How Conservative Is Your Hermenuetic?

This link was sent to me earlier in the week. It's a 20 question quiz to determine how you approach Scripture. For those curious, I scored a 44, but I'm not sure the numbers mean much. As much as the terminology pains me, I would want to have a conversation about why a particular choice was made before even attempting to label the choice.

Now, I love the little quizzes like this. Anyone taken the "What kind of sports car are you quiz?" (HT: Craver) But that is more of a fun thing. How we interpret Scripture is important, and I'm not sure a number based on 20 questions can determine if we are conservative, moderate, or progressive. Some of the questions, I think at least, are not conservative versus liberal, like the question of prophecy (number 7). It is a very interesting question in thinking about how we interpret Scripture, but I'm not convinced how we answer it says anything about whether that interpretation is conservative or progressive.

So thinking about our hermeneutic and discussing how we reach conclusions when reading Scripture is a great idea. I'm just not sure the ranking is helpful. But with that said, just what was your score? :)

Civility

I've always benefited from reading Os Guinness. The Call is one of the best books I've read and I've given out several copies. According to the Discerning Reader review of A Case for Civility it is a must read for me as well. In this election year, it might just be a good read for all of us. A brief blurb from the review:

Much of the answer to whether or not we’ll learn to live with our deepest differences depends on rejecting two erroneous responses to the culture wars. First, we must say no to a “sacred public square”—a situation where one religion has a position of privilege or prominence that is denied to others. As he refutes the sacred public square, Guinness laments the state of the Religious Right and the damage it has done to faith in America. We must also say no to a “naked public square”—the situation where public life is left devoid of any religion. This is what is advocated by the new atheists. Both of these responses to the culture war are in contradiction to the Constitution.

The alternative to both is a “civil public square.” “The vision of a civil public square is one in which everyone—peoples of all faiths, whether religious or naturalistic—are equally free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faiths, as a matter of ‘free exercise’ and as dictated by their own reason and conscience; but always within the double framework, first of the Constitution, and second, of a freely and mutually agreed covenant, or common vision for the common good, of what each person understands to be just and free for everyone else, and therefore of the duties involved in living with the deep differences of others.” If we are to have a civil society, we must first have a civil public square.

Wise Counsel on Politics and Christianity

From Dr. Mohler's blog:

The rhetoric of the race -- and the rhetoric of many evangelicals -- is disturbing. This race is important and necessarily so. We are talking about the next President of the United States, after all. But evangelicals have invested far too much hope in the political process. No government can make people good, transform humanity, or eliminate sin. The political sphere is important, but never ultimate. Jesus Christ is Lord -- and He will be Lord regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

This presidential race offers evangelical Christians an opportunity to mature and rethink our model of political engagement. We are likely to confront developments and choices that will require significant intellectual effort among American Christians.

Americans should give thanks today, mindful of the fact that our democratic process is evidence of national stability and constitutional order. The U.S. Constitution is the world's longest-surviving political charter. For a contrast, just think of the political turmoil and tragedy seen in Pakistan and Kenya in just the last week. Our political process may be only rarely graceful or predictable -- but it is still one of the wonders of the world. Stay tuned.

Let's Race

A race is one of the metaphors the Apostle Paul uses to describe the Christian life. This metaphor is picked up by Steve Taylor in his song "The Finish Line" from Squint. If you have never heard of Steve Taylor, it probably means you were not listening to Christian music in the late 1980's. Steve is probably best known for "I Want to Be a Clone" (though my personal favorites are "Drive, He Said" and "Cash Cow") and having a sarcastic sense of humor that did not always endear him with more fundementalist Christians. I, however, have a great affection for his music.

"The Finish Line" is something of a modern day Pilgrim's Progress, admittedly in much shortened form. It follows a prototypical Christian from conversion to death. If you listen closely, you may find something of your own journey in the song. The confident to arrogant beginning. The stumbling that causes you to eventually buy "the party line." The questions as to how so many good things become idols. Then, hopefully, that return to relying on Jesus, as we emerge "bloody but wise." The title of the album is taken from this song, "You squint with the light of the truth in your eyes."

Enjoy.

Prophetic from the Center

Some time back I wrote a post about a message given by Dr. D. A. Carson at the 2007 Gospel Coalition conference. In that post was a lengthy quote from Dr. Carson, including the following statement: "It is easy to sound prophetic from the margins. What is urgently needed is to be prophetic from the center." I have been thinking about this statement and what it means to be "prophetic from the center."

If you read the entire quote, I think it is obvious what is meant by "from the center" versus "from the margins." The margins are those peripheral issues, on both the left and the right, that engross so many people. These are issues like environmentalism, social justice, gay marriage, prayer in schools, music styles in worship, etc. The center are those issues that are essential to Christian faith, including the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, i.e. what "takes Christians from lostness, condemnation, alienation from God all the way through conversion, and discipleship, to the consummation, to resurrection bodies and the new heaven and the new earth."

The question, I think, is what does it mean to be "prophetic?" What it does not mean is that Christians should join the Jeane Dixon fan club. Biblical prophets sometimes made predictions about the future, like:

Micah 5:2
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.
ESV

Micah here prophesies that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem. Clearly this is "predictive" and is one of the things prophets did in the Bible. But prophets did at least two other things in the Bible, both of which were more common than prediction.

One was that the prophets pointed out the sinful condition of the people. For example:

Micah 7:2-3
The godly has perished from the earth,
and there is no one upright among mankind;
they all lie in wait for blood,
and each hunts the other with a net.
Their hands are on what is evil, to do it well;
the prince and the judge ask for a bribe,
and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul;
thus they weave it together.
ESV

When we are prophetic in this sense from the margins, it is easy because it most often takes the form of condemnation. It is a means to lift ourselves above those on whom we pronounce judgment. This is the Pharisees - clean on the outside but full of death on the inside. Our condemnation falls on any who have not cleaned the outside, regardless of the state of their heart.

We carry picket signs that say, "God hates fags" without acknowledging that God also hates the self-righteous. We maintain our ritual, but have forgotten love, forgiveness, and mercy. Jesus in contrast does not put out the smoking flax or break the bruised reed. How do we behave around those of weak faith who are struggling? If we are prophetic from the margins, most often we will shun them.

To be prophetic from the center is much harder in no small part because it requires humility. John the Baptist called the Pharisess a brood of vipers, but also said he was not fit to tie the sandal of the Messiah. He proclaimed that Jesus must increase while he (John) decreased.

To be prophetic from the center means we have to first acknowledge that we need the gospel as much as anyone else even now. It means that we have to acknowledge that we do not live up to God's standard even now. Like Paul we need to be truthful that we have not attained, but that we are pressing on. To be prophetic from the center requires a balance of boldness and humility.
But prophets in the Bible also proclaimed God's mercy and lovingkindness, like:

Micah 7:18-19
Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity
and passing over transgression
for the remnant of his inheritance?
He does not retain his anger forever,
because he delights in steadfast love.
He will again have compassion on us;
he will tread our iniquities under foot.
You will cast all our sins
into the depths of the sea.
ESV

To be prophetic in this sense from the margins is the prosperity gospel. God wants you to have your best life now. God wants you to be healthy and have a two car garage. God does not want you to suffer, for you are more than conquerors in Christ. You need to claim your healing, money, possessions and have faith that God will deliver.

Less extreme is to say that while things may not always go your way, you will always sense the presence of God. If you are faithful to follow God's plan for your life, you will always have a smile on your face. Both of these are easy because people will respond.

But being prophetic from the center is to say your best life is not yet here. The kingdom breaks into this age, but is not fully realized yet. We still have struggles and difficulties. Like Jesus we continue on for the joy set before us. Per Paul we recognize that death as the last enemy has not yet been destroyed, but will be. Love we are told bears, believes, hopes and endures. All of these indicate an element of tension, struggle, and difficulty.

This message is not as immediately attractive. Telling people to hold onto a Savior who will deliver some day is not as appealling as telling them God is like Santa Claus bestowing gifts on those who are nice. But it is real and many people who have been through difficulty will find in the gospel the truth. Yes, this life is hard, but even so God is good.

This is why Paul says we are to be pitied if the resurrection is not true, because our hope, our joy, our anchor is on what is to come, not on the now. We live now and we show the kingdom now and we try to make things better now. Believers before Jesus stood with their arm stretched out pointing to the future.

We now stand with both arms outstretched pointed to the past (the cross) and the future (the resurrection). We do so also to die figuratively and literally for the cause of Christ. Some being prophetic from the margins will condemn us as compromising with the world, calling us gluttons and winos. Some being prophetic from the margins will say we are from some hick town and not sophisticated or educated. Some being prophetic from the margins will say that we could deliver ourselves from suffering if we had more faith.

We are to love them all, and pray for them to be forgiven even as they stone us. Who knows who will be holding their coats as we die.

Fundementalists, Antithesis and Common Grace

Updated Below

While I have been blogging on Harry Potter, there has been a rather interesting discussion going on over at Reformation 21. This has been between Rick Phillips and Carl Trueman on fundementalism and it's merits and dangers. I'm not planning on commenting a lot, I just want to provide some quotes that maybe will encourage you to read the entire discussion. As I think about it I may have more to say later.

It starts with Rev. Phillips' move to Greenville and his decision of which school to enroll his children. The final decision was Bob Jones elementary, an arm of Bob Jones university. Rev. Phillips writes:

But the fourth reason is the one I really want to talk about. The fundamentalists get the idea of antithesis. . . . I find in general that the fundamentalists get the idea that the Bible really is the Word of God and that our only salvation is in the blood of Christ. There is no talk about postmodern hermeneutics among the fundamentalists. They believe the Bible is the Word of God because it says so, and so do I. They believe that men, women, and children are sinners who must believe in the cross in order to be saved. There is no talk of alternative theories of the atonement with them. They understand that the church must stand out against the world, that holiness is our calling, and that Christians are to witness to the lost. Amen, amen, and amen. They get the Christian antithesis, that light has shined in the darkness and that we are to walk in the light and shine the light into the darkness.

Frankly, because of the big idea of antithesis, I am more comfortable with the fundamentalists than I am with the broad evangelicals. More and more, broad evangelicals do not get the idea of antithesis, and for this reason even when they have a pretty good formal doctrinal statement, they seldom really stand up for it.

Rev. Phillips goes on in other posts to discuss price as a factor in the decision and the reformed leanings of Bob Jones. But the discussion is taken up in earnest by Dr. Trueman. Dr. Trueman makes four points about antithesis, all of which are interesting, but the last two are the most significant. From the third:

3. An overwhelming emphasis on antithesis creates a situation where others are only ever critiqued, not learned from, while we remain blissfully above correction. That's cultic and it's Gnosticism, and the Reformed world currently contains a couple of scary examples of exactly this kind of thinking and church life. . . . It can in fact be used in such a way as to justify a form of Gnostic empiricism and in effect to say 'everyone else has tradition, we just have the truth' is a problem. It could be better translated as `We have a tradition like everyone else, but we're not going to write it down so that it cannot be critiqued by you or anybody else.'

And from the fourth:

4. Charity of spirit (not compromise of doctrine) is a Christian virtue. This involves the ability to relate to those who are different, to treat with respect as made in the image of God those from whom we differ. An overwhelming emphasis on the intellectual/cultural antithesis does not, in my experience, foster the kind of appreciation for others, the self-deprecating humour, and the ability to see the absurdities of one's own positions, which enable this. . . . My point is simply that the antithesis can be abused in the name of Christ to subvert these very Christian imperatives, not that it always does so.

Rev. Phillips responded to Dr. Trueman and makes points worth considering. I want to move on though to comments from Sean Michael Lucas who joined in with two posts (part 1 and part 2) on his blog. In part 1, Dr. Lucas notes:

[M]y primary identity is a believer of Jesus and I'm called to love other believers in Jesus regardless of their spiritual maturity or theological perspective (even, shudder, Arminians). I live out this identity as a Presbyterian, committed to the wholeness of the Reformed faith as the best explanation of the Bible and eager for others to embrace the same perspective that I hold. I affirm catholicity while holding personally to the Reformed faith.

In part 2 Dr. Lucas discusses the concepts of antithesis and common grace and how these have created two streams in the reformed tradition. He refers to this split as the "Kuyperian legacy" in honor of Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper. He discusses both the positive and negative tendencies of both. Dr. Lucas says there is no way to meld the two together and admits to having fundementalist/antithesis leanings. I think there is a lot of value in reading and thinking about this. Regardless of where you stand, I think we should all heed Dr. Lucas' conclusion:

Finally, above all, we need to exercise the judgment of charity toward each other. By recognizing the dangers in our position, we are freed to recognize the value of the other--I can affirm my brothers and sisters who in common grace run coffee houses and line their churches with their art in order to engage in conversations with others. They bring something to the body of Christ that I don't bring; they are "jazz" to my "three-chords and a chorus" (1 Cor 12:12-27). I need those who emphasis common grace; and they, frankly, need me.

Update: Rev. Phillips has posted some additional thoughts based on Dr. Lucas' thoughts

PCA SBC

I was going to post some more extended thoughts on election spurred by Craver's post (see link in previous post), but I want to pause for a moment and reflect on the significance of this day. Two major conservative denominations (yes, I know the SBC does not consider itself a denomination - phhhhht) had major days today. The Presbyterian Church in America and the Southern Baptist Convention are both in the middle of annual meetings.

The SBC today rejected to even consider Tom Ascol's motion on Integrity in Church Membership. If you are interested in the details you can check Tom's post, but I think it sad that the SBC is not even willing to discuss the issue. The reports that are coming out of the annual convention this year are not encouraging that the divisions from last year's convention are healing.

The big news out of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) General Assembly today was the adoption of the report on the New Perspective on Paul and Federal Vision (NPP/FV). Justin Taylor provides some links to information on the report. What this will mean for the PCA remains to be seen, but it is unlikely the end of the controversy over these issues.

We should pray for both denominations. Doctrinal error must be confronted, but as "evangelicals" we already have a bad reputation in our culture. How we handle these internal disputes can easily reinforce current perceptions. We would do well to heed the admonition of Tom Wells on how to deal with controversy. In the linked article, he quotes J. C. Ryle:

Controversy in religion is a hateful thing.
It is hard enough to fight the devil,
the world, and the flesh,
without private differences in our own camp—
But there is one thing
which is even worse than controversy,
and that is false doctrine tolerated,
allowed, and permitted without
protest or molestation ...
Three things there are which men
never ought to trifle with:
a little poison,
a little false doctrine,
and a little sin.

May God bring peace and unity to His people around the truth of His word.

Sovereign Gospel

I've been taking this class along with three other people from Grace and Peace. In the final week's reading was this quote:

"'The gospel has a sovereignty of its own and is never an instrument in the hands of the evangelist.' The good news is not ours to feel superior about or to use as a tool or a weapon. It is not our story; it is God's story." (Bryant Myers in Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development quoting Lesslie Newbigin on p. 216)

There is a sense in which the gospel is our story. Luther said that the pronouns make all the difference in the gospel - e.g. Jesus died for me. Luther was getting at the fact that we must see and experience the gospel personally, as, in a sense, our story.

But the quote is concerned not with how we experience the gospel, but who has ownership of the gospel. I see two implications/applications from this idea that the gospel has its own sovereignty. First, in regard to the Gospel not being a tool in the hands of the evangelist, the sovereignty of the gospel has been increasingly lost in America since at least the Second Great Awakening. The preacher/evangelist became the focus of the activity and the power of the gospel was downplayed.

Charles Finney's focus on methodology has had a serious negative impact on our preaching and teaching. This is seen in those who do not preach the whole counsel of God out of concern that the message will not be received. Instead of the message the emphasis is put on methods. The sovereignty of the gospel is not recognized either in the fact that we do not have the right to change it nor does it need to be changed to have an transform lives.

This is not to say that preaching today must be of one particular style, a monotone without emotion. If God used men to write Scripture such that the writings are stamped with personalities and passions of the human authors, then we should expect that the personalities and passions of preachers will come through the preached word as well. But the content of the message must not change in favor of what is perceived as more palatable (attractive) content.

Second, whether we would verbalize it or not, we tend to think and act like we are the caretakers of the gospel. We are like John wanting Jesus to act because someone who is not part of our circle is casting out demons. We are the enlightened and the gospel becomes a tool in our hands to exalt ourselves above the "heathen" (and we get to define who the "heathen" are). This attitude is not only misguided, but dangerous. It is the attitude of the Pharisees.

So long as people are not deny core truths (e.g. the Galatian heresy adding Law to gospel, or denials of the resurrection as addressed in 1 Corinthians 15), we cannot sit in judgment over them. We can, and should, dialog on matters of disagreement and try to come to the unity of the faith. But the gospel is sovereign enough not only over itself, but also over the human heart, so that it can work despite my lack of understanding and my false ideas. Therefore, I have to believe it can do the same for others.

If we want to fully participate in what Jesus is doing in these last days, then like John we are going to have to learn that He will use those not like us. Sometimes he will even use those that we may think should be stopped. Paul was even willing to rejoice in the proclamation of the gospel by those who were motivated out of a desire to see him afflicted.

Because the gospel is sovereign, and we are to be subject.

What Is Worship?

My temptation is not to tell you who is in this video (though some, I presume would know) because for some who says it might ruin what is said. From what I know of Brian McLaren's theology, I disagree with some with him on what I would consider core doctrines. With that said:

As a new believer, I remember listening to a sermon about worship and righting a question in the notes I was taking, "What is worship?" I did not come up with a great answer then, and now over 20 years later I'm still not sure I can give a great answer. I'm also convinced I'm not alone. Part of the reason, I think, is what McLaren is addressing. Worship in many churches is as much about putting on the right face, if you know what I mean, as it is about declaring the glory of God.

So, given that, whatever you think of Brian McLaren, watch the following and answer this: What do you agree and/or disagree with? Also, what is true worship?

Closet Feminist?

There is an interesting post (short) over at the Reformation 21 blog by Carl Trueman (HT: Riddleblog)

I have to say I agree. I think that in resisting culture we often let the pendulum swing too far the other way. To go a little deeper here, Dr. Trueman's post was in response to this post by Phil Ryken. In Dr. Ryken's post he relates a story told by D. A. Carson at the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology (PCRT) in Philadelphia. Dr. Carson also told the story at the PCRT in Grand Rapids:

Don Carson shared a telling anecdote from a colleague involved with the Princeton Evangelical Fellowship. Women on campus face three crushing cultural pressures: first, to get all "A's" -- a parental and in some cases personal expectation; second, to be themselves and have a good time all the time; third, to look totally hot.

Dr. Carson observed that it is little wonder that as many as 80% of college women will be clinically depressed at some point during their college years. Whatever happened, one wonders, to doing your best for the glory of God, to being who you are in Christ, and to cultivating the inner beauty of a quiet spirit, which is pleasing to God?

The answer is that is not the culture we live in, but is the culture we need to transform (in many cases starting with ourselves) with the power of the gospel. In that vein, and in response to these two posts, Rick Phillips added his own thoughts. Really, you (especially since most - who I am kidding - all four of you are male) need to read this if you have not already. Let me try to whet your appetite.

So while so much effort goes to repudiating evangelical feminism -- and to a certain extent this is unavoidable given the force of today's polemic -- it is more important and more ultimately fruitful for us to repudiate bogus evangelical masculinity.

That's the end of his introduction. Go read the whole thing. Seriously. I'm convicted and I'm not even married. Then after you're done reading that, go read this.