A Different Kind of Evangelical or Betraying Evangelicalism?

Date December 7, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Hello everyone!  I guess I'll just begin by jumping in the deep end!

 

On the emergent-us blog, a recent entry was titled “A Different Kind of Evangelical” by Steve Bush.  In it, he compares and contrasts what he calls “conservative evangelicals” with “postconservative evangelicals” (read backward fundies vs. hip emergent-types).  He makes some fascinating comparisons:

 

1) Theological Differences.  “…they are different, and their differences are in large part theological.”  At least he admits this much!  I wish all of the emerging crowd was as forthcoming.

 

2) Inerrancy.  “Postconservative evangelicals believe that the conservatives’ privileging of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is mistaken. Inerrancy is a data-centered approach to Scripture, whereas postconservatives practice a person-centered approach. In our view, the Bible is not a repository of facts, but rather a witness to a living person: the resurrected Jesus Christ.”  Ah, yes.  The false dichotomy.  Is the Bible data-centered or person-centered?  Hmmm…  How about realizing that Scripture contains data which directs us to a Person?  Why separate the two and minimize (or even reject) the doctrine of biblical inerrancy?

 

3) Salvation.  “Conservative evangelicals tend to see salvation as an individualistic affair, postconservatives emphasize the communal dimension.”  Once again, why emphasize one over the other?  Christ redeemed His elect, and they compose His body (the church). 

 

4) Hell.  “Conservatives tend to see hell as a place of eternal, conscious torment after death; postconservatives are concerned about this-worldly hells of genocides, slums, and diseases.”  Interesting.  I'll come back to this in a minute.

 

5) Evangelism.  “The postconservative attitude towards non-evangelical and non-Christian thought is an attitude of critical but receptive openness. We are not zealous to debunk non-Christian views, but instead seek to find what is valuable in other perspectives.”  When one believes that God reveals His truth through His Word, and that Scripture is sufficient for us in our faith and in our practice, then why do we look for value in other perspectives?  I realize that we want to accurately understand what people believe as well as look for bridges in communicating the gospel, but I get uncomfortable with a Christian seeking “what is valuable in other perspectives.”  Why not simply seek what God has actually revealed to us in the Bible?

 

And this gets me back to my general observation of these kinds of statements–they are not grounded in Scripture!  How should we understand salvation, hell, and evangelism?  By turning to God's Word!  In all of Bush's comparisons, none are grounded in the Bible.  Doesn't Scripture tell us about the individual and corporate aspects of salvation?  What does the Bible reveal about hell?  Doesn't the Word of God tell us and show us how to proclaim the gospel?  This blog entry certainly doesn't point us in this direction!

 

As a result, this type of thinking is not directing one toward a different kind of evangelical. It leads to a betrayal of evengelicalism itself.

Category Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page Comments 40 Comments »

Hammett Gone Wild

Date December 7, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

A couple of weeks ago I posted John Hammett's ETS paper on the Emerging Church. It took a little while, but after a week or so it rapidly made its way through many important emerging blogs. Here's a run down of the links:

Jason Clark noted it, then offered 11 points of reflection.

Alan Hartung noted it, then offered a loose (and I think unhelpful) definition of EC. It's so loose that I would be considered emerging, as well as most people I know.

Chrismc.net posted a link.

Steve Taylor (Emergent Kiwi) posted his reactions. He's also responded to an email from Dr. Hammett.

Justin Taylor posted a link.

Steve McCoy interacted with an article about Hammett's paper.

Ochuck posted a link.

Emergentno.com posted my summary and has some comments on the paper.

Fide-O posted a link.

Subversive Influence posted a link.

The Sheep's Crib posted a link.

Emergent West Michigan and Already Not Yet have also linked.

By far, Tall Skinny Kiwi has been doing the most with the paper. He did seven posts- Intro, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1 (says that A-Team is cool, thanks!), 4.1, 5.0 (has an interesting poll), and 6.0.

My brief reflections on all this: I think the interaction here has been far more charitable than it has been in the past, which is to everyone's credit. I deeply appreciate Andrew Jone's willingness to engage a thoughtful critic so extensively. This, I think, has provided a positive model for how dialogue can move forward.

Jone's poll in 5.0 asked EC folk to choose among Richard Niebuhr's 5 ways Christ may interact with culture. “Christ the Transformer culture” was the most popular, to my surprise. Some commenters said this was reductionist or “pigeon-holing.” While missiologies do not stictly adhere to only one option, I think it's fair to say one tends to be the most dominate. What is reductionist and “pigeion-holing” is the labeling of everyone who isn't part of EC as modern, fundamentalist, evangelical, etc., which seems to occur in most EC literature. The knife cuts both ways.

As I asked in Jone's comments, my next question is why do people who consider themselves emerging think they fit the “transformer” option? What specifically are they doing that models this? I think getting an idea for how they view this would be incredibly helpful.

Category Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 15 Comments »

The Link Crusade

Date December 6, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

What comes to mind when you hear of angels, beasts, and fire? I suggest the new and incredible trailer for X-Men 3.




John Samson of Reformation Theology, the blog of Monergism.com, has written an extensive post grappling with the charge that Divine Election is unfair.




With the coming of Christmas we are once again surrounded with Advent
“stuff.” I've never taken the time to figure out what Advent is,
though I've been curious. I've recently been greatly aided by Mark D.
Robert's latest series: Advent and the Christian Year (2005). A good place to start is Advent F.A.Q.




I planned on launching a new blog back in August. As things tend to go,
it is yet to be launched. However, due to the nature of the blog, I've
decided to start using it before it's current launch date of January
1st. So, from now on, you can find material on all things C.S. Lewis at
my “coming soon” blog- Never Enough Tea.
Upon it's official launch I'll be explaining its purpose and what
readers can expect from it. Until then, I will post links pertaining to Narnia and Lewis in general there.




Phillip Johnson commented on a disturbing outreach product
being produced my a German youth group. It's a calendar featuring nude
Bible Characters. Just what Christian guys need, a “biblical
justification” for looking at porn…



Jeff Downs sent along a link to a hilarious blog- “that is not my blog.” Free-for-all clever bashing of postmodern theology and whimpy apologetics, all in good fun, of course.




Something I often appreciated about Five Iron Frenzy was the great artwork in their albums. The artist's name is Doug TenNapel, though I had no idea who he was at the time. Someone else has shown appreciation by tattooing the cover of Quantity is Job 1 (my favorite) on their arm. These are not my pants…



John Mark Reynolds has begun posting the material he spoke on at the GodBlogCon. Part I is up.




Amazon.com is showing a video of Paul McCartney playing “Follow Me” from his latest album.

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments 2 Comments »

It’s a Festivus Miracle!

Date December 5, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Festivus miracles usually refer to coincidences or random
occurrences (see the Wikipedia definition). However, most people often mean
more than that when they speak of how a loved one was abnormally healed of a
disease, or how a friend was saved from a disastrous car accident in some
bizarre and unexpected way. Christians often point to resurrection of the dead
as perhaps the greatest miracle occurring in history. But what do we mean when
using the word ‘miracle’?

Some people have tried to define ‘miracle’ as the bending or
breaking of a law of nature (call this definition ‘A’). For instance, a law of
nature might be that life cannot generate from non-life (abiogenesis). In the
case of resurrections, then, the event would appear to break a law of nature.

But let’s also define this term so we can get to the bottom
of the issue. What is a law of nature? Wikipedia tells us that laws of nature
(or physical laws) are true, universal, simple, absolute, eternal, etc. They
are “scientific generalizations based on empirical observations.” In these
terms, it sure sounds as though such laws can never be compromised, thwarted,
or broken in any way, thus, ‘A’ miracles cannot happen.

I believe William Lane Craig has offered the most helpful
definition- “Idealization; what happens under ideal conditions when there are
no interfering factors.” This entails all the previous notions of what a law of
nature is, but also shows the prospect of interference. This is necessary due
to the fact that we interfere with the laws of nature all the time. Take, for
instance, the law of gravity. Given ideal conditions an object should fall do
to the pull of gravity. Sure enough, when I throw my car keys in the air, they
fall back down. But what happens when I catch my keys in mid-air so they no
longer are falling? Did I break the law of gravity? Of course not, but I did
interfere with it.

Much like the idea that someone believing my catching my car
keys breaks a law of nature is hogwash, so to is the idea that miracles break
or bend the laws of nature (definition ‘A’). I propose we look at miracles in a
different way- what transpires when a law of nature is interfered with in an
abnormal manner. Something like ‘abnormal’ is necessary in the definition so we
do not end up calling my catching my car keys a miracle (I assure you it is
quite normal). However, we might consider a gal answering ‘yes’ to my proposing
a date a miracle since it is an abnormal event, and contrary to what some may
believe it would not break a natural law.

This second definition of miracles seems to be what
we’ve really meant all along. It upholds what we believe to be true of natural
laws, and also makes miracles appear more reasonable. Thus, if Jesus wanted to
raise someone from the dead (as Christians claim He did), all He had to do was
interfere in some abnormal way with what was naturally occurring. For the
non-theist, my hope is that this explains how miracles are reasonable in light
of the existence of a Being more powerful than we are (i.e., more options are
available for this more powerful Being).

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

Could a Non-Physical Being Possibly Affect the Physical World?

Date December 4, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

To accept the existence of miracles, one would have to accept the idea that a being without material properties (i.e., God) could move about, change, and otherwise affect objects in the physical world. Is this, in itself, an absurd proposition? I don’t think so. I can’t show you how the affecting of the physical by the non-physical is possible — such explanations are beyond my capability, but I can certainly demonstrate that this is not only possible, but commonplace.

Imagine you’re sitting on a park bench and spot a good friend approaching. You raise your arm and wave.

Why did you wave? There was nothing in the physical world that compelled you through the laws of physics or chemistry or anything else to raise your arm. Your action did not begin with a physical process; your action began with your will. Your will to raise your arm was not a physical part of your body. Your thought was non-physical — it couldn’t have been measured because it had no mass and took up no space. Try describing your thoughts and your will in physical terms — what color are they? how big are they? how much do they weigh?  These questions are meaningless because our wills are not in the same category as objects in the physical world which can be described in such terms.

Our wills are non-physical, and yet somehow our non-physical wills are connected to and have power over a part of  the material world. Somehow our non-physical thoughts and wills are able to move physical objects — our own bodies.

Our limited minds are only able to move our own bodies, but is it so outrageous to think that it’s possible for there to be a greater mind out there who would have access to all physical objects? It’s difficult to rule out the possibility on principle when we see the same thing taking place on a smaller scale everyday, every time we make a move.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Religion (General) Comments 40 Comments »

Bloggers, What Do You Think About Miracles?

Date December 2, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

It's time again for the atheist/Christian blog carnival GOD
or NOT, and I hear from someone in the know that this month's submissions are
sorely lacking in Christian material. 
So, Christian bloggers, man your stations!  You can write on anything to do with the subject of
miracles.  Submission information is
here, and the deadline is this Sunday. 
Then on Monday, check out the carnival here.  Don't pass up this opportunity to have a link to your blog from
The Evangelical Atheist–because really, how often does that happen?

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous, Religion (General) Comments No Comments »

Faith & Reason Through the Ages

Date December 2, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Anselm on Faith & Reason, from Cur Deus Homo?
(Why the God-Man?):

“I do not try, Lord, to attain Your lofty heights, because
my understanding is in no way equal to it. But I do desire to understand Your
truth a little, that truth that my hear believes and loves. For I do not seek
to understand so I may believe, but I believe so that I may understand. For I
believe this also, that ‘unless I believe, I shall not understand.’”

Paul on Faith & Reason, from his first letter to the
Corinthians (Chapter 2:7):

“Yet, among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is
not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass
away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before
the ages for our glory.”

Paul believed he could impart (communicate) something to the
“mature” people in Corinth they could not receive from the world. This secret
wisdom could not be imparted to those who pass away, but only to those will
live onto to glory. I believe what Paul was speaking of here is an
understanding of what Christ’s death on the cross means. To truly understand,
in any sense, what His life and death mean for us we must first have faith. What
I find most striking in this letter by Paul is that God decreed the secret
wisdom (essentially the Gospel) for our glory.

Fast-forward one thousand years to St. Anselm in the
Middle Ages. This expression of faith and reason in one of his most famous
works echoes the thoughts of Paul. He understood we cannot understand God’s
truth comprehensively, and that without faith we cannot understand it at all.
But on the basis of faith, by God’s grace, we can possess some of that secret
wisdom. Such is our position before the throne of grace- the humble seeking of
that wisdom which God has set aside for us.

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

Franke’s Self-Refutedness

Date December 1, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

After ETS I posted a summary of the exchange between J.P.
Moreland and John Franke on non-Foundationalism. In my summary, I noted that
Moreland accused Franke of being self-refuting, and that I did not see a way
for Franke to avoid these criticisms, but said I would save the details for
another post. Well, here’s the other post.

The accusation involves “simply seeing,” having a direct
awareness of reality. Moreland notes, “It seems to me that John embraces and,
indeed, needs constructivism or epistemic closure for his
theological method.” Each of these positions denies direct awareness. Moreland
characterizes them as follows:

First, there is constructivism
according to which the object, either whole or in a relevant aspect, is created
by the mental act… Second, there is epistemic closure according to which
in one way or another there is no direct epistemic access to intentional
objects. Whether due to the notion that language or a surrogate stands between
the subject and such objects, or whether due to some factor, epistemic closure
entails that there is no such thing as simple seeing or knowledge by
acquaintance; rather, all seeing is either indirect seeing as or seeing that,
and that “everything is interpretation.”

Franke’s claims appear to be self-refuting whether he
embraces constructivism or epistemic closure; however, these claims appear to
fit most accurately within an epistemic closure paradigm:

I believe an advocate of epistemic
closure will engage in self-refuting assertions sooner or later and, indeed,
some things John says come perilously close to being self refuting: (1) all
such information (about the living center), whether it be positive or negative,
is not really information, but always either dogma or self-criticism
(2); we cannot speak of God (3); the finite cannot comprehend the infinite (4);
the truth is that there is Truth, but not for us, only for God (7); there are
no comprehensive views (8). (Note: Page numbers in this sentence refer to John
Franke, “Nonfoundationalism, Truth, and the Knowledge of God.”)

DJ Chuang asked when I posted the summary, “And, even if
someone does make a self-refuting statement, as a non-foundationalist, wouldn't
that be okay?” I noted that I don’t think all types would be okay with
self-refuting statements. Regardless, Franke did seem to care. He was asked
during the Q & A to respond to some of these and he looked at the first two
and said he did not see how they are self-refuting. If one makes some of these
statements- especially (for example) the second statement, and they do not see
that it is self-refuting, I’m left believing they don’t understand the
accusation that’s been leveled at them.

However, I’m also not sure all of these are clear. I’m
really not sure what the first statement is intended to say. The third statement
does not require comprehension of the infinite; rather it requires
comprehension of the finite. So it’s hard for me to see how either of these are
self-refuting. The second, fourth, and fifth statements do appear to be
self-referentially absurd (as some would put it), and I don’t see how Franke
can get out of those intact.

Category Posted in Main Page, Philosophy, Roger's Posts Comments 13 Comments »

The Temple of Links

Date November 29, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

A few weeks ago Justin Taylor linked to two chapel talks by David Wells on
“Emergent Spirituality.” I finally listened to them yesterday and
commend them to you as they are excellent reflections. Wells reminds me
of Os Guinness.




How about a 9-minute supertrailer of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe? You got it (HT: NarniaFans.com)




Need more to satisfy your Narnia cravings? Check out the latest issue of Reformation 21. Go read the review of Jack's Life. Summary: It was awfully written, but they don't mind because Douglas Gresham (Lewis' stepson) wrote it. TenNapel also goes this route. It was poorly written, but I don't see the charm.




I flipped on the TV this evening in an effort to stay awake and my
sickness was increased by Rev. Camdon of 7th Heaven talking about how
unfriendly religion has been to women and how he and Lucy were going to
change that by having Lucy continue as his associate pastor. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood exists for such awful things as this, and Rebecca Jones has a perfectly relevant essay: Does Christianity Squash Women?




Another hat tip to Justin Taylor for linking to a great column today on Why the Left Hates Sex.



John Mark Reynolds has finally started blogging again after FINALLY finishing the first draft of his book, Jerusalem and Athens. After the long delay we get “Should I Want My Buffy?” Only form JMR could this ever be acceptable…




Zondervan is posting papers from the 2005 ETS conference. Naturally, most of the ones I would like aren't posted.



Dan Kimball's posted an interesting Peanut's cartoon from the 70's.

Category Posted in Main Page Comments 10 Comments »

ETS 5- James Beverley on Ravi Zacharias, Robert Millet, and the New Dialogue

Date November 28, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

James
Beverley presented on “The New Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue: The
Zacharias Case and the Views of Robert Millet.” He began by providing
the context of the debate, which he described in 12 acts (as in acts of
a play). (Please note: This is a summary of the paper, not how I view
what’s happened)

1)      The rise of Mormonism and negative responses by non-Mormons.

2)      The rise of an empathetic response- such the Mormon-Evangelical book How Wide the Divide? by Stephen Robinson & Craig Blomberg.

3)      The ministry of Standing Together, emphasizing dialogues between Greg Johnson and Robert Millet.

4)      Ravi Zacharias was invited to speak at the Tabernacle, with the permission of the President of the Church.

5)      The Mormons realized that Zacharias edited the latest edition of The Kingdom of the Cults. Greg Johnson said that Zacharias only lent his name to the project.

6)      Greg Johnson apologized to Zacharias, but not to Walter Martin’s family (the original author of The Kingdom of the Cults).

7)      Zacharias taught at the Tabernacle. Richard Mouw offered an apology on behalf of Evangelicals.

8)      Focus
shifted from Zacharias to Mouw’s apology, which cause uproar among
Evangelicals. Mouw offered an apology and clarified his remarks.

9)      Eerdman’s published Robert Millet’s book, A Different Jesus?

10)  Craig Hazen’s prayer at the Tabernacle causes some debate among Evangelicals in that he claimed Joseph Smith prayed for wisdom.

11)  Kurt Van Gorden was arrested in Salt Lake City.

12)  Richard Bushman (Mormon historian) released his new biography of Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

In light of what’s happened, Beverley raises 12 questions regarding the “New Dialogue.”

1)      Are the Evangelical participants duped? (Referring to Johnson, Mouw, Hazen, Beckwith, Moser…) No.

2)      Have they been naïve? Yes, they’ve experienced a steep learning curve in dealing with LDS public relations.

3)      Do they lack an intellectual backbone? Blomberg was outside of his specialty, but not since then.

4)      Was having Ravi Zacharias speak at the Tabernacle a good idea? Yes, if we consider that Paul spoke in Athens.

5)      Should
Mouw have apologized? Yes, but he didn’t realize the pain he would
cause for Christian ministries in Utah, he was unaware of the Mormon PR
potential, and Evangelicals have not been as bad as he thinks.

6)      Should Hazen have prayed as he did? Yes, but could have chosen words more carefully.

7)      Should LDS critics be sympathetic to dialogue? Yes, and vice versa.

8)      Is
Robert Millet a legitimate LDS partner? Yes- he’s a high profile BYU
professor and he has enough recognition to set up Zacharias’ event
directly with the President of the Church.

9)      Is the LDS Church changing? Barely. There is slightly stronger emphasis on Jesus Christ, and Millet has been emphasizing grace.

10)  Is Robert Millet sincere? Yes, but this is irrelevant.

11)  Is Robert Millet accurate? No, he offers a flawed view defense of Mormonism.

12)  Are
Evangelicals too grumpy? Yes, we need to duplicate LDS civility. This
means stop splitting, don’t question people’s motives, and stop making
binary distinctions.

While
the paper had a few good points, I thought it was too broad. The
“12 acts” would have worked better just telling the history as a story,
not to mention that the New Mormon Challenge
was left out and Hazen’s prayer was late in the timeline. The questions
were more interesting, but not very deep. It was good for Beverley to
offer a way forward, but in doing so he seems to claim
imply the LDS haven’t split, don’t question people’s motives, or make
binary distinctions. While he’s right on several points, I think he also misjudged some important aspects of the situation.

Category Posted in Apologetics, Main Page, Mormonism, Roger's Posts Comments 15 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »