Advertisements

Christian theology

This tag is associated with 91 posts

Women Prophets, Complementarianism, and Submission

I have seen multiple complementarians recently on Twitter asserting that women prophets in the Bible were in submission to men; particularly to male teachers who were in the role of what we have turned into the modern pastor. Denny Burk, the current President of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, responded to a lengthy series of questions and comments about a post he wrote supporting complementarianism recently. One of the questions was about women who were prophets in the Bible and whether they submitted to men. Burk wrote:

“Right. They [women prophets] would be subject to teachers/preachers AND to other prophets. The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets, except for female prophets. They are to be in subjection, as the Law also says. That’s my understanding.”

Another complementarian, John Carpenter, pastor at a Reformed Church, wrote “…I’m a lax complementarian, believing that women can ‘pray and prophesy’ in church under the authority of all male elders. But I could be wrong. The stricter [complementarians] may be right. I know the egalitarians are wrong.”

The problem with these and related statements is that they actually directly contradict Scripture. This isn’t an issue of interpretation that allows for disagreement. Instead, complementarians, by asserting that women prophets would explicitly be under teachers in the church, are going directly against the Word of God.

1 Corinthians 12:28 quite clearly states “…God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues” (ESV).

So in the church, we find that prophets, in fact, rank above teacher/preachers, though Denny Burk, the President of a major evangelical group that promotes complementarianism, says they do not, and that instead “they are to be in subjection as the Law also says.” We might ask Denny Burk where he finds that verse in the “Law.” Which verse in the Hebrew Scriptures state that women prophets are to be in subjection to teachers/preachers? There is none. But not only that, he and other complementarians who make this argument are going against the very Bible they purport to affirm when they hold to complementarianism.

Links

A Brief Biblical Proof for Women Pastors– Read why 1 Corinthians 12:28 is an even bigger problem for complementarians, as it effectively guarantees women may hold the same or more authority than that of pastors.

On the Femnization of the Church– It is frequently alleged that the church is being “feminized” and that this is a bad thing. Check out this post, wherein I analyze this notion from a few different angles.

Women in the Ministry: The philosophy of equality and why complementarianism fails– I argue that the position in which women are excluded from church leadership entails inequality of being.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Advertisements

Book Review: “Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview” 2nd Edition by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig

A work of the size and scope as J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig’s massive Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview is daunting, so readers will want to know if it is work going through. The short answer to that question is that yes, it is, so long as one reads the work–like any other–with a critical eye.

The book is broken up into six parts: Introduction, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science, Ethics, and the Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology. Each section is full of definitions and lengthy philosophical outlines arguing for the positions Craig and Moreland hold. They attempt to stick to a largely “mere” Christianity, though at times they stray from a vision that is as broad as possible. For example, regarding the debate over the soul, Moreland and Craig fall staunchly into the dualist camp, to the extent that a physicalist theory of mind from a Christian perspective isn’t even considered. Regarding the science-faith question, the authors argue lengthily against any perspective which would hold to methodological naturalism and seem to align most closely with ID theory. For a theory of time, the authors push for an A-theory of time, which later impacts their doctrine of God by making God temporal post-creation and undermines the notion of divine simplicity.

Yet even those who take issue with the positions the authors hold will continue to benefit from interacting with their views. For example, interacting with their arguments about God and time would be a great exercise whether one believes God is temporal or atemporal.

I did, however, find the choices of subjects related to philosophical theology to be particularly interesting. The first two sections make arguments related to the Trinity and the Incarnation, which are both definitional to the notion of a “Christian.” The third, however, is about the Atonement, and quickly (613) states that “an essential, and indeed central, element of any biblically adequate atonement theory is penal substitution” and then go on to say “More than that, penal substitution, if true, could not be a merely subsidiary facet of an adequate atonement theory, for it is foundational to many other aspects of the atonement, such as redemption from sin, satisfaction of divine justice, and the moral influence of Christ’s example” (613-614). I was quite surprised by this–especially the latter statement–because there are entire theories of atonement based around these aspects. Thus, for example, the Example Theory of the atonement is entirely based upon the notion that Christ is an example and would therefore give us all kinds of moral influence. Interestingly, the fourth doctrine addressed is that of Christian particularism–the notion that salvation is in Christ alone. I tend to agree that no orthodox Christian would deny this, but it is interesting to see that Craig and Moreland seem to equate belief in, say, universalism with a denial of particularism, though to my knowledge most of the 19th century Christian universalists affirmed particularlism but held to universal salvation through Christ. Craig and Moreland go on to state that views like annihilationism “are rather difficult to square with the biblical data” (632) even though, in my experience, annihilationists almost always go straight to the biblical text to support their views (see, eg. numerous passages that equate hell with death or destruction). Again, it seems odd in a book that tends to go towards “mere” Christianity to pick views that are at issue and then exclude all others.

Many readers will want to go straight to the book for arguments about the existence of God, and Moreland and Craig do not disappoint. In the two chapters on the topic, the authors summarize huge swathes of philosophical arguments for the existence of God, along with answering many objections. Like the rest of the book, this is done in summaries of longer arguments, but readers will still get much of use out of this section.

Though I’ve skimmed through many portions of the book, I’d like to focus a little bit on Christology and the discussion of what Craig elsewhere calls Neo-Apollinarianism.  I was curious to see if the 2nd edition of the book would modify this position in critical ways to avoid the pitfalls of his previous position, but it seems it does not. The argument is made that “Apollinarianism achieved a genuine incarnation that… is no more implausible than the soul’s union with the body” (597). The problem was that it failed to unify body with mind in Christ. Thus, the authors propose making the divine Logos the mind of Christ, among other things (603ff). This seems to me–and many others–to punt the problem by still making it such that the Incarnated Christ does not have the totality of human nature, for the mind is from the divine nature. Simply calling it the “Logos” does not smooth over the problem of making the human nature effectively mindless without the divine. Because this Christology does not give Christ a human mind, as Gregory of Nazianzus said, “That which was not assumed was not saved” (glossing a bit). This seems an incomplete Christ.

Moreover, the discussion on the Lutheran view of Christology (a view that I as a Lutheran ascribe to) rather strangely condemns Lutherans for confusing the natures of Christ by teaching the communication of the attributes. Such a blithe dismissal seems wrongheaded, unless Moreland and Craig wish to further deny that the Incarnate Christ was incapable of divine activity. Alas, such misunderstanding of Lutheran positions are not uncommon.

With Philosophical Foundations for a Christian WorldviewMoreland and Craig have provided a truly impressive contribution to Christian philosophy of religion that will serve as a starting point for many an engagement with a huge number of topics. At some points, the authors take contentious positions, and it is unfortunate that they endorse a non-standard Christology. Thus, readers should read the work with a critical eye, treating it as a practice of interaction on a high level with a number of philosophical ideas related to Christianity.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “Critical Theology: Introducing an Agenda for an Age of Global Crisis” by Carl A. Raschke

ct-raschkeCarl Raschke’s Critical Theology: Introducing an Agenda for an Age of Global Crisis is a brief look at the integration of critical theology into global theology. Now that I’ve basically just restated the title in different terms, what does it actually mean? Raschke states it as: “The thesis… is that the new era of global crisis demands a whole new theological formulary that is unprecedented both in the content of the challenges it faces and in the conceptual resources or ‘intellectual capital’ on which it must draw” (10). Essentially, the idea is that there is a global crisis–a kind of intermingling of ideas that makes it difficult to sort out what is what–and in order to deal with that, Christian theology must utilize a new set of tools for thinking and conceptualizing ideas.

After a chapter outlining this “Age of Crisis” in greater depth (along with a very brief history of critical theory), Raschke draws upon many lines of critical theory to show how it might be used to communicate Christianity effectively on a global scale. Mostly, this plays along the lines of highlighting several important critical thinkers (Jurgen Habermas, Martin Heidegger, Immanuel Kant, and the like) and showing how their thought may be applied to broader theological trends. Of course, none of this is done naively, as some of the pitfalls of critical theory are also acknowledged. But the focus is almost entirely on what critical theory brings to the table as far as the “global crisis” is concerned. It is worth noting here that the book assumes a general working knowledge of many of these important thinkers.

One question which it seems to me Raschke did not adequately deal with is the question of whether “new” theology is a good thing. As many have said in various ways, “new theology” tends to be heresy. There’s a reason that the historic church made confessions and creeds–in order to establish boundaries for orthodoxy. Thus, some may argue there is a danger to trying to make a truly new theology, for it may just be a rehashing of old errors, as so many modern heresies are. I didn’t see any specific place where Raschke dealt with this objection at length. I suspect his answer would be that yes, new theology in a sense is a dangerous endeavor, but when genuinely new challenges arise (i.e. globalization/globalism and how to make sense of Christianity in a somewhat universal fashion), it calls for new evaluations. Yes, there is truly nothing new under the sun in some sense, because what Raschke calls for is a critical look at existing theology and sources thereof so that we do not get too attached to cultural expressions of Christianity as just being orthodoxy. On these proposed responses, I believe Raschke to be correct. But he doesn’t make this or any other specific defense at length, so far as I can tell.

Critical Theology is a needed work that will get readers to look, well, critically at ideas they may have taken for granted before. It’s a deep work, despite its brevity.

The Good

+Brings critical theory to bear in theology
+Challenges perspectives
+Encourages further study

The Bad

-At times may leave those unfamiliar with the topic befuddled
-Little defense of the notion of “new theology”

Disclaimer: I received a copy of the book from the publisher. I was not obligated to provide any specific kind of feedback whatsoever. 

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

Eclectic Theist– Check out my other blog for my writings on science fiction, history, fantasy movies, and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “A Shared Mercy: Karl Barth on Forgiveness and the Church” by Jon Coutts

asm-couttsJon Coutts’ A Shared Mercy explores the doctrine of forgiveness from the perspective of Karl Barth. Because it is the perspective of Karl Barth, it also reflects on doctrine of the church, as this was central to Barth’s thought. However, Coutts argues we must be careful not to subordinate all doctrines Barth taught under his doctrine of the church.

The book is organized into 6 chapters that largely center on two parts: Barth’s doctrine of forgiveness and what a full doctrine of forgiveness based on Barth might look like in application. Throughout the book there is a kind of unity between these topics as Coutts takes what Barth taught on forgiveness and applies it.

First, Coutts notes that because Christ taught that forgiveness is central to the lives of his followers, it follows that forgiveness is central to the church (1). Thus, exploring Barth’s Church Dogmatics, we ought to expect to find forgiveness as a central, not tertiary teaching. Coutts argues throughout the book that this is, indeed, what we find, though little has been studied in regards to Barth on forgiveness in the church in contemporary theology.

Readers may be concerned that a book so focused on a somewhat obscure topic may lack applicable insights, but Coutts does a great job not merely reporting Barth’s beliefs but also deriving thoughts therefrom that have application to the contemporary Christian. One example is the question of whether forgiveness first requires one to wait for repentance:

A legitimate practical concern… [is] the perpetuation of victimhood that seems to be implied when the imperative [to forgive] is self-giving and forgiving love. But this is founded on a misconception of the call to cruciform discipleship… Even if the abusive party is unrepentant, the result is not unforgiveness, but an acknowledgement of nonreconciliation… Forgiving the abuser is not the perpetuation of victimhood but the free offer of further reconciliation. (154-155)

This and many other passages provide direct application to the lives of believers. At several points, then, Coutts ably demonstrates the way to bring scholarship to the person in the pew, something that is too-often lacking in scholarly works.

As a Lutheran, I appreciated the highlighting of the importance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper for Christian community, though I think Barth’s teaching on these sacraments falls short of the biblical teaching. Yes, baptism is a sign of community, but Barth and Coutts each seem to err in seeing baptism as a kind of political action of the church rather than a gracious action of God. Similarly, the view of the Lord’s Supper as being primarily a work of the church rather than a gracious gift of God takes away the greatness of the gift.

Because the book is so focused on a specific aspect of Barth’s teaching, it does at times read a bit too much like a journal article–engaging with very specific opponents with little context. However, these moments are thankfully few and far between.

A Shared Mercy is an interesting, surprisingly applicable study on forgiveness in Barth’s doctrine. More importantly, it shares information that can be applied directly to the broader church. The importance of a doctrine of forgiveness ought never to be understated, as it is so central to Christian teaching. As such, this book is an important contribution to understanding what we as Christians, and the church, are called to do.

The Good

+Insights into Barth’s theology of the church, in balanced perspective
+Background for modern discussions of forgiveness
+More applicable material than me be expected

The Bad

-Sometimes reads a bit more like a journal article than a book
-Reduces both baptism and the Lord’s Supper to human act

Disclaimer: I received a copy of the book from the publisher for review. I was not obligated to provide any specific kind of feedback whatsoever. 

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

Eclectic Theist– Check out my other blog for my writings on science fiction, history, fantasy movies, and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Really Recommended Posts 6/17/16- horror movies, The Gospel Coalition, and more!

A picture of a goldfinch I took. All rights reserved.

A picture of a goldfinch I took. All rights reserved.

Another week, another round of posts for you to enjoy, dear readers! This week has an exciting lineup–hopefully with some posts that will get you thinking and talking! This week, we have horror movies and Christianity, the Gospel Coalition’s (non-)engagement with culture, apologetics for kids with elephants and waterfalls, debate over the relation between the Father and Son in the Trinity, and the topic of the use of guns. As always, I’m curious to read your thoughts. I don’t always agree with 100% of everything I link, but try to choose posts that get me thinking and that I hope will get you thinking as well! [EDIT: I accidentally had one link to the wrong post. My apologies! It is fixed now.]

Why Horror Movies Make Me a Better Christian– I don’t like horror movies at all. Unless by “horror movies” you mean black-and-white horror movies with monsters that are hilarious now due to special effect differences (i.e. Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc.), then I love them. Can horror movies, with all their gore and violence, really have any redeeming qualities? This post made me think about that in a fresh light. What do you think?

The Gospel Colition and How Not to Engage Culture– Can The Gospel Coalition really claim to be about engaging with culture when they continually silence critics on social media? Check out this post for more information on this issue.

How Elephant is a Waterfall– How do you get kids thinking in different categories? What is concrete/abstract? What is a contradiction? Here’s a post from an exciting new site about apologetics for kids.

The Coming War: Nicene Complementarians vs Homoian Complementarians– There is a debate raging within complementarian camps over the subordination of the Son to the Father in the Trinity. Here is an outline of that debate. Read the follow-up posts as well for more. I’ve written on one side of this debate before- “Is the Son ‘Equal to God‘?”

Actually, Guns do kill people (Think Christian)– Think Christian is a great site for engaging culture and getting us thinking about topics we might not normally. This post is, I think, thought provoking regarding issues related to gun violence. It doesn’t offer solutions, but rather a way to conceptualize. What do you think about this issue? How might Christians engage with the topic of gun violence–or should we?

Book Review: “The Analogy of Faith” by Archie J. Spencer

af-spencer

A question which we don’t often stop to think about in theological discussions is whether or not it is, in principle, possible to speak of the divine. Archie Spencer’s book, The Analogy of Faith, asks just this question and offers an in-depth analysis of various approaches alongside proposing a model for speaking about God.

The book is split, roughly, between analysis of various proposed models for speaking about God and a development of a Christocentric model for speaking of the divine.

The analysis of Aristotle’s analogy of being in the first chapter is particularly interesting. Spencer notes that because Aristotle’s analogy depends upon the interrelatedness of things through cause, and because God is the ultimate relation of causation as the unmoved mover, his concept of analogy is ultimately almost useless. The reason is because it becomes too broad: effectively anything can be related to anything else through an analogy of relation, and then this tells us nothing about the things being related themselves. Yet even here Spencer argues that Aristotle’s concept of analogy–itself reliant upon Plato in many relevant ways–can be useful in that it relates causality and the divine ideas, thus preparing the way for Neoplatonist thinking.

Following on the heals of this analysis are some fantastic insights into Augustinian and Thomistic thought about analogy as well. Thomas Aquinas is perhaps the most important thinker regarding the use of analogy in speaking about God of all time. As Spencer notes, it is impossible to adequately deal with the topic without spending significant time on Aquinas’s view of analogy. However, Spencer’s ultimate analysis is that Aquinas did not have a well-developed theory of analogy of his own. Instead, he asserts, it has been the followers and interpreters of Aquinas who made a “Thomistic” theory of analogy, based around the analogy of being. Because these theories ultimately depend on an Aristotelian foundation, they, too, are found to be ultimately inadequate. After all, if we are unable to reference God’s being in any direct way, then it is difficult to see how creatures totally unlike the divine can have an analogue of that divine. Spencer’s analysis in this section is thorough and fairly convincing.

Karl Barth and Eberhard Jungel are the next thinkers addressed, and they provide a basis for Spencer’s own theory of analogy, which is Christological. I’m summarizing an extraordinarily detailed theory here, so I’m sure I’m not adequately outlining it, but the basic thought is that because God has come to us, that allows us through divine revelation of Christ to refer to God. Thus, analogy is the analogy of faith rather than an analogy of being–one in which God has condescended to allow reference to the divine being in human language, rather than one in which we are able to, by our own thinking, come to language which speaks of God.

Upon reading Spencer’s analysis and arguments, I am fairly convinced that he is correct in his notion that the analogy of being is insufficient to capture the possibility of talk about God. What I do wonder, however, is whether Spencer (and most others) too quickly dismiss the possibility of univocal language about God. It seems to me that if we are to say “God is love” then we must have some sense in which that actually relates to God. To be fair, Spencer could respond by pointing to such a statement as exactly in concord with his theory, which would assert that it does relate to God because God has revealed the divine nature to us in Christ and God’s Word, thus allowing us to rightly say “God is love.” However, I think that a deeper treatment of the possibility of univocal language related to God talk would have been appreciated in a book like this. Though, admittedly, the book is already lengthy and is specifically focused on analogy, not the possibility of univocity or equivocal language.

One minor complaint I have is that in the thoroughness of the book, it seems that Spencer is sometimes repetitive. He hits the same point from several different angles in the same chapter, to the point that the book can become quite dry at times. However, the subject matter itself is deeply intriguing, and his full treatment of the topic makes it hard to fault him for stating a few things more than once.

Those interested in reading a dense book of philosophical theology should look no further than The Analogy of Faith by Archie Spencer. It is a deep work that demands much reflection and consideration. It is the kind of seminal writing to which one will constantly return as one thinks about the topic discussed. I can say that I learned a great deal from the book, and had my mind stretched as it hasn’t been stretched in some time. I recommend it highly.

The Good

+Deep analysis of key concepts related to analogy
+Many avenues for further research
+Workable theory which offers some resolution

The Bad

-A bit too verbose at times
-Dismisses univocity a bit too quickly

Disclaimer: I received a review copy of the book from the publisher. I was not required to provide any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

Source

Archie Spencer, The Analogy of Faith(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

What is the relationship between Christianity and science? – An Overview of 4 Views

sc4v-carlson

There are several different ways that Christians perceive the relationship between science and religion. Science & Christianity: Four Views edited by Richard Carlson provides some insight into the major positions Christians hold regarding this relationship. Here, I will outline these major positions and then provide a few of my own thoughts on the relationship between science and Christianity.

Concordism

The Bible is more Authoritative than Science

The book’s taxonomy files this under “creationism,” but I file it under Concordism because there are different views of how this interplay between science and the Bible play out on these perspectives. The first example is that often exhibited by creationists of both young- and old-earth perspectives. On this view, the Bible is the ultimate authority for all truth, including scientific truth. Thus, in any place where science is thought to conflict with what the Bible is purported to teach, so much the worse for science. Wayne Frair and Gary Patterson, arguing for this perspective, note that “Science is a human activity” and “Science is motivated by the full range of human emotions and ambitions, and the history of science is replete with examples of human greed…” (20-21, cited below).

Thus, on this perspective there is often an understood–whether inherent or spoken–distrust of the findings of scientists. Science is a human activity and so can be seen as full of errors and “replete” with examples of human motivation driving conclusions. On the other hand, the Bible is of divine origin, and so it may be trusted absolutely. Any conflict must be decided in favor of the Bible.

Qualified Agreement 

Creationists of all varieties might also hold to a kind of “qualified agreement” regarding science and Christianity. Those who affirm this position argue that science provides support for biblical Christianity. Stephen C. Meyer writes, in his essay, “when correctly interpreted, scientific evidence and biblical teaching can and do support each other” (130). This model holds that scientific theories do have wider metaphysical impact, but that this impact will be seen, ultimately, to support a biblical worldview.

Meyer doesn’t explicitly state this, but most forms of this model also hold that science and theology can mutually benefit from correctives to each other. Scientific discoveries might force us to rethink the extent of the Flood, for example, while a teaching of creation out of nothing in the Bible can serve as a corrective for metaphysical speculation alongside multiverse and other theories. Many different interpretations of this model are possible, and some would not allow for much mutual correcting.

Independence

The independence model ultimately views science and Christianity as operating in largely different spheres. Commonly known as non-overlapping magisteria (or NOMA, for short), those who hold to this model argue that we must “not make blanket claims about the supposed religious implications of scientific theory” (83) and that models which see science and Christianity as trying to answer the same questions ultimately lead to conflict. Science and religion are viewed as “different models of knowing” which do not overlap, and so they offer little threat whatsoever to each other (71-72).

Thus, the Bible is seen as a book which teaches us theological truths, while science teaches us about the natural world. Jean Pond argues that we must live as non-bifurcated people. It is not that we live compartmentalized lives with science and Christianity in different compartments. Rather, it is just the acknowledgement that different methods govern different aspects of reality. She uses a metaphor of interlocking fingers—each finger is different and independent but locked together they are stronger (90-92).

Partnership

Here I use the terminology found in the book once more, because I think it is a helpful way to envision this final model. The Partnership model envisions science and Christianity as working side by side and explaining the same sets of data. However, they explain them in different ways and are able to offer correctives to each other. Howard J. Van Till argues that this view allows for a view of creation that we can constantly learn more about and see as constantly changing.

However, where this model differs from concordism (the qualified agreement model) is those who hold it argue we should fully accept scientific consensus as telling us about the history of the natural world and that this consensus simply corrects theological views whenever there is conflict. Thus, in a way, this model gives priority to the findings of science over theological views about origins. However, Van Till argues that this is not a kind of science trumps religion model, but rather than we should view creation as “fully gifted” with a function economy that means God made creation itself self-sustaining.

Analysis

Each position has its own set of difficulties, though I think some are more plausible than others.

Regarding concordism, one of the biggest issues can be found in the first position: that of the comparison between the human origin of science and divine origin of the Bible. While it is true that the Bible is divinely inspired, any reading of the Bible is a human act of interpretation. Thus, to claim that science has human motivations possibly leading it astray while ignoring that very same possibility in reading and interpreting the Bible is misguided. Often, those holding this position tend to reduce the Bible to their specific interpretation of the Bible, and then anything which conflicts with that is rejected. The title I gave to this view, “The Bible is more Authoritative than Science” reflects the truth: ultimately, the Bible has God’s authority. But as people use titles like this, we find that often the “Bible” means “my interpretation thereof.” I conclude that this position holds to a view of science and Christianity which is too naive to be affirmed consistently.

The Qualified Agreement model avoids this inconsistency, but it does so at the cost of being ambiguous at points. In what way, exactly, is there qualified agreement? How does theology inform science and vice-versa? Who ultimately decides if there does seem to be a simple contradiction between the two? These questions are left largely unresolved by this model. There is much that turns upon how we take the clause of Meyer’s that “when correctly interpreted” theology and science support each other.

The independence model provides the easiest solution to conflicts perceived between science and Christianity. It simply states that there can be no conflict because the two aren’t even discussing the same realms of truth. What it gains in simplicity, it loses in clarity, however. We are left wondering how we are to take it that matters of faith simply have nothing to say about, for example, the bare existence of the universe. If it is true that science and Christianity do not overlap and speak of entirely different realms of knowledge, what do we do with the Christian claim that the universe was created? Is it not actually about the material universe but rather some kind of spiritual truth that we don’t yet know? Moreover, the independence model seems to assume a view of the world in which there are two buckets: spiritual and material, and those buckets are entirely independent of each other. That is, if I am considering something, it is either spiritual or material, but it cannot be both. This seems to be an overly simplistic view of the universe and one which is difficult to square with the apparent unity between the spiritual and physical within much of the Judeo-Christian worldview.

The Partnership model is appealing in its language, but difficult to understand. It has most of the same problems as the “qualified agreement” model: how do we decide which one is correct when science and theology come into apparent conflict? Why does the partnership model give priority to science in most of these matters? What does it mean to claim that creation has functional economy, and how do we square that with miracles found in the Bible and the doctrine of creation?

Ultimately, I think we still have much work to do in finding an adequate model of science and Christianity. Each of the models surveyed here have aspects that are useful but they each have some difficulties to resolve. I recommend reading Science & Christianity: Four Views to provide a deeper look at these models if you are interested in the topic.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions– I clarify the breadth of options available for Christians who want to interact on various levels with models of origins. I think this post is extremely important because it gives readers a chance to see the various positions explained briefly.

Origins Debate– Here is a collection of many of my posts on Christianity and science.

Source

Science and Christianity: Four Views edited by Richard F. Carlson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Sunday Quote!- Future Kings and Queens of the Universe

onward-mooreEvery Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

Future Kings and Queens of the Universe

Russell Moore’s book, Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel argues for a Christian perspective on cultural engagement that goes beyond (and even rejects) simply trying to integrate Christianity into existing culture. At one point, he argues that we cannot reduce the people that are often outsiders in our pews to being projects; instead, we must see the Christians around us as part of the glorious resurrection to come:

When the church honors and cares for the vulnerable among us, we are not showing charity. We are simply recognizing the way the world really works, at least in the long run. The child with Down syndrome on the fifth row from the back in your church, he’s not a “ministry project.” He’s a future king of the universe. The immigrant woman who scrubs toilets every day on hands and knees, and can barely speak enough English to sing along with your praise choruses, she’s not a problem to be solved. She’s a future queen of the cosmos, a joint-heir with Christ. (81-82, cited below)

I thought the perspective offered here is wonderful. The body of Christ is made up of people that we so often want to just reject out-of-hand or treat differently because of who they are. But there is no room for that in the ultimate hope of Christianity. We will be ruling with our Lord Jesus Christ with all of these “others.”

Thus far, I highly recommend Russell Moore’s Onward to you, dear readers.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sunday Quote– If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Source

Russell Moore, Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2015).

SDG.

Book Review: “Rediscovering Jesus” by David B. Capes, Rodney Reeves, and E. Randolph Richards

rj-crrRediscovering Jesus is part project of unearthing aspects of Jesus which are often ignored, part recovery of the biblical portrait of Jesus, and all intriguing.

The book is structured such that each chapter presents a specific portrait of Jesus. Each chapter has a brief introductory section that gives an overview of that specific Jesus, an exposition of how the specific work presents Jesus, how that Jesus is different or unique, and what we would believe about Jesus if that were the only information about Jesus we had.

The first part focuses on biblical images of Jesus, but does so by looking at individual books of the Bible (though a few writings are lumped together). Thus, rather than seeing a composite Jesus made up of all four Gospels put together–not itself a bad thing, necessarily–the chapters provide a deeper look at the individual focus of each Gospel or book. Thus, readers are confronted by a Jesus who is a man of action in Mark, a priest in Hebrews, and an apocalyptic judge in Revelation.

The second part examines pictures of Jesus outside the Bible: the ones examined are the Gnostic, Muslim, Historical, Mormon, American, and Cinematic Jesus.

The primary value of the work is how it challenges readers to rethink how they have viewed Jesus. If their Jesus has been shaped predominantly by cultural and non-biblical portraits, the book serves as a call to return to the biblical portrayal. But it does not do so at the expense of all extrabiblical imagery. The authors carefully outline how there might be truth found in various images of Jesus. If our Jesus has been shaped by biblical imagery, the authors challenge us to see how we might have glossed over specific emphases of the different authors of the New Testament.

Each chapter is filled with insights and things to explore. Readers will be continually challenged in how they may have a deficient or composite view of Jesus that does not match the Jesus of the Bible. It is a book which calls us, primarily, to learn about our Lord Jesus Christ. It does so in a way that is constantly exciting and invigorating.

I recommend Rediscovering Jesus wholeheartedly. It was a phenomenally interesting read, and one which will challenge you to rethink how you have conceived of Jesus, while calling readers back to biblical portrayals. I can’t really recommend it highly enough.

The Good

+Illuminates a number of aspects of the biblical Jesus that we often miss
+Great chapter organization
+Excellent information found throughout the book

The Bad

-Very brief on several points

Disclaimer: I received a review copy of the book from the publisher. I was not required to leave any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

Source

David B. Capes, Rodney Reeves, and E. Randolph Richards, Rediscovering Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “The Reformation Study Bible”

ref-sbA few months ago I was sent a review copy of The Reformation Study BibleGiven the title, I kind of expected there to be study notes from Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the like. I mean, it’s the “Reformation” Study Bible, right? What it actually is is a Reformed Study Bible. I’ll be reviewing it from that perspective as well as I can, but I wanted to be sure readers wouldn’t be confused, as I was.

The Bible is extremely robust, with notes often taking up half or more of the actual pages of the text. Each book has a brief introduction that does a good job outlining key details and theological themes. There are extensive maps and additional notes found throughout the text. Notes range from theological exposition to apologetics-oriented. At times they focus on a pastoral perspective or draw out inter-canonical readings of the texts. There is little that passes without comment.

I received the edition pictured here. The cover is beautiful and also very solid. The binding clearly will hold up quiet well under lengthy use. There are, of course, other bindings available including leather. The pages are extremely thin, however, and it is easy to see the text through the page. The font is small, though readable. As with most other modern study bibles, there is very little space in the margins for writing notes (apart from sections of biblical poetry).

The extent to which readers will enjoy this Bible is going to be almost entirely based on how much they align with Refromed theology. In some places (such as interpretation of Genesis 1), there is leeway granted in the notes for a spectrum of views. In others (such as the discussion over men and women in the church), a specific perspective (complementarianism) is heavily endorsed. Discussions of sacraments, foreknowledge, predestination, election, and the like are all explicitly Reformed in their perspective. This is not a strike against the study Bible–it is, after all, effectively a Reformed Study Bible–but readers must realize that they will get exactly that.

In order to write this review, I went through several books in their entirety, along with reading the notes and the like. These included Ruth, Genesis, John, and 1 Corinthians. In addition, I read selections from every other book. The tone and notes are consistent throughout.  As already noted, the notes are also fairly extensive.

The bottom line is that you’re going to get out of The Reformation Study Bible exactly what you would expect from a conservative Reformed study Bible. It is excellent in that regard–and could even serve as a resource if you are interested in researching Reformed perspectives on various passages–but if that is not what you want, you should look elsewhere for a study Bible.

The Good

+Extensive notes with deep discussion of inter-related texts
+Good format
+Readable introductions with inter-canonical perspective noted

The Bad

-Confusing title
-Lots of notes will be largely disregarded if you have a different theological bent

Disclaimer: I was provided with a review copy of this book by the publisher. I was not obligated to write any specific kind of feedback whatsoever. 

Advertisements

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,549 other followers

Archives

Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
Advertisements