A Christmas Sermon

Faith and Theology: It's a Boy! A Christmas Eve Homily by Kim Fabricