In the Scope 2/17/08

February 17, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Justin Taylor posted a powerful clip from the show ER. It's an insightful look at postmodernism's inability to deal with the problems of real life. Apparently after being fried on 24 Michelle Dessler moved on to being the chaplain on ER?

Indiana's coming back, and it's not as easy as it used to be.

Another return is that of Sixpence None the Richer. According to lead singer Leigh Nash, they are currently producing a new EP and will tour again beginning in April.

A new Doug TenNapel blog has hit the blogosphere. Readers should be aware, however, that like most resurrected classics, the new blog is only a cheesy imitation and Doug makes occasional cameo appearances.

In addition to being an expert on eschatology, Kim Riddlebarger is also an expert on baseball . He explaines how our goofy Congress turned Clemen's possible non-crime (substance abuse) into a crime (lying under oath). Hopefully the beauty of the game will distract us from all this nonsense. Spring training games are less than 2 weeks away!

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts 4 Comments »

Interview with Kim Riddlebarger, Part 3

February 15, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Part
1
Part
2

8)
On page 34 of Man of Sin you note, “As dispensationalists see things, both
the rapture of the church and the revelation of the Antichrist are inextricably
tied to Israel's
future. Because of this, dispensationalists are now avid political participants
and critical to the evangelical voting block…” This approach by
dispensationalists assumes a certain view of religion and politics that often
rubs people the wrong way. How do the political implications of amillennialism
differ?

Most
Reformed amillennarians believe that whatever role the re-establishment of
national Israel plays in the
providence of God (and yes, it is a remarkable thing) the return of Israel to the land of Canaan
is not a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. We know this to be true
because Joshua told us that when Israel
possessed the land, that promise was already fulfilled (Joshua 23:14 ff), but
under the terms of the Sinaitic covenant, it became an open question as to
whether Israel
would remain in the land. In fact, when the apostle Paul treats this
matter in Romans, it is he–not the amillennarian who supposedly “spiritualizes
the Bible”–who universalizes the land promise (which is everlasting) to extend
to the whole earth (Romans 4:13)!

In
a political sense, this means that there is no sacred nation on earth during
the New Covenant era–including Israel.
Israel’s
existence, however, is clearly an act of divine providence. How we
respond to Israel becomes a
matter of how we (as Christians) and our nation relate to our democratic allies
throughout the world (i.e., the UK,
Australia,
etc.). To insist that America
conduct its foreign policy to serve dispensational expectations regarding Israel is a
serious mistake. The degree to which we do this, is the degree we will
make serious foreign policy mistakes with grave consequences for the prospects
of peace in the Middle East.

9)
In the Introduction to Man of Sin, you note that “throughout this study I
speak of preterism in the generic sense of those who tie the fulfillment of the
prophecies regarding Antichrist directly to the events of AD 70.” In
essence, you conflate hyper-preterism (which is heretical) with all forms of
partial-preterism (which you acknowledge is held by many Reformed Christians)
throughout the book. Then on page 35 you claim that “preterists go to the
opposite extreme and push all
biblical prophecy back into the past.” (emphasis added) While this is true
of hyper-preterism, it's not true of partial-preterism by definition. Doesn't
this conflation of preterist positions lead to misunderstanding?

This
is a question which requires a fair bit of explanation in order to
answer. Preterism has become very difficult to define (the same is also
true for futurism) because there are so many varieties of preterists these
days. In that chapter I used the generic definitions for the sake of
clarity. I did not want too spend much time cataloguing the entire range
of carefully nuanced positions that fall all along a wide spectrum. The
reality is that if you went into all of the various preterist writers and
their particular views, you’d lose the reader, and rapidly exceed the
publisher’s page limit!

To
avoid doing that I used the generic definition of preterism widely used
throughout the literature until recently–before rise of a resurgent heretical
hyper-preterism. Preterists tend to see the events of A.D. 70 as
fulfilling much of the New Testament’s prophetic expectations, futurists
don’t. We can say that much in broad terms.

Let
me give you an example from personal experience of how complex this can
be. Some have called me a preterist because I believe that Jesus is
speaking of Israel and Jerusalem in the Olivet
Discourse–that is until Jesus switches to a discussion of cosmic signs when he
telegraphs ahead to the time of the end. But since I do not believe that
Jesus returned in judgment on Israel
in A. D. 70, I really don’t fit in the partial preterist camp.
Furthermore, because I do believe that the events in the first century
associated with the beast and the antichrist will continue to be ever-present
enemies facing Christ’s church until the time of the end, when these things
intensify greatly, some have called me a futurist! If I am a futurist, I
am certainly not the same kind of futurist as is a dispensationalist. All
of that is to say, you either have to speak in broad and generic terms (and
miss a few exceptional cases), or else you have to catalogue all those who
don’t neatly fit with the terms as used historically–such as an amillennial
preterist. Jay Adams was one. B. B. Warfield may have been, but
Reformed amillennarians tend not to be.

I
do see the events of A. D. 70 as marking that time when Israel became desolate
which led to Israel’s diaspora into the nations (Matthew 23:37-39). As I
understand it, all forms of preterism (whether that be the heretical
hyper-preterists who deny the bodily resurrection and Christ’s second advent,
or the orthodox partial-preterists who affirm the bodily resurrection and
Christ’s second advent) tend to agree in terms of seeing the end of the age as
occurring in 70 A.D., as well as believing that Jesus truly returned in the
heavens at that time. Many of these writers also reject the distinction
between the two ages (as Reformed amillennarians would define it) along with
the distinction between the already and the not yet.

Furthermore, some partial preterists–someone like Ken Gentry, for example–sees
the beast as tied to Nero and to events contemporary with the writing of the
New Testament. For them, all that remains of the beast motif is for the
church to face false teachers (antichrists) within the church. This is
what I mean when I state that preterists tend to push eschatological events
back into the past, while futurists tend to push them off to the time of the
end. I’m arguing for a third option of sorts. What begins in the
New Testament era (the presence of the Roman beast and a series of antichrists
within the church) will continue to be an on-going threat to the people of God
until the time of the end, where we see a furious and final climax before the
Lord returns to judge the world, raise the dead and make all things new.
Where does that fit on the preterist-futurist scale?

10)
In both of your books you assume an exclusive division between preterism and
amillennialism, yet I know a number of people who claim to be both. What
conflict(s) do you see between these two positions?

As
I mentioned, there have been a few preterists who are amillennial–and by
preterist here, I mean those who see a real Parousia of Jesus associated with
the events of A.D. 70 and who tie the beast and Paul’s man of sin exclusively
to Nero or some other pre-A.D. 70 Roman emperor. That said, there is a
reason why preterists today are almost ways postmillennial.
Postmillennarians are looking for a golden-age on the earth. If, as I
argue, a series of beasts will be empowered by the dragon and will rise
continually throughout the course of this age, and if I am correct that John is
warning us about a series of antichrists, who will arise within the church
before culminating in a final Antichrist, such would seem to fly in the face of
a golden age for the church upon the earth.

It
makes perfect sense and strengthens the postmillennial case greatly, if it
could be demonstrated that Nero is the beast spoken of by John, and that he has
already come and gone! That’s what I was getting at when I stated that
the preterist impulse is to push things back into the period before the fall of
Jerusalem.

11)
Last time we talked you mentioned that you're working on another book. Can you
share with us what we will be looking forward to?

I’ve
got several books in the pipeline. I’m working on a more comprehensive
eschatology text (wherein I can deal a bit more thoroughly with the nuances of
the varieties of preterists, progressive dispensationalism, etc.). I’d
like to publish my dissertation on B. B. Warfield. I’ve got an exposition
on Romans nearly done, along with a commentary on the Belgic Confession.

Category Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 1 Comment »

Interview with Kim Riddlebarger, Part 2

February 14, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Part
1 of the interview can be found here.

The final question in this section moves on to Kim's second book, Man of Sin, so I provided a link to the book here. We will explore issues related to both books in Part 3 of the interview.

4)
There are at least two concepts crucial to understanding amillennialism that I
think are often misunderstood, one being “the analogy of faith”
hermeneutic. Could you explain why this is so important?

Great
question. The analogy of faith means that we interpret a difficult
passage dealing with the millennium in Revelation 20:1-10, in light of clearer
passages which teach that when Jesus returns he raises the dead (1 Corinthians
15:12-57; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11) judges the world (Matthew 25:31-46;
Revelation 20:11-15), and renews all things (2 Peter 3:3-15). Since these
things are true (from “clear” texts) this means that when we look at Revelation
20, we already know that elsewhere Scripture teaches that when Jesus returns,
all men and women are judged (this means there can be no people on earth in
natural bodies to re-populate the earth, as taught in Luke 20:34-38), and that
the earth and cosmos are completely renewed. In the light of these clear
texts, how can there be people on earth in natural bodies after Christ comes
back (there can’t) and living on a half-way renewed earth (when Peter depicts
the complete renewal of all things)?

5)
The other concept we should address is the tension between ages of the
“already” and the “not yet. ” Especially for those not from
a Reformed background, this can be a confusing concept. What are the two ages
and how do they inform amillennial eschatology?

Understanding
the two ages is essential to understanding the eschatology of the New
Testament. Neither Jesus or Paul are millennarians (“pre” or
“post”). Rather, they speak of things in terms of “this age” (always a
reference to things temporal) and “the age to come” (always a reference to
things eternal). While I don’t have the space to unpack the biblical
evidence here, I do deal with this extensively in both my books, A Case for
Amillennialism, and The Man of Sin. I think this is a huge point and
exegetically fatal to all forms of millennialism.

The
same holds true for the “already” and the “not yet.” One example of this
can be found in Ephesians 2, where Paul speaks of believers struggling in this
age as already seated and raised with Christ in the heavenlies. This
means that I am to live my life now in light of that truth, because in one
sense, I have already been raised with Christ and now I need to act like
it. The same holds true throughout Romans 8 (especially vv. 9-17).
We live in the already (that which Paul calls “this present evil age” in Galatians
1:4), but we do so in light of the not-yet (Ephesians 1:14). This gives
us an eternal perspective on our present suffering.

6)
On page 82, you claim that “the age to come is already a present reality
for believers in Jesus Christ.” Given this belief, what does it mean for
Christians to “live in light of two ages?”

As
I mentioned above, this simply means that I am to live my life now in light of
eternity. By understanding the basic eschatology of the New Testament, we
have the box top to the jig-saw puzzle, so to speak. We are given the big
picture. God’s purposes will be realized. My present sufferings do,
in fact, make sense in light of my future glorification. The world and
the issues we face truly matter because this is the place where God is working
out all of his eternal purposes. As a Christian, I already know that the
story has a great and happy ending. Despite what happens all around me, I
know who wins in the end, and that even now, I am raised with Christ and seated
with him in the heavenlies. To live in light of the two eschatological ages is
like putting a jig-saw puzzle together while being able to look closely at the
box top. The big picture helps us make sense of the details.

7)
Your more recent book deals with a very specific aspect of eschatology: the
Antichrist. When you signed my copy of The Man of Sin, you claimed “its
not George Steinbrenner!” While I may beg to differ, I think it highlights
an interesting issue… Why do you think Christians are so interested in identifying
Antichrists all around us?

If
there is a “baseball antichrist,” he’s more likely to be found in the
commissioner’s office, or on the congressional panel investigating performance
enhancing drugs, than in Tampa
(where the Steinbrenners live).

In
The Man of Sin, I set forth my case that Scripture points us in two directions
here–heresy within the church (John’s epistles, 2 Thessalonians 2), and
state-sponsored persecution of the church (Revelation). In Revelation 13,
for example, John is dealing with the manifestation of the beast in the days of
imperial Rome,
when Christian were persecuted for not worshiping the emperor because of their
confession “Caesar is Lord.” If it is true that in his first epistle and
in the Book of Revelation that John is warning Christians throughout all ages
that false teaching will be ever-present, and that the dragon will empower the
beast (the state) to persecute the church, then we should expect to face
difficult and perilous times. In the light of the proceeding, then, of
course, there is every temptation to identify who the next antichrist figure
(heretic or persecutor) will be.

On
the one hand, this fear of internal enemies and potential “beasts” is healthy
and normal. Christians need to know that Satan will seek to destroy the
church from within, as well as through external means, such as the persecution
of the church by the state (or its leader). We need to be on guard for
such things. But any attempt to identify such a current foe always needs
to be conducted with a fair bit of restraint. God has warned us not to
set dates and how many times have we seen even the greatest of minds make the
worst of mistakes in predicting the end.

We
must never get into the business of reading the Bible through the lens of
current events–as do so many of our contemporaries. I am with Geerhardus
Vos on this one. We’ll know it when we see it.

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

Interview with Kim Riddlebarger, Part 1

February 13, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Over the next few days I’ll be posting a three-part
interview I recently conducting with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger on eschatology. Kim
is the senior pastor at Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim,
CA, visiting professor at Westminster Seminary
California,
and a regular co-host of the White Horse Inn radio program. (Read his full bio
here)

The first book we discussed was A Case for Amillennialism.
You can read my review of that book here.

1)
You've referred to eschatology as a personal hobby, but many people seem to
view it as a fundamental issue that determines salvation. What does a healthy
Christian understanding of eschatology look like? How much of our time and
study should we devote to it?

Well,
eschatology is not so much a hobby for me as a professional interest–an
interest I've had for some time, however. No, one's eschatology does not
determine where they will spend eternity–their relationship to Jesus Christ
does. But since the Bible (especially the New Testament) says a great
deal about eschatology, I tend not to be very sympathetic toward those who call
themselves “pan-millennarians” and who adopt no particular
eschatological position, lamely claiming that “things will pan out in the
end.” Of course, things will work out according to God's plan and
purpose, but since eschatology is an important part of biblical teaching,
Christians are obligated to make some effort to read and study eschatological
matters, just as they should do in other areas of Christian doctrine.
Yes, eschatology can be a complicated, confusing, and difficult subject.
But sloth or indifference toward the subject are not options!

So,
while our millennial position does not determine our salvation, identifying the
underlying hermeneutic we use to interpret Scripture and then realizing how
this hermeneutic will impact our reading of the Bible is a very important
matter. Not only does our hermeneutic color how understand those passages
which deal with end-times, our hermeneutic also influences how we understand
and work out the ramifications of matters related to our salvation. There
is a certain inter-connectedness here.

We
all have hermeneutical assumptions, which we need to identify and continually re-evaluate
in the light of Scripture. Things get dicey when people assume that their
eschatological views just jump out from the pages of Scripture, as though the
Bible taught dispensationalism or covenant theology, just as we find it taught
among our contemporaries. What I'm getting at is that if you are a
dispensationalist, you need to identify your operating assumptions–two
redemptive purposes, one for national Israel, one for believing Gentiles,
and the so-called “literal” interpretation of the Bible. On the
amillennial side, we believe that covenant theology is Scripture's own internal
architecture and that the authors of the New Testament tell us that Jesus
Christ (not Israel)
is the hermeneutical center of all of Scripture. Unless we keep these presuppositions
before us, and unless we are willing to continually evaluate them in the light
of Scripture, as well as in light of the arguments raised against us by those
who happen to disagree, all we can do is shout at each other or extend
pointless anathemas.

We
need to be clear that our eschatology does have an impact on a number of
doctrines. Take for example the kingship of Christ (part of his
three-fold office as prophet, priest and king). Dispensationalists tell
us that the kingdom offer was withdrawn when Jesus appeared in Israel and was
rejected by the Jews, and that his kingdom will not be fully manifest until the
millennial age. But Reformed amillennarians (such as myself) see Christ'
kingdom as a present reality (through word and sacrament) and that Christ's
kingship (his present rule before the final consummation) not only ensures the
victory of his kingdom in this present evil age, but his present rule (through
the indwelling Holy Spirit) is one of the primary factors in my sanctification as
Christ's rule breaks the power of sin which one held sway over his people
(mortification and vivification). That's why you'll see Reformed
amillennarians speak often of eschatology (although not in the ways in which
dispensationalists do), since we tend not to push things off into the
future. Rather, we see much of the New Testament's teaching on
eschatology as a present reality and as having a direct impact upon many
aspects of the Christian life.

2)
So far, you've published two books on eschatology, the first being A Case for
Amillennialism. I remember first hearing about this view (in my less-educated
dispensational days) and being told it meant there is no millennium. Could you
clarify in a nutshell what amillennialism is for those who may have similar
misunderstandings?

Amillennialism
is simply the view that what is depicted in Revelation 20:1-10 is a description
of the period of time between the first coming of Christ (and his binding of
Satan) and his second coming (when the beast and the false prophet are cast
into the lake of fire). The scene in the first 6 verses of Revelation 20
take place in heaven and not on earth (that's where the thrones are). The
thousand years are a figurative period of time–numbers in Revelation are always
used symbolically. The first resurrection is a believer's conversion
(John 5:24-25), and those who experience the first resurrection need not fear
the second death. When we speak of amillennialism, we really mean
“present millennialism.” We do not “spiritualize” the
Bible as dispensationalists claim. Neither do we hold to
“replacement theology,” but that is another discussion for another
time.

3)
Since you brought it up, I'm always baffled when the “replacement
theology” charge is made against covenant theology. We hold that God has
always had one way of saving his people, yet dispensationalists believe God has
had at least two different plans for redemption. Doesn't that make
dispensationalism the real “replacement theology”?

I
too am baffled by the charge, because I don’t know of any current amillennial
writers who speak of the church as “replacing Israel.” As you point out,
God will save his elect. There is only one gospel throughout both
testaments–Romans 4 comes to mind here.

In the Old Testament, the elect (those who are truly members of the covenant of
grace–who believed the promise as did Abraham) were almost exclusively
Israelites. But you also have people like Melchizadek, who is a type of
Christ, and to whom Abraham pays tithes. When Jonah preaches in Nineveh, we read that
many repented (Jonah 3:6-10). When Israel
entered Canaan, the Gibeonites tricked Joshua
so as to be included in the covenant with YHWH (Joshua 9). Presumably
there were elect believers in Nineveh and among
the Gibeonites, who were outside the boundary of national Israel and who
somehow believed YHWH would save them from their sins. It is important to
notice that as the gospel spreads from Jerusalem
to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), the focus dramatically shifts to elect
Gentiles coming to faith. That said, I do believe that in Romans 9-11,
Paul teaches that immediately before the end of the age vast numbers of ethnic
Jews will come to faith in Christ and join Christ’s church.

When
Jesus began his messianic ministry, he started with twelve disciples and a few
additional followers. By the time of his death and resurrection, there
are still relatively few believers in Israel outside the apostolic circle
(Nicodemus, comes to mind). After Pentecost, thousands more come to
faith–primarily Jews initially, but then we see an increasing number of
Gentiles embracing Israel’s
Messiah. So, it is not as though the church “replaces” Israel.
Rather, Christ is the true Israel,
and when he comes, he adds a gazillion Gentiles (who are elect) to his
church. To speak of amillennialism as though we reject Israel on some
sort of racial basis–thereby opening the door to anti-Semitism–is a sad case of
a straw-man argument. A while back, I responded to a recent lecture given
by John MacArthur on this very subject. Your readers might find it
helpful. http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/

And
yes, you are absolutely right. It is ironic that the dispensationalists
divide what Christ has joined together (Ephesians 2:11-22) by
emphasizing different redemptive programs for Jew and Gentile. This
“replaces” the one gospel which has one purpose (to make Jew and Gentile one),
with one gospel with two purposes (one for Jew and one for Gentile).
Ironically, this separates the very people (Jew and Gentile) Christ came to join
together into one body.

Category Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 1 Comment »

Should God Live In His Car?

February 13, 2008 Posted by David N

On more than one occasion in the past year I've heard the sentiment (mostly from pastors) that we should have church on the grass and give all of what would otherwise be the “building fund” money to the poor. People who say things like this generally tell glowing stories about members of their congregation who do “radical” things like sell most of their worldly possessions and move to the mission field. In one such story, a young man sold most of his stuff and was now living in his car.

Now, just so we're clear up front, I think that's pretty awesome. I really admire that kid (the one living in his car because he took Jesus' command to care for the poor seriously), and there are times when I pray for that kind of courage. But when I hear things like, “Let's give away the building money and have church on the grass”, one of my first thoughts is, “So, should God live in his car?”

That may sound a tad bit cynical, but think about it. All things considered, which is easier, selling your church building or selling your own house? It seems to me that it's actually very easy to say, “Oh, we should give all the building money to the poor” because that won't affect you at all. You were already giving that money to the building fund, and when your church is gone, you'll still have all of your worldly possessions, only now you'll feel really good about having taken part in giving millions of dollars (if you're a big church) to the poor.

My bigger problem with this sentiment, however, is its attitude toward God. Whenever it comes to things like dressing nice for church, we're very quick to throw out platitudes about how God is only concerned with our hearts and not our outward appearance. “God doesn't care what I wear to church” they will say. To which I respond, “No, but you should.”

It's almost as if we're saying, “God doesn't need us to build a special place for us to meet Him and fellowship with Him. He doesn't care where we have church.” Perhaps not, but we should.

In 2 Samuel 7:1-2, we read:

Now when the king lived in his house and the LORD had given him rest from all his surrounding enemies, the king said to Nathan the prophet, “See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent.”

Even though God would turn David down (and give the project to his son, Solomon), David's heart is in the right place. He sees that his own palace is greater than the place where God's very presence on Earth was supposed to dwell, and he's upset by this.

The church is meant to be the meeting place of God and His people. What the church looks like, what kind of art decorates it, its size and shape; all these things communicate something to the people in the church. The building itself is a theological statement. What statement are we making if we have none at all?

Category Posted in Culture, David's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Theology 9 Comments »

Book Review: Reagan’s Children by Hans Zeiger

February 11, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

In today’s tense political climate, many analysts have
speculated that Reagan conservatism is dying out. Among other things, they
point to the popularity of big government Republicans who may seek to lower
taxes, but overcompensate through increasing government programs and spending.
To Reagan conservatives, the future looks bleak. But in Reagan’s Children: Taking Back the City on the Hill, Hans Zeiger
looks to the rise of conservative values among young Americans today.

Zeiger has essentially one point throughout the book: there
is a resurgence of conservatism and faith among the youth of America today
and this should be a great cause of optimism. To make his case, he provides
countless statistics, case studies, and anecdotes. He explores the reasons why
it’s occurring, the historical significance and importance, and how
conservative Christians can further strengthen their cause.

Perhaps the greatest value of Reagan’s Children is Zeiger’s relentless optimism. It’s refreshing,
and almost shocking, considering the typical doom and gloom rhetoric often put
forward by conservative commentators worried about the future of America.

However great this optimism is, though, it is rooted in the
book’s greatest problem: Zeiger contends that God is calling this generation to
change the world and that when Christians take charge of this calling America will
continue to be (or return to being) “that shining city on a hill.” The problem
is that the primary mode for making a difference is through political action.
What’s missing in the calling of Reagan’s
Children is the role of the church. It is the church’s responsibility to
change the world, not a secular government. In this, Zeiger perpetuates a
serious problem common to the Religious Right: confusing the role of the
government and the role of the church. While America
may well be the “greatest nation on God’s green earth,” it is not so because America is
God’s chosen country. America
is not God’s country, but the church is His, and it is through the global
community of believers that God will bless the nations.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Politics, Roger's Posts 5 Comments »

Closed Minds And Arrogant Hearts

February 2, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Christians (especially American Evangelical Christians) are often said to be closed-minded and arrogant. We are closed-minded because we refuse to accept everyone's views equally, and subsequently we are arrogant because we have the nerve to say (often quite publicly) that we are right and everyone who disagrees with us is wrong.

What I find interesting is what happens when you turn these accusations back on the accusers. The first one is easy. Let's use the secular atheist (naturalist) as an example. The atheist is just as closed-minded as the Christian (in the way that the atheist has decided to define “closed-mindedness”) because the atheist refuses to accept the Christian's views on an equal plane with his own. How could he, when their views are so radically opposed? This illustrates the bankruptcy of a pluralistic relativism, and people are usually quick to point this out in an argument.

What doesn't seem to get as much attention is the charge of arrogance. Christians are called arrogant because of their belief that they alone have the truth. But consider this: while the Christian may claim to have the complete truth, he does not claim that no one else has parts of the truth. Indeed, all of the world religions, even the strangest ones, contain some glimmer of the truth, even if it is only the acknowledgment of the existence of the supernatural. On the other hand, the secular atheist views religious belief as, at best, a necessary stage of evolution, or at worst, the root cause of all the evils mankind faces. The secular atheist sees history as the story of mankind's rise out of silly superstition into enlightenment–where “enlightenment” means “becoming atheists.” Most importantly, they are committed to the belief that the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived, at every time and every place before now, have been completely and utterly wrong about all of the most fundamental and important questions of existence. Only now, as we finally crawl out of the dark age of belief in a god, are we beginning to get the answers right.

If that isn't arrogance, I'm not sure what would qualify.

(And, of course, in Christianity there is an added element of humility, in that we are forced to constantly acknowledge our inadequacy as mere finite beings and rely on God's strength rather than our own. Sadly, for many who call themselves Christians, this humility doesn't seem to show).

On both points, closed-mindedness and arrogance, C. S. Lewis (as usual) put it best:

If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other
religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do
have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole
world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free
to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at
least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to
persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong
about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a
Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.

Oh, the irony.

Category Posted in Main Page 2 Comments »

Book Review: They Like Jesus but Not the Church by Dan Kimball

February 1, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

When preparing for overseas mission trips, Christians often
go through some sort of training to learn about the cultures, languages, and
religions of the people to whom they’ll be evangelizing. They understand that
these differences present barriers for these people to hear and understand the
gospel message. Yet in America,
Christians often assume that there are no such barriers. In They Like Jesus by Not the Church Dan
Kimball examines the church through the eyes of non-Christians in today’s
emerging generations. He attempts to show that there are barriers and
misunderstandings we must address if we are to effectively present the gospel
message today.

Through the first few chapters, Kimball sets up the
situation by showing that our culture’s perceptions of Christianity have
changed. For example, instead of being view as trusted spiritual leaders,
pastors today are often referred to as “creepy.” Kimball argues that for many
of us, we haven’t realized the changes because we’re trapped in Christian
bubbles. The trend is that the longer we are Christians, the fewer
non-Christian friends we have. What we fail to perceive is that while the
church, and Christians in general, is not viewed favorable, most people do have
a favorable impression of Jesus. Many of their impressions of Jesus’ life and
teachings may be inaccurate, but they do provide a place ripe for fruitful
conversation.

Much of the book takes a look at specific issues through the
experiences of several non-Christian friends Dan interviewed for the book.
According to Dan, their sentiments represent general misperceptions about
Christians and the church that we must listen and respond to. The six
misperceptions are: The church is an organized religion with a political
agenda, the church is judgmental and negative, the church is dominated by males
and oppresses females, the church is homophobic, the church arrogantly claims
all other religions are wrong, and the church is full of fundamentalists who
take the whole Bible literally. In each topic Dan explains what his friends
have said, what the Bible says about the issue, and how Christians should
respond.

In the first of the concluding chapters, Dan explores what
his friends wish the church were like. He then revises the old “gap”
illustration where man is separated from God by a chasm called sin that can
only be bridged by the cross. Dan argues that another chasm exits called
Christianity and the Christian subculture that must be bridged by trust before
we can effectively speak to the problem of sin and their need for a savior.

There are some things in this book that will make some
Christians uncomfortable. For the most part, this is a good thing. While I
don’t agree with every single point made, I still recommend the book without
reservation. Christians must begin understand how we are perceived in our
culture so we can seek to correct our missteps. Dan Kimball is an outstanding
guide toward this task. They Like Jesus
but Not the Church effectively shows significant problems Christians must
address in evangelism and offers practical solutions along the way.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts No Comments »

More Than One True Meaning?: A Case For 'Multi-Objectivism'

January 30, 2008 Posted by David N

James K. A. Smith summed up postmodernism in three words: Interpretation is everything. When the author is dead, and his intent along with him, the door is opened wide for an infinite number of alternative interpretations.

