R. Laird Harris (1911-2008)

Date May 2, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton



Sean Lucas has posted a note stating that Dr. R. Laird Harris passed away last Friday, April 25th. (HT: JT) Covenant Seminary has a great biography of him. President Bryan Chapell offered these remarks:

“Dr. Harris was a man of great curiosity whose wide-ranging interests
led him to explore with eagerness science, theology, people, and the
world around him in his quest to better understand and appreciate God's
creation. His love for God's Word and the goodness of the Gospel made
him a great teacher who demonstrated that brilliant thought and simple
faith were not contradictory. His humble and fun-loving heart was a
great gift to the two generations of church leaders he helped to train.”


Dr. R. Laird Harris wrote, edited, and contributed to a number of books, but one in particular has been important for me: The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study. This was one of the books I read while in high school, upon recommendation by a mentor, as I was gaining an eager interest in apologetics and theology. It shaped my understanding of the authority and integrity of the Bible, and I can't think of any book I've read since then that could match the quality and depth of Dr. Harris's work. I've recommended it to many people since, and I commend it to you as well.

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

Quenching God's Oracles, Part 3

Date May 1, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Quenching God's Oracles: The Condemnation of Montanism in Four Parts
Part 3: The Condemnation of the Montanists

Previous Parts:
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism
Part 2: The Beliefs of the Montanists

The
Condemnation of the Montanists

            It
should be clear that the Montanists were not condemned for disregarding
traditional/orthodox beliefs about the Trinity and salvation. In fact, their
adherence to these doctrines led some to accept the Montanists and even join
them. However, most church leaders at the time did condemn the movement. Three
main sources known today for condemning Montanism: “The Anonymous,” Apollonius,
and Epiphanius. From these sources four specific reasons can be assembled: the
ecstatic irrational nature of the prophecies, false prophecies, misuse of
Scripture, and the lifestyle of the prophetic trio.

            Two
of the sources are found in the history written by Eusebius, in which he
recounts why the Montanists were condemned. The first is simply known as “the
Anonymous.” After asserting that Montanus was seeking leadership, the Anonymous
described how the prophecies came about: Montanus “became beside himself, and
being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstacy, he raved, and began to babble
and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant
custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.”[1] He
recounts that while some accused Montanus of being possessed by a demon, many
were taken in by this display of power and followed the proclaimed prophet. F.
David Farnell notes the standard the Anonymous used in judging the Montanists on
this count: “For the Anonymous, such ecastic, irrational prophesying violated
scriptural standards for prophecy…. Prophecies should come in an orderly and
rational manner.”[2] The
Anonymous attributed such activity by Montanus to Satan himself.

            False
prophecy was the most common accusation against the Montanists, and the
Anonymous accused them of this as well. One of problems in determining what
exactly the Montanists said and did is that none of their own writings are
currently known and very few quotes that are attributed to them. Even so, one
of the quotes attributed to Maximilla says, “After me there will now longer be
any prophetess. It will be the end of all.”[3]
This “end of all” is understood to mean the second coming of Jesus Christ. The
Anonymous was likely referring to a similar prophecy when he said, “And has not
this been shown clearly to be false? For it is to-day more than thirteen years
since the woman died, and there has been neither a partial nor general war in
the world; but rather, through the mercy of God, continued peace among
Christians.”[4]

            The
third accusation leveled by the Anonymous is the misuse of Scripture. He seems
to have been responding to the Montanists’ use of Matthew 23:34 when he said,
“Since, therefore, they called us slayers of the prophets because we did not
receive their loquacious prophets, who, they say, are those the Lord promised
to send to the people, let them answer as in God’s presence: Who is there, O
friends, of these who began to talk, from Montanus and the women down, that was
persecuted by the Jews, or slain by lawless men? None. Or has any of them been
seized and crucified for the Name? Truly not. Or has one of these women ever
been scourged in the synagogues of the Jews, or stoned? No; never anywhere.”[5]

            Apollonius
was Eusebius’s second source in recounting the condemnation of the Montanists.
His first accusation had to do, once again, with the false prophecies of the
Montanists, however, Eusebius does not record how Apollonius dealt with these
prophecies. Farnell speculates that, “Since he discusses Apollonius’s
refutation of Montanism right after his survey of the Anonymous, one may
reasonably conclude that he may not have given details because this would have
overlapped of much material already covered in the discussion on the
Anonymous.”[6]

The second
accusation made by Apollonius related to the practices and lifestyle of those
in the movement, including Montanus. “We show that these first prophetesses
themselves, as soon as they were filled with the Spirit, abandoned their
husbands. How falsely therefore they speak who call Prisca [Priscilla] a
virgin… Does not all Scripture seem to you to forbid a prophet to receive gifts
and money? When therefore I see the prophetess receiving god and silver and
costly garments, how can I avoid reproving her?”[7]
This ultimately has to do with whether they were true or false prophets, since
Apollonius held that, “It is necessary that all the fruits of a prophet should
be examined.”[8]

Epiphanius accused
the Montanists of some of these same things. He contended that the Montanists,
“separated themselves, ‘adhering to spirits of error and doctrines of demons.’”[9] He
too pointed to the false prophecies of the Montanists. “Everything that the
[true] prophets have said, they also said rationally with understanding; and
the things they said have come true and are still coming true. But Maximilla
said that the consummation would come after her, and no consummation has come
yet—even after so many emperors and such a lapse of time!”[10]
The central point here is the false prophecy of Maximilla, but Epiphanius also
alludes to true prophets speaking “rationally with understanding,” as if to say
this is an essential quality of a true prophet absent from the Montanists. He
clarified this later in saying, “Now what rational person who receives the
‘profitable’ message with understanding and cares for his salvation, can fail
to despise a false religion like this, and the speech of someone who boasts of
being a prophet but cannot talk like a prophet?”

            Misuse of Scripture is another similar accusation
leveled by Epiphanius. “Apparently, the [Montanists] cited the sleep of Adam
and his response to Eve’s creation in Genesis 2:21-23 as an example of proof
for ecstatic prophecy.”[12]
The response of Epiphanius was that, “Adam’s case was nothing like theirs… God
brought the unconsciousness of sleep upon Adam, not distraction of mind… Adam’s
senses and wits were not in abeyance.”[13]
Epiphanius built a case condemning the Montanists for twisting scripture by
showing that they changed the meaning of the text. He claimed that, “they wish
to mix truth and falsehood and render senseless the minds of those who care
about orthodoxy, and they gather for themselves passages by means of which they
fabricate their error, claiming they have the same meaning.”[14]


[1]
Eusebius 5.16.7-8.

[2] F.
David Farnell, “The Montanist Crisis: A Key to Refuting Third-Wave Concepts of
NT Prophecy,” Masters Seminary Journal 14 (Fall 2003): 246.

[3]
Elaine C. Huber, Women and the Authority of Inspiration (Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1985), 220.

[4]
Eusebius 5.16.19.

[5]
Eusebius, 5.16.12.

[6]
Farnell, 248.

[7]
Eusebius, 5.18.2

[8]
Eusebius, 5.18.11

[9]
Epiphanius, The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages, trans and ed.
Philip R. Amidon (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1990), 170. 48.4

[10]
Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, ed. J.M.
Robinson and H.J. Klimkeit (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1997) 48.2.4-7. As
quoted in Farnell, 253.

[11]
Epiphanius, 48.3, as quoted in Farnell, 255.

[12]
Farnell, 256.

[13]
Epiphanius, 48.4.6-6.4, as quoted in Farnell, 256.

[14]
Epiphanius, 48.4.4


Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments No Comments »

Quenching God's Oracles, Part 2

Date April 30, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Quenching God's Oracles: The Condemnation of Montanism in Four Parts
Part 2: The Beliefs of the Montanists

Previous Parts:
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism

The
Beliefs of the Montanists

            Perhaps
more important than the history of Montanism is what those in the group believed.
It is commonly noted that the Montanists held mostly orthodox beliefs. Schaff
recorded, “In doctrine, Montanism agreed in all essential points with the
Catholic Church, and held very firmly to the traditional rule of faith.”[1]
Sine the movement existed prior to the councils and creeds, such formulations
should not be expected of them. However, in relation to their contemporary
doctrines, they expressed orthodox understandings of the Trinity and salvation.
Shelly notes that Montanus “came with a demand for a higher standard and a
greater discipline and sharper separation of the church from the world. Had he
halted there, he could have done little but good, but he went much further.”[2]
Deviation from what some might call “the fundamentals” did not trouble the
Montanists’ critics. Rather, it appears the church found their claims regarding
prophecy and some of their practices intolerable.

            F.F.
Bruce uniquely summed up Montanus’s position: “For (he maintained) Christ’s
promise of the coming Paraclete had now been fulfilled, and he, Montanus, was
the Paraclete’s mouthpiece. The coming of the Paraclete was the immediate
prelude to the second advent of Christ and the establishment of the New
Jerusalem in one of the towns of Phrygia.”[3]
The gift of prophecy, according to the Montanists, continued beyond the
apostolic age, and each Christian could expect to receive revelation through
the power of the Holy Spirit. However, Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla were
the central prophetic figures. They not only proclaimed the second coming of
Christ, but Shelley explains they also set themselves up against the church by
claiming higher authority: “The prophet claimed the right to push Christ and
the apostolic message into the background.… In the name of the Spirit, Montanus
denied that God’s decisive and normative revelation had occurred in Jesus
Christ.”[4]

            A
fundamental element of the Montanist prophecies was their millenarian
perspective. D.H. Williams defines a millennial movement “as a religious-social
movement which expects immediate, total, collective, this-worldly salvation,
and which believes this will be accomplished by divine agencies.”[5] In
other words, the substance and motivation of Montanist prophecies rested in the
belief in a rapidly approaching apocalypse, which was often characterized by
the descent of a New Jerusalem. This eschatological emphasis appears to have
enticed many Christians to accept and even follow Montanus and his prophets.

            Beyond
their beliefs regarding prophecy, the Montanists were also known for some
distinctive practices. Because Maximilla and Priscilla had left their husbands
to serve with Montanus, some thought that they taught celibacy and the
dissolving of existing marriages. However, the records only indicate strong
teachings against second marriages. They did adhere to a form of asceticism and
self-denial, and this too was rooted in their millenarian perspective.


[1]
Phillip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Christianity, History of the Christian
Church, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: 1950),
421.

[2]
Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain English, 2nd ed.
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 65.

[3]
F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1958), 218.

[4]
Shelley, 65.

[5]
D.H. Williams, “The Origins of the Montanist Movement: A Sociological
Analysis,” Religion 19 (1989): 335.


Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments No Comments »

Quenching God's Oracles, Part 1

Date April 29, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Quenching God's Oracles: The Condemnation of Montanism in Four Parts
Part 1: Introduction & History of Montanism

Introduction

            In
recent years there has been a revival of interest in the faith of the early
church. Some have insisted the way forward must be traveled first by looking
back, and thus embracing an “ancient-future” faith. There is much to be said
for such a position since history and tradition ought to significantly inform
the faith of those in Christ’s church.

            Given
this paradigm, the struggles and disputes the church has grappled with through
the centuries are of considerable importance to Christians today. The standards
put forward by leaders in the early church ought to inform contemporary
discussions in some authoritative regard. One such struggle in the early church
was with a group who referred to themselves as the New Prophecy.

            Those
in the New Prophecy, also known as Montanists, immediately raised suspicion and
were ultimately condemned as charismatic heretics. The standards used by the
early church to condemn this group should have direct implications for current
charismatic discussion in light of the “ancient-future” paradigm. Therefore, it
is important for theologians today to understand the Montanists and why they
were considered heretics to see what it may mean for current debates.

The
History of Montanism

            Montanus
and his followers considered themselves the New Prophecy; however, historians
usually refer to the group as Montanists. While it is agreed that Montanus
began the movement, there has been some debate as to when it began. Humberto
Raul Treiyer notes, “The date of the organization is uncertain because
Montanists remained in the Christian churches as long as they were permitted to
remain.”[1]
Based on calculations in light of Epiphanius, an early apologist, the origins
of Montanus’s prophecies date to around 156 C.E.; however, calculations based
on Eusebius, an early historian, date the origins to around 171 C.E. Most other
speculations fall within these two dates. Some have suggested the earlier date
may have been when Montanus began his teaching and the later reflects when the
bishops of Asia Minor condemned him.[2]

