every really assert that this is in fact its purpose? Romans 12:1-2 commands us to be transformed by the renewing of our mind. But transformed into what? We are to be transformed into that image which is found in God's perceptive will for us, the church. Romans 8:29 we are to be conformed into the image of Christ! Again, Col. 3:10 emphatically says we are being renewed to a new image, the image of the one who has created us.
What evidence exists to support the feminist's assertion? Basically the evidence is weak and without objective foundations. The feminst assertion begins with where it desires to go and renovates the evidence in order to make it appear that the assertion is valid. For instance, what does it really mean to be most fully yourself? The answer is that it means different things for different people. In fact, it could mean whatever you want it to mean. This is precisely how the homosexual movement asserts that they too, belong in the community of faith. They are most fully themselves when men are allowed to carry out their sexual desires with other men and women with other women. They argue that this is not a behavior but rather the definition of who they actually are.
Are there alternative ways for interpreting the evidence? Beginning with the relocation of authority to the human person, there is in fact an alternative. The alternative is a theocentric approach to authority as opposed to an anthropocentric one. Authority can and should be located in God, not man. If authority is not located in God, and therefore transcendent, then it, by definition ceases to be authority. Moreover, authority simply becomes he who has the most power when the transcendent other is removed. Authority, by nature, must transcend all human existence in order for it to be truly authoritative. Otherwise it becomes mere social convention. A way for getting by in this life and not real authority. In this case it can be replaced by the philosophy of the next power grab that comes along.
What additional evidence would help evaluate the alternatives? Outside of scripture it would be helpful for one to examine the history of Christian orthodoxy to see where the evidence for the feminist hermeneutic leads. In so doing, one can quickly begin to determine how the church dealt with such views over the centuries. A survey of churchmen throughout the history of the church would also help one arrive at an understanding of Christian tradition on this issue. Such investigations serve to help one arrive at the validity of the feminist claim in light of Scripture as well as help us understand how it should be dealt with.
What conclusions are most reasonable based on the evidence and the number of alternative explanations? Based on scriptural teachings, a history of Christian doctrine, and a survey of Churchmen and Theologians of years gone by, it would seem that the feminist location of authority within the human person, and of what it means to be fully oneself is a derivative of a radical feminst philosophy invented by a human desire for autonomy as opposed to the plain teachings of Scripture.
The point of this blog is not to provide an exhaustive review of one's political philosophy, nor is it intended to be a thoroughgoing treatment of a feminist hermeneutic. The point is to sketch out how one should reason or think about these and other assertions from day to day as they seek to love the Lord God with all their mind. While this requires a great deal of effort, discipline, and self-sacrifice, the fruit of such an endeavor is well worth it. What fruit is that you might ask? The fruit of a humble obedience to Christ as one diligently attempts to honor their Lord and Master with their mind, and subsequently, their conduct. After all, thinking is a behavior just like any other behavior. Think about it!
A good example to conduct an exercise in critical thinking, in my opinion, is the recent election. Current President Barak Obama ran on the promise of two key words: Hope and Change. He stated during his campaign that he was going to fundamentally change the Armerican system, and that this change would serve to usher in a new hope. In the years leading up to this promise the American people had experienced a devastating terrorist attack which threatened our very way of life. And just as this experience was being put behind them, they experienced a financial crisis, the like of which had not been felt since the Great Depression. Within 7 seven years, Americans experienced a shattering of their confidence to the very foundation. They experieced fears that had previously been written off as impossibilities. The culture was ripe for anything that promised a return to the secutiry and confidence it had once taken for granted. Enter Barak Obama and an electrifying message that was all too easy for desperate hearts and uncritical minds to latch on to.
Proposition: If elected President, I will fundamentally change the American system!
The proper response of a critical thinker is to ask the question "what kind of fundamental change are we talking about? Do we really need fundamental change? Can you really deliver on your promise, assuming we do need this fundamental change? But too many Americans were so upset with the circumstances to pause, and apply these preliminary questions to the situation. Aristotle said that if we are to be succesful, we must first ask the right preliminary questions! How many Americans really stopped and ask these questions before they made their decision.
Secondly, what reliable and valid evidence did Mr. Obama provide in order to support his proposal of fundamental change? Did he propose economic models that have been tested elsewhere? And if so, how have those models held up in good times and how are they holding up now? Are those models insulated from the economic crises we find ourselves in? How is the healthcare system in those models?
Third, are there alternative ways of interpreting what Mr. Obama means by change? Are their alternative ways of interpreting the evidence that has been provided which he claims suggests that the old model of capitalism has failed? Can one really assert that a system that has been around for centuries has finally failed only a few months into a crises? Could it be that the capitialism is dead announcement is politically motivated more than the result of an actual assessment of the system itself? Wasn't it a bit early to make such a pronouncement? And couldn't one really say that such a profound and startling view was irresponsible given the timing of when it was made?
Fourth, what additional evidence is being offered, or is available for examination and evaluation? One can look very closely at the historical background of Mr. Obama in order to understand what his worldview is and from there deduce where this ideology is taking us. One could also examine the experiment of other countries to determine if similar models are working. Finally, one may examine the economics of the program to determine if it is affordable and perhaps what it would take to pull it off in terms of cost. The point here is not whether you agree or disagree with the President's philosophy. Rather, the point is that you are willing, able and ready to think more critically about what you are being asked to believe.
Fifth, based on all the questions that have been posed and the evidence that has been presented, laying aside all personal biases, what is the most likely outcome of your assessment of the proposal of change and hope that you have been asked to believe? Far too often people put on their blinders and hold true to one party or one man for all the wrong reasons. And for others, they have become so accustomed to just accepting their favorite party's offer that they don't even bother to determine if it is the best thing for the long term health and growth of our nation. In the end, the discipline of critical thinking is exchanged for mere convenience and the path of least resistance. There is an unjustified optimism around the supposed infallibility of our country and lifestyle that is built upon an arrogance, the like of which is unmatched by any generation preceding it. At least other generations had to prove themselves through hard work, sacrifice, suffering, wars, market collapses, etc. But this generation remains confident for no other reason than that it "is." The lack of critical thinking skills may not be the sole cause of the collapse of western culture, but it will certainly be one of those most fundamental characteristics that will do its part to contribute to the collapse.
It is now time to elucidate on what a distinctively Christian approach to critical thinking looks like. Since I am working in the field of hermeneutics it only makes sense for me to leverage that work by addressing one of the most interesting methods in hermeneutics in modern Christian culture: feminist hermeneutics. In order to understand what I mean by feminist hermeneutics, some qualification and amplification is useful. What is the central contention of feminist hermeneutics? That is to say, what are we being asked to believe by those who embrace a feminist interpretation of Scripture? Ann Loades writes,
And 'authoritative' here means that by using reason, imagination, historical insight, reflection on human experience and whatever other resources we can muster, the Bible somehow mediates to us a God who enables human beings to be most fully themselves. [Ann Loades: Feminist Interpretation - The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, 81]Note that each one of these resources mentioned by Loades is located in the human person. She understands interpretation as presupposing that the Bible is still read in an authoritative text in communities of belief. But for Loades, authority seems to be defined differently than the tradition orthodox understanding of authority. In the traditional sense, the authority of Scripture was understood to mean that all doctrinal norms and praxis were to be taken from the authoritative other, namely, the text of Scripture rightly interpretated by the aid of the Holy Spirit who is faithful to instruct sinners and illumine our hearts through faith. Scripture carries the final word. It is not my purpose here to offer an apology on the authority of Scripture or even the nature of authority, but rather to put the assertions of the feminist hermeneutic to the test using the discipline or skills of critical thinking. D. Martin Lloyd Jones wrote,
Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said,The authority of Scripture is not a matter to be defended, so much as to be asserted. I address this remark particularly to Conservative Evangelicals. [Jones: Authority, 41]
There is no need for you to defend a lion when he is being attacked. All you need to do is open the gate and let him out. [ibid.]There are two components of Loades statement which merit examination: 1) Her understanding of authority, and 2) her understanding of what it means for humans to be most fully themselves. By relocating authority within human experience, reason, imagination, etc., she abandons the traditional understanding of the authority of the other and in effect, authority in any meaningful sense. Secondly, and key to feminist hermeneutics is understanding how humans should be defined in and of themselves. What does it look like when I become most fully myself? For the feminist it means seeing everything from a strictly female perspective. It means taking up the cause of the abused and oppressed women of years past and cultures the world over and removing this oppression, freeing them to be who they truly want to be! But is being who you want to be and being what God commands or intends one to be the same thing? A man may want to be a millionnaire. In this country he is free to pursue that endeavor so long as he does it within the confines of the law. But just because he is free, according to our culture, to engage in this pursuit, does this mean that God's purpose in giving us the Bible was to remove all obstacles in his way to being who he truly wants to be?
The Feminist Assertion: The Bible was written in order to remove all obstacles that stand in the way of us becoming most fully ourselves. (With ourselves meaning who we are most comfortable being).
What are we being asked to believe? We are being asked to believe that the purpose for Scripture is to assist us in becoming the person we are most fully comfortable being. Is this really the purpose of Scripture? Does Scripture every really assert that this is in fact its purpose? Romans 12:1-2 commands us to be transformed by the renewing of our mind. But transformed into what? We are to be transformed into that image which is found in God's perceptive will for us, the church. Romans 8:29 we are to be conformed into the image of Christ! Again, Col. 3:10 emphatically says we are being renewed to a new image, the image of the one who has created us.
What evidence exists to support the feminist's assertion? Basically the evidence is weak and without objective foundations. The feminst assertion begins with where it desires to go and renovates the evidence in order to make it appear that the assertion is valid. For instance, what does it really mean to be most fully yourself? The answer is that it means different things for different people. In fact, it could mean whatever you want it to mean. This is precisely how the homosexual movement asserts that they too, belong in the community of faith. They are most fully themselves when men are allowed to carry out their sexual desires with other men and women with other women. They argue that this is not a behavior but rather the definition of who they actually are.
Are there alternative ways for interpreting the evidence? Beginning with the relocation of authority to the human person, there is in fact an alternative. The alternative is a theocentric approach to authority as opposed to an anthropocentric one. Authority can and should be located in God, not man. If authority is not located in God, and therefore transcendent, then it, by definition ceases to be authority. Moreover, authority simply becomes he who has the most power when the transcendent other is removed. Authority, by nature, must transcend all human existence in order for it to be truly authoritative. Otherwise it becomes mere social convention. A way for getting by in this life and not real authority. In this case it can be replaced by the philosophy of the next power grab that comes along.
What additional evidence would help evaluate the alternatives? Outside of scripture it would be helpful for one to examine the history of Christian orthodoxy to see where the evidence for the feminist hermeneutic leads. In so doing, one can quickly begin to determine how the church dealt with such views over the centuries. A survey of churchmen throughout the history of the church would also help one arrive at an understanding of Christian tradition on this issue. Such investigations serve to help one arrive at the validity of the feminist claim in light of Scripture as well as help us understand how it should be dealt with.
What conclusions are most reasonable based on the evidence and the number of alternative explanations? Based on scriptural teachings, a history of Christian doctrine, and a survey of Churchmen and Theologians of years gone by, it would seem that the feminist location of authority within the human person, and of what it means to be fully oneself is a derivative of a radical feminst philosophy invented by a human desire for autonomy as opposed to the plain teachings of Scripture.
The point of this blog is not to provide an exhaustive review of one's political philosophy, nor is it intended to be a thoroughgoing treatment of a feminist hermeneutic. The point is to sketch out how one should reason or think about these and other assertions from day to day as they seek to love the Lord God with all their mind. While this requires a great deal of effort, discipline, and self-sacrifice, the fruit of such an endeavor is well worth it. What fruit is that you might ask? The fruit of a humble obedience to Christ as one diligently attempts to honor their Lord and Master with their mind, and subsequently, their conduct. After all, thinking is a behavior just like any other behavior. Think about it!
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Discipline of Critical Thinking
We live in a culture where postmodern influence has seemingly led to a society that exercises very little discipline, believes the word 'critical' carries only negative connotations, and lets google and wikipedia do all their thinking for them. Before addressing what some may believe is a most contemptuous accusation on my part against the contemporary intellectual state, I think it is important to define these terms so that we may arrive at an understanding of what I mean by the phrase "the discipline of critical thinking." The word discipline means, "training that develops self-control, character, or orderliness and efficiency." The word critical means, in its strictest use, implies "an attempt at objective judging so as to determine both merits and faults." And finally, the word 'think' means, "to form or have in the mind; conceive." When it is all brought together it looks something like this; critical thinking is an orderly and efficient cognitive examination and evaluation method by which a person attempts to determine the merits and faults of assertions and evidence. Put another way, critical thinking is the cognitive dexterity of exercising good judgment about that which comes before it.
Consider the five steps of critical thinking. (a) What am I being asked to believe or accept? What is the hypothesis? (b) What evidence is available to support the assertion? Is it reliable and valid? (c) Are there alternative ways of interpreting the evidence? (d) What additional evidence would help to evaluate the alternatives? (e) What conclusions are most reasonable based on the evidence and the number of alternative explanations? I believe the best approach for thinking through these steps is to walk through them one by one and then apply a couple of examples where critical thinking skills can be brought to bear in order to arrive at the truthfulness of a proposition or evidence.
(a) What am I beoing asked to believe or accept? The very first step in critical thinking is the decision not to just accept statements or evidence at face value. By making an assertion, someone is asking you to accept as true, a specific proposition. People make truth claims every day. It falls to the critical thinker to determine whether or not such claims meet the necessary criteria to qualify as true. Unfortunately, for many in our culture, they do accept truth claims at face value without any attempt to exercise any critical thinking skills. In fact, years of political correct conditioning have left a tremendous vacuum in its wake. An intellectual deficit has been created that cannot easily be reversed. Within evangelical churches the prevailing mentality is that people who dare to question anything have a negative, critical spirit. 1 John 4:1 issues a command that we are to test the spirits to see whether they are from God. The Greek word test is DOKIMADZETE and its basic meaning is, "to make a critical examination of something to determine genuineness, put to the test, examine." The idea that we are not to engage in a critical examination of propositions is contrary to Scripture.
(b) What reliable and valid evidence exists to support the assertion? This requires that one actually begin to do the hard work of thinking through the assertion. Item (a) is the easiest step in the process of critical thinking. But if you do not proceed beyond this initial step, you run the danger of truly fitting the description of a negative, critical person. Unlike the initial step, this step requires that you begin the hard work of thinking and examination. Involved in this step is the asking of more and more questions. One exhausts the reliability and validity of the evidence before it. What is the source of the evidence, for example? Is the source reliable? What sort of reputation does the source bring? The more complex the assertion the more numerous the questions should become. Thinking is hard work! James Dobson once wrote a book entitled, "Parenting Isn't for Cowards." I think somone should write a book and title it, "Thinking Isn't for Cowards."
(c) Are there alternative ways of interpreting the evidence? There are no brute facts! There are no purely objective interpretations. Each one of us brings some kind of cultural conditioning and ultimate commitments to the interpretive process. It should never be presupposed that our way of looking at the evidence before us is the right way. When we are in the process of interpreting the evidence before us, we should always consider our own biases as well as the effects of sin on our own minds. Alternative interpretations should always be given their fair hearing and eliminated appropriately.
(d) What additional evidence would help to evaluate the alternatives? What else should be examined? This process leads, once again, to a number of questions and can be somewhat taxing on the mind. This step is not for the intellectual sloth.
(e) What conclusions are most reasonable based on the evidence and the number of alternative explanations? During this process you actually begin to reach your conclusion. The amount of evidence is examined along with with the quality and reliability of the evidence. Alternative evidence is examined along with competing interpretations of the evidence. Once you have completed the five steps of critical thinking, you are in a much better position to assess the proposition or evidence before you merits your support.
In my next post I will use both a political along with a theological example of how to put these five steps into practice in ther real world.
Consider the five steps of critical thinking. (a) What am I being asked to believe or accept? What is the hypothesis? (b) What evidence is available to support the assertion? Is it reliable and valid? (c) Are there alternative ways of interpreting the evidence? (d) What additional evidence would help to evaluate the alternatives? (e) What conclusions are most reasonable based on the evidence and the number of alternative explanations? I believe the best approach for thinking through these steps is to walk through them one by one and then apply a couple of examples where critical thinking skills can be brought to bear in order to arrive at the truthfulness of a proposition or evidence.
(a) What am I beoing asked to believe or accept? The very first step in critical thinking is the decision not to just accept statements or evidence at face value. By making an assertion, someone is asking you to accept as true, a specific proposition. People make truth claims every day. It falls to the critical thinker to determine whether or not such claims meet the necessary criteria to qualify as true. Unfortunately, for many in our culture, they do accept truth claims at face value without any attempt to exercise any critical thinking skills. In fact, years of political correct conditioning have left a tremendous vacuum in its wake. An intellectual deficit has been created that cannot easily be reversed. Within evangelical churches the prevailing mentality is that people who dare to question anything have a negative, critical spirit. 1 John 4:1 issues a command that we are to test the spirits to see whether they are from God. The Greek word test is DOKIMADZETE and its basic meaning is, "to make a critical examination of something to determine genuineness, put to the test, examine." The idea that we are not to engage in a critical examination of propositions is contrary to Scripture.
(b) What reliable and valid evidence exists to support the assertion? This requires that one actually begin to do the hard work of thinking through the assertion. Item (a) is the easiest step in the process of critical thinking. But if you do not proceed beyond this initial step, you run the danger of truly fitting the description of a negative, critical person. Unlike the initial step, this step requires that you begin the hard work of thinking and examination. Involved in this step is the asking of more and more questions. One exhausts the reliability and validity of the evidence before it. What is the source of the evidence, for example? Is the source reliable? What sort of reputation does the source bring? The more complex the assertion the more numerous the questions should become. Thinking is hard work! James Dobson once wrote a book entitled, "Parenting Isn't for Cowards." I think somone should write a book and title it, "Thinking Isn't for Cowards."
(c) Are there alternative ways of interpreting the evidence? There are no brute facts! There are no purely objective interpretations. Each one of us brings some kind of cultural conditioning and ultimate commitments to the interpretive process. It should never be presupposed that our way of looking at the evidence before us is the right way. When we are in the process of interpreting the evidence before us, we should always consider our own biases as well as the effects of sin on our own minds. Alternative interpretations should always be given their fair hearing and eliminated appropriately.
(d) What additional evidence would help to evaluate the alternatives? What else should be examined? This process leads, once again, to a number of questions and can be somewhat taxing on the mind. This step is not for the intellectual sloth.
(e) What conclusions are most reasonable based on the evidence and the number of alternative explanations? During this process you actually begin to reach your conclusion. The amount of evidence is examined along with with the quality and reliability of the evidence. Alternative evidence is examined along with competing interpretations of the evidence. Once you have completed the five steps of critical thinking, you are in a much better position to assess the proposition or evidence before you merits your support.
In my next post I will use both a political along with a theological example of how to put these five steps into practice in ther real world.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Owing The Puritans
Of the Eternity And Immutability Of Almighty God, Denied And Overthrown By The Arminians - John Owen
First, They undermine and overthrow the eternity of God’s purposes, by affirming that, in the order of the divine decrees, there are some which precede every act of the creature, and some again that follow them: so
Corvinus, the most famous of that sect. Now, all the acts of every creature being but of yesterday, temporary, like themselves, surely, those decrees of God cannot be eternal which follow them in order of time; and yet they press this, especially in respect of human actions, as a certain, unquestionable verity. “It is certain that God willeth or determineth many things which he would not, did not some act of man’s will go before it,” saith their great master, Arminius. The like affirmeth, with a little addition (as such men do always “proficere in pejus”), his genuine scholar, Nic. Grevin-chovius. “I suppose,” saith he, “that God willeth many
things which he neither would nor justly could will and purpose, did not some action of the creature precede.” And here observe, that in these 33 places they speak not of God’s external works, of those actions which outwardly are of him, — as inflicting of punishments, bestowing of rewards, and other such outward acts of his providence, whose administration we confess to be various, and diversely applied to several occasions, — but of the internal purposes of God’s will, his decrees and intentions, which have no present influence upon, or respect unto, any action of the creature; yea, they deny that concerning many things God hath any determinate resolution at all, or any purpose farther than a natural affection towards them.
“God doth or omitteth that towards which, in his own nature and his proper inclination, he is affected, as he findeth man to comply or not to comply with that order which he hath appointed,” saith Corvinus. Surely these men care not what indignities they cast upon the God of heaven, so they may maintain the pretended endowments of their own wills; for such an absolute power do they here ascribe unto them, that God himself cannot determine of a thing whereunto, as they strangely phrase it, he is well affected, before, by an actual concurrence, he is sure of their compliance. Now, this imputation, that they are temporary, which they cast upon the decrees of God in general, they press home upon that particular which lies most in their
way, the decree of election. Concerning this they tell us roundly, that it is false that election is confirmed from eternity: so the Remonstrants in their Apology, notwithstanding that St Paul tells us that it is the “purpose
of God,” Romans 9:11, and that we were “chosen before the foundation of the world,” Ephesians 1:4. Neither is it any thing material what the Arminians there grant, — namely, that there is a decree preceding this, which may be said to be from everlasting: for seeing that St Paul teacheth us that election is nothing but God’s purpose of saving us, to affirm that God eternally decreed that he would elect us is all one as to say that God purposed that in time he would purpose to save us. Such resolutions may be fit for their own wild heads, but must not be ascribed to God only wise.
First, They undermine and overthrow the eternity of God’s purposes, by affirming that, in the order of the divine decrees, there are some which precede every act of the creature, and some again that follow them: so
Corvinus, the most famous of that sect. Now, all the acts of every creature being but of yesterday, temporary, like themselves, surely, those decrees of God cannot be eternal which follow them in order of time; and yet they press this, especially in respect of human actions, as a certain, unquestionable verity. “It is certain that God willeth or determineth many things which he would not, did not some act of man’s will go before it,” saith their great master, Arminius. The like affirmeth, with a little addition (as such men do always “proficere in pejus”), his genuine scholar, Nic. Grevin-chovius. “I suppose,” saith he, “that God willeth many
things which he neither would nor justly could will and purpose, did not some action of the creature precede.” And here observe, that in these 33 places they speak not of God’s external works, of those actions which outwardly are of him, — as inflicting of punishments, bestowing of rewards, and other such outward acts of his providence, whose administration we confess to be various, and diversely applied to several occasions, — but of the internal purposes of God’s will, his decrees and intentions, which have no present influence upon, or respect unto, any action of the creature; yea, they deny that concerning many things God hath any determinate resolution at all, or any purpose farther than a natural affection towards them.
“God doth or omitteth that towards which, in his own nature and his proper inclination, he is affected, as he findeth man to comply or not to comply with that order which he hath appointed,” saith Corvinus. Surely these men care not what indignities they cast upon the God of heaven, so they may maintain the pretended endowments of their own wills; for such an absolute power do they here ascribe unto them, that God himself cannot determine of a thing whereunto, as they strangely phrase it, he is well affected, before, by an actual concurrence, he is sure of their compliance. Now, this imputation, that they are temporary, which they cast upon the decrees of God in general, they press home upon that particular which lies most in their
way, the decree of election. Concerning this they tell us roundly, that it is false that election is confirmed from eternity: so the Remonstrants in their Apology, notwithstanding that St Paul tells us that it is the “purpose
of God,” Romans 9:11, and that we were “chosen before the foundation of the world,” Ephesians 1:4. Neither is it any thing material what the Arminians there grant, — namely, that there is a decree preceding this, which may be said to be from everlasting: for seeing that St Paul teacheth us that election is nothing but God’s purpose of saving us, to affirm that God eternally decreed that he would elect us is all one as to say that God purposed that in time he would purpose to save us. Such resolutions may be fit for their own wild heads, but must not be ascribed to God only wise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)