As bad as this kind of subjectivism run amok may be, the rigid objectivism of modernity that created it isn't any better.

It can't be denied that some things can have more than one interpretation (one thinks of a work of art that can genuinely have different meanings for different people). But does this fact necessarily commit us to the assumption that everything can have an infinite number of interpretations? And more importantly, can they all be right?

I'd like to suggest that the only thing this fact commits us to believing is, well, exactly what it says. Some things can have more than one interpretation. But notice that even if something can have more than one meaning, the implication is that all of its meanings must still be right or true meanings. The logical leap comes when we assume that all potential meanings must be right ones. I see no reason to assume that.

Instead, we should adopt a position I'll call “multi-objectivsim.” The sort of rigid objectivism of modernity leaves no room for legitimate cases of multiple meaning, and the subjectivism of postmodernity throws out objective meaning altogether. So we might think of this as a more realistic middle ground.

Just in case you still aren't sold on the idea that one thing (whether art or literature) can have more than one legitimate meaning, consider the following example from the Old Testament.

Isaiah 7:14 – Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In the time of Isaiah this verse had a specific meaning. The child being referred to here is Isaiah's own child. And the child's birth was a sign to Ahaz, King of Judah, that God would bring judgment upon him for refusing to trust in the Lord. Now fast forward to the New Testament. Matthew sites this verse in Isaiah as being fulfilled in the Virgin birth of Christ (Matt. 1: 22-23). Well, which is it? Does this verse refer to Isaiah's child or to Christ?

The obvious answer is that both interpretations are equally true. But are we now free to assume that there are probably an infinite number of equally true meanings that we can ascribe to this verse (and every other verse in Scripture) as we see fit? Not at all. As before, this would require us to make a leap that we are not warranted in making. Rather, we can affirm a multi-objectivism. There is certainly more than one true meaning, but each meaning is still objectively true.

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

Timeless Time

January 28, 2008 Posted by David N

Saint Augustine felt a considerable amount of anguish at being “in time.” So much so that he considered it to be a part of salvation itself that we are saved from time into timelessness.

But that raises an interesting question. How can finite beings be timeless? Our very finitude, by definition, seems to consign us to the temporal. Try to imagine experiencing reality in any other way than “past-now-future” (or, as Augustine said, “memory-observation-expectation”) and you’ll be scratching your head for a long time (see, there’s that word again).

Augustine was not setting out to give a philosophical account of time, but merely reflections on his own experience of time. In a similar fashion, there might be a way to reconcile Augustine’s desire to be freed from the moment-by-moment passage of time and humanity’s “bondage” to the temporal.

As the old saying goes, time flies when you’re having fun. Thinking back on all of those moments in my life where I found this sentiment to be true, I can remember what seemed to be “timeless” experiences. If you’ve ever had a moment where you suddenly looked at a clock and said, “Wow, is it that late already?” then you know basically what I’m talking about.

As it turns out, there are only two kinds of situations that I can think of where the passage of time is actually self-evident: (1) When one is bored or otherwise miserable and can’t wait for a certain amount of time to be over, or (2) when one is having the best time of his life and doesn’t want the time to come to an end (and so is constantly looking at his watch and dreading the impending end of his happiness). With regard to (1) you could almost say that there is an inverse relationship between a person’s happiness and their awareness of the passage of time. With a few exceptions, a general rule could be that the happier you are the less likely you are to notice time passing. Since we can safely assume that times of boredom and misery will be scarce in Heaven, we can get rid of (1).

What about (2)? I think there are two ways to look at it. You can deny that the person is actually happy whenever he checks his watch, because at the moment he does so he is actually feeling anxiety and not happiness. But that could be debated. A much simpler answer would be that, in Heaven, the very fact of eternity will mean that our happiness will literally never end. And thus the dread of our happiness ending will never be a possibility.

In one sense, then, it is not time itself that we are delivered from in salvation, but rather those conditions that make the passage of time so painful to us here on fallen, sinful Earth. Just think back to what it felt like when you were experiencing one of those “timeless” moments, and then imagine feeling that way for all eternity, and I think you may just have a very dim idea of what Heaven will feel like.

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