            Montanus
was a convert to Christianity in Phrygia, a region in central Asia
Minor. According to Treiyer, “Being a devotee of the goddess
[Cybele], he most probably was a self-made eunuch, because castration performed
in her main sanctuary… was considered the highest manifestation of worship and
reverence to her.”[3] Though
Montanus was a priest of Cybele, it is unknown to what degree this impacted his
Christianity. Shortly after his conversion Montanus began his ministry and enlisted
the service of two women, Maximilla and Priscilla. The trio claimed to be
prophets bringing new revelation in an effort to reform the church. After being
condemned by most church leaders, Montanus was compelled to start new
communities of believers, though they still called themselves Christians. The
most notable conversion to Montanism was that of the early apologist
Tertullian, who made his affiliation known in 201 or 202 C.E. Montanus’s
message spread throughout much of Asia Minor,
but after repeated condemnations and persecution, the movement was ultimately
paralyzed under the persecution of Justinian in 530 C.E. Montanus and Maximilla
are said to have committed suicide. “Incited by the spirit of frenzy, they both
hung themselves; not at the same time, but at the time which common report
gives for the death of each. And thus they died, and ended their lives like the
traitor Judas.”[4]  


 

[1]
Humberto Raul Treiyer, “An Investigation into the Possible Influence of
Montantism in the Development of the Theology of Tertullian” (D.Theol. diss.,
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1974), 43.

[2]
See Paul Monceaux, Histoire Litteraire de l’Afrique Chretienne Deupis Les
Origines Jusq’a l’Invasion Arabe, Vol.    
1 (Paris: Leroux, 1901-1923) 177.

[3] Treiyer,
39.

[4]
Eusebius, “Church History” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine
the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 232. 5.16.13


Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments No Comments »

This Is My Body – Part Three

Date April 27, 2008 Posted by David N

    Obviously, all four views have some strengths and some weaknesses.  It seems to me that it is simply a matter of deciding which view has the fewest weaknesses and the most strengths.  For me, the Reformed view is the clear winner, but with Memorialism in a close second.  Let me elaborate.

    The Reformed critiques of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran views are, I believe, devastating.  To confer a divine attribute to Christ’s human nature is nothing less than a violation of the Chalcedonian Creed, which affirms that Christ’s two natures are neither confused nor mixed.  Likewise, the finite cannot contain the infinite, which rules out any doctrine of the Eucharist that would seek to contain Christ within the elements.  David P. Scaer’s response to this argument was twofold: First, he argued that we cannot let a philosophical axiom be a basis of doctrine.  This is a weak argument, however, since I’m sure Scaer would agree that we can and should (and indeed must!) allow the basic laws of logic to be a basis for doctrine.  Second, he argued that without the power to contain itself in the finite, the infinite would not truly be infinite.   But this sounds like the sort of argument that says “if God were truly omnipotent He could do anything, including make a contradiction true.”  But this, of course, is to misconstrue the meaning of omnipotence.  Likewise Scaer seems to have the wrong idea about infinitude. 

    Moreover, Russell D. Moore’s argument that the misunderstanding of Christ’s metaphorical teachings about Himself is a recurring theme in John’s gospel (an argument that can easily be appropriated by the Reformed view) deals a similar deathblow to Catholicism and Lutheranism by removing the force of the most explicit passage of Scripture in their favor (John 6). 

    But what of the Memorialist view?  There is strength in their connection of the Lord’s Supper to Passover, which was by no means a meal that conferred special grace or contained the Spirit of God.  And if we are to support Memorialist arguments regarding the metaphorical nature of Christ’s body and blood, why not go all the way and admit that the elements are merely signs that point metaphorically to those realities?
  
    I believe there is one primary reason to affirm the Reformed view rather than the Memorialist view (I think there are others, but they would take us too far into other areas of theology), and it is found in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 16.  In this verse, Paul is clear that when we eat of the bread and drink of the cup we are actually participating with Christ’s body and blood in a special way that is different from the “regular” participation with Christ that the church in general enjoys.  At this point, Russell D. Moore reminds us that Paul contrasts this with food offered to idols, which he says makes a person a participant with demons.  Does this imply that eating food offered to idols allows a person to spiritually commune with the “real presence” of a demon?  Of course not.  But here I think Moore simply makes the mistake of directly equivocating what the Lord’s Supper means and what food sacrificed to demons means.  What is significant in this passage is not that there is a direct and perfect correlation between the two, but rather that Paul is affirming that there is something real and supernatural at work behind the worship of idols.  To be sure, the statues themselves are lifeless creations of man and the “gods” they represent do not exist, but behind them is the real, supernatural work of Satan and his demons.  That is the only point Paul is trying to make here.  The correlation to the Lord’s Supper, then, is in the fact that, likewise, there is something very real and very supernatural going on behind the partaking of the Lord’s Supper.  This strongly suggests something more than mere symbolism.

     For these reasons, then, I believe the Reformed view to be the superior understanding of the doctrine of Holy Communion, while at the same time acknowledging that such a profound mystery will never fully be grasped by the human mind, at least not this side of Paradise.  

Category Posted in David's Posts, Main Page, Theology Comments 18 Comments »

This Is My Body – Part Two

Date April 25, 2008 Posted by David N

This second post will give a brief overview of the three remaining positions on the Lord's Supper: Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed.  The third and final post will be my critique of the four positions, as well as my argument for which position I believe is the best (most biblical) one. 


Roman Catholic

    I place the Roman Catholic view next because it represents that opposite extreme from Memorialism and is (mostly) just as straightforward.  According to Roman Catholics, during the Mass (when the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist is celebrated), when the Priest consecrates the bread and wine, a miracle occurs and the very substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ.  According to Aquinas’s formulation, which remains official Catholic dogma to this day, while the substance is changed, the accidents remain the same.  So, the bread still looks, feels, and tastes like bread, but nevertheless its substance has become the body of Christ Himself. 

    Roman Catholics would take Christ’s words of institution in the Gospels literally, as they would also take Christ’s words in John 6 literally.  Also undergirding this view is the Catholic understanding of sacrifice and the continuation of the priesthood.  Each Lord’s Supper is another sacrifice, albeit an “unbloody” one. 

Lutheran

    The Lutheran view is very close to the Roman Catholic one, but with slight differences.  The Lutheran view is often referred to as “Consubstantiation”, denoting the idea of one substance being with or along side another.  This is typically explained in terms of Christ being “in, with and under” the elements.   The Lutheran doctrine is notoriously difficult to articulate.  On the one hand, they fully affirm that Christ is actually and physically present in the elements, that Christ is literally ingested through the mouth, and that the elements are really changed somehow.  And yet, on the other hand, they deny transubstantiation and the notion that the substance of the bread and wine actually change.  A metaphor that is used to explain this is a piece of iron that is placed in a fire.  When it comes out, every single molecule of the metal is changed in some way.  The metal is infused at every point with the heat of the fire.  And yet the substance of the metal has not changed. 

    Luther also took very seriously Christ’s words in the gospels, “this is my body” and “this is my blood.”  Although, historically, Lutherans have shied away from using John 6 as support for their view.  David P. Scaer (a Lutheran theologian) argues that that should change. 

Reformed

    Lastly is the “Reformed” view.  Although many Reformed churches today follow Zwingli and the Memorialist view, the majority of Reformed churches since the Reformation have held this fourth view, which might simply be called Calvin’s view.  Calvin objected to the Roman Catholic view because it conferred a divine attribute, omnipresence, to the human nature of Christ.  He rejected the Lutheran view for this same reason, and also because he held to the axiom that the finite cannot contain the infinite, and therefore any theology of the Eucharist that claimed that Christ was actually contained within the elements must be rejected. 

    Still, however, Calvin took seriously the “real presence” of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, even going so far as to affirm that we do indeed partake of Christ’s flesh and blood.  How could this be?  Calvin understood that while the two natures of Christ were distinct, they were also inseparably joined.  This meant that even though Christ’s human nature is localized in Heaven, it is united to His divine nature, which is omnipresent.  Thus, by partaking of Christ’s divine nature (which is present in a special way during Communion), through the Holy Spirit, we are also partaking of His human nature.  Calvin readily admitted that this is a mystery beyond our comprehension.  In the same mystical way that Christ’s two natures are united, so we can mystically commune with and partake of Christ’s human nature through His divine nature, which is brought to the Supper and given to the believer by the Holy Spirit (interestingly, this focus on the Holy Spirit in Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper bears some similarities to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine.  So much so, in fact, that both Catholic and Lutheran theologians have pointed this out.  In many ways, it actually seems as though the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of the Eucharist is closer to the Reformed view than to the Roman view.  This would be an interesting topic of exploration for another time). 

So, which view is the best (in my young and humble opinion)?  Stay tuned! 

(For a recap of the Memorialist view click here).

Category Posted in David's Posts, Main Page, Theology Comments No Comments »

America Bewitched?

Date April 22, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Most polls quoted these days claim that anywhere from 80 to 90% of Americans believe in God. Some people find comfort in this statistic, but it actually says very little about the God or god they believe in. For example, included in that number are a rising number of pagans and witches. A recent MTV.com feature highlights some of the popular incentives for practicing “the Craft”:

Witches do not worship Satan and hardly ever practice black magic. Witches or Wiccans, who practice similar strains of Paganism,
may follow numerous ancient, Earth-based traditions of worship, but
have a few simple beliefs in common: 1) a deep, spiritual respect for
nature; 2) worship of a deity (or god) who is equally male and female (priests and priestesses have equal power); and 3)
accountability for all your own actions. In other words, being a witch
includes believing in environmentalism, equality of the sexes and karma.


The following is from an article on witches in Salem and a recent public educational forum:

Throughout the evening, the panelists described a mainstreaming of
their religion that they never dreamed possible. Today modern paganism
is the 19th most popular religion in the United States, said Adler. “Wicca has exploded as far as numbers,” she said. There are now Wiccan-based charities, Wiccan-based AA chapters and
Wiccan groups adopting highway beautification projects. Pagan studies
courses are offered in major universities, she said.

Why is Wicca more accepted today? The MTV.com points to favorable portrayals in the media: “A surprising number of young witches MTV News spoke with also said that
they became curious about their faith through misguiding pop-culture
fare like the camp Neve Campbell vehicle “The Craft” and the “Harry Potter” series. (Guess a few conservative Christian groups were right about that one).” The Salem News article points to the dispelling of old impressions that witches are evil and to some degree of compromise in order to make it more mainstream.

As people in our culture look ever in toward themselves, they care less
for objective truth and more for what feels right to them:

But many young people enter the Craft in reaction to a very
conservative religious upbringing — Southern Baptist, perhaps, or
Catholic. “Some people don't feel God in the church, so they seek out
different expressions of God that are more personal or mystic,” said
Raven, who has mentored younger Pagans and is active in the online
community. “[Witchcraft] is revolting against common views of God.
That's a huge part of the appeal, especially for young people — that
you don't have to follow the herd.”



The videos (which I recommend watching- the second starts after the first concludes) feature a recurring theme: “there is no wrong way
to worship.” This is why Wiccans only have “a few simple beliefs in
common.” Though united in these few things, every Wiccan approaches
religion like a buffet- only taking those things that appeal to them.
Religious belief is no longer in the realm of objective truth, it is
now private expression.

Wicca and related pagan religions make up just some of the hundreds of options put before Americans today, but it all boils down to two options: Will you seek the true God of the universe who refuses to to be crafted according to your mutable desires, or will you idolize and worship feelings that don't exist apart from yourself?

Are we as Christians prepared to preach the gospel to those who choose the latter?

Christian Answers for a New Age has some great articles on this topic.

Articles and books by Peter Jones are also an excellent resource. I especially recommend Capturing the Pagan Mind.

Category Posted in Culture, Main Page, Religion (General), Roger's Posts Comments 1 Comment »

This Is My Body – Part One

Date April 22, 2008 Posted by David N

(Note: The following post was adapted from a paper I wrote for a Theology class.  As such, much of its descriptions of different theological viewpoints are painted with very broad strokes.  Still, I tried to keep them as accurate as possible)

If you stopped random evangelicals on the street and asked them what the differences are between Protestants and Roman Catholics, the top three responses would likely be the Pope, the adoration of Mary, and the Lord’s Supper.  The average evangelical layperson may not know very much about Roman Catholic dogma, but he is likely to know that they believe in transubstantiation (even if he isn’t familiar with that term).  What the average layperson is not likely to know is that the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was also the single most divisive doctrine within the various camps of Protestantism as well, sharply dividing Lutherans from their Reformed counterparts.  Today in the West, there are basically four major views of the Lord’s Supper, three of which are held by different Protestant evangelical groups; Lutheran, Reformed and Baptist/Pentecostal.  In this series of posts, I will briefly outline the four positions, and then offer my critical analysis.  For the sake of space, I will leave out questions of how often the sacrament should be administered, who should administer it, who can partake, whether or not other elements can be substituted for bread and wine, etc.  I will instead focus on what I believe is the primary issue, namely the presence of Christ.  Where is Christ present?  How is He present?  How is the sacrament efficacious?  With these questions in mind, let us now explore the first view. 

Memorialist

    The Memorialist view, first articulated by the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli, says that Christ is not locally present in or with the elements themselves in any sense, physical or spiritual.  Rather, the elements are signs that point us to the spiritual reality they are meant to signify.  Memorialists focus on Christ’s command to “do this in remembrance” of Him.  Thus the Lord’s Supper points us back, to remind us of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on our behalf.  But it also points us forward, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:26 that as often as the Lord’s Supper is celebrated Christians “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”  This aspect of proclamation also highlights what is going on in the present.  Believers are being uplifted and strengthened in their faith, in much the same way as they would be by the preaching of the Word. 
    Memorialists argue that Christ’s words of institution in the Gospels, “this is my body” and “this is my blood” are symbolic or metaphorical.  This is especially true of Christ’s words in John 6:53-54, where he seems to explicitly teach that believers must actually eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life.  Russel D. Moore responds to the Catholic reading of these verses by pointing out that there is an ongoing theme in John’s gospel of Jesus teaching metaphorically, but being taken literally by his hearers and thus misunderstood by them.  In John 2, for example, Jesus teaches that He will destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, and his hearers do not understand becaue they assume he means the literal temple in Jerusalem.  In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and Nicodemus is confused because he takes Christ’s metaphor literally.  In John 4, when Jesus speaks of living water, the Samaritan woman takes him literally and misunderstands what he is trying to teach.  And more examples abound. 
    Memorialists also ground their position in a continuity between the Passover feast and the Lord’s Supper.  Just as the Passover feast was meant as a celebration and remembrance of things past and a proclamation and hope of things to come, so is the Lord’s Supper.  More importantly, there was nothing spiritually efficacious about eating the Passover meal, and neither is there with the Lord’s Supper.

Category Posted in David's Posts, Main Page, Theology Comments No Comments »

Doing What's Right in Our Own Eyes

Date April 18, 2008 Posted by Amy Hall

There's a story in Judges about a man who sends his concubine out to be abused by the men of the town in order to save his own skin.  When he finds her dead in the morning, he sends parts of her body to all the tribes of Israel as a shocking, visual wake-up call revealing the depths of the country's moral depravity.

 

I imagine that the people of Israel who heard of this felt a nausea, horror, and sense of impending judgment similar to what I felt reading this today:

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts [an art student at Yale] will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body . . . “I hope it inspires some sort of discourse,” Shvarts said. “Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone.”

There's a detailed description of the exhibit in the article, but there's no way I'm going to post it here.  All I can say is that our country is hurtling down a dark, ugly road if we're producing people like this woman.  How did the creation and destruction of human life become a clever way of “sparking conversation”?  We had better wake up.

Yale now insists that the whole project is a fake, but Shvarts is sticking to her story, saying her purpose was to point out that the “central ambiguity [of not knowing whether or not she was actually pregnant] defies a clear definition of the act [of miscarriage].  The reality of miscarriage is very much a linguistic and political reality, an act of reading constructed by an act of naming–an authorial act.”  Second, she meant to “assert that often, normative understandings of biological function are a mythology imposed on form, It is this mythology that creates the sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are 'meant' to do from their physical capability.”  It was her goal to use her body outside the “narrative of reproduction” in order to shock people into acknowledging that it is the “prerogative of every individual” to explore other uses for his or her body.  (This, of course, would be absolutely true in a postmodern, Darwinist, Creatorless world.)

Connected with the obvious atrociousness of Shvarts sick use of human life is her view of art:

“I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity,” Shvarts said. “I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be.”

Art is a medium for politics and ideologies?  Whatever happened to goodness, truth, and beauty?  To uplifting the viewer?  Where did this new grotesque and ugly standard of art come from?  Why is this the only standard she knows of?  It's not hard to figure out that just like in the days of Judges, a country that loses sight of the living, holy, good God will soon be stripped of all beauty, and everything–good or evil–rather than being things to delight in or abhor, will be reduced to mere “statements.”

 

Because of God, there is real beauty and it's tragic that so many people in our culture have never tasted it.  It's easy to forget when we're feasting on the glory of God that most people have no idea a banquet like this even exists.  Let this remind us of our responsibility to tell them.

 

(HT:  Steve Wagner)

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Ethics, Main Page Comments 2 Comments »

Interview with David Wells, Part 2

Date April 17, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Click here Part One of the interview.

David F. Wells

One of the criticisms made of new media platforms (such as blogging and social networks like MySpace and Facebook) is that they encourage fascination with the self. How might Christians involved in new media avoid the trap of self-fascination?

Virtual reality can simply be a world of information or it can be the world into which the lonely and the disconnected find solace and “relationships” which have none of the human reality of actual relationships.  Virtual relationships are an illusion; real relationships are what we are made for by creation.  So, we need simply to ask ourselves how we are using these technologies and why.  What needs are they meeting?  The need for information or for communication is one thing; the need for distraction, or to feel connected is something else. Technology can’t really do too much which is healthy along these lines if a basis of relationship is not already there.

You draw a strict line between spiritual practices that are pagan in nature and biblical in nature. How do some evangelical practices today reflect pagan spirituality rather than biblical spirituality?

The key is that biblical spirituality comes from “above” and pagan spirituality comes from “below.”  The language of “above” is used over and over again in Scripture of Christ’s incarnation from a realm which we as humans and as sinners cannot access.  God is, as it were, beyond our reach and beyond our natural radar.  That fact, however, is not obvious to us.  If it were, we who are sinners would not be seeking him on our own terms, in our own way, and assuming that he can be accessed when we want and for whatever it is that we want.  These assumptions make up the spirituality from “below” and while it is exactly what pagans have always done it is now exactly what contemporary consumers are doing.  The sacred is there to be used when we want, how we want, and for whatever needs we have just as products are which we can buy at the mall.

Many of the emergents who teach pagan spiritual practices “from below,” as you've identified them, believe their spirituality is “from above” because the practices are based on the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. Is this just the language game, or can the Spirit use practices “from below” to teach and enrich the lives of God's people?

No, we should not play games with ourselves.  The work of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is tied to the Word written and the Word living.  The work of the Holy Spirit is to illumine the Scripture he inspired in the first place and, second, to apply the work of Christ to people today.  So, in this sense, the work of the Spirit coincides with the work of Christ.  Why else would Scripture speak of the Spirit is the “Spirit of Christ” or “his Spirit”?  When people start ascribing to the Spirit their own internal intuitions, senses about life, desires, and yearnings, they will soon find themselves adrift if they have not asked themselves two questions: first, have I checked what I am sensing against the (objective) revelation of God’s Word?  Second, is what I am sensing leading me to a deeper understanding of, and more faithful service to Christ?  If we have no answers to these questions, let us speak no more about the “Spirit” doing this and doing that!

Some believe that it is the churches that have neglected the reciting and teaching of Christian creeds and confessions that have fallen out of historic Protestantism today. How effective do you think creeds and confessions might be in helping to rebuild the evangelical church?

Creeds and confessions are secondary reflections on biblical truth which seek to capture what it is teaching in succinct ways.  They are very helpful to those who, at a primary level, are daily engaged with the truth of Scripture.  And, almost incidentally, they are reminders—since most come from the past– that we belong to a single people of God which stretches across time and is found in almost very culture in the world.  Creeds and confessions, however, are of little use to those who are strangers to the truth of Scripture.

You conclude that churches must be God centered as opposed to consumer or Self centered. Since most Christians aren't involved in church leadership, how might individuals effect changes toward God centered Protestantism?

It is hard, on the one hand, for those in what used to be called the pew to change the tenor and temper of their churches when their pastors are off chasing success, numbers, and cultural “relevance.”  Many churches, on the other hand, deserve the leaders they have because their audiences (may we still say “congregations”?!) are enablers who want their Christianity lite and undemanding.  Here are all the symptoms of our decline and among those who yearn for something so much better are the seeds of renewal.  May their number grow every day!

Category Posted in Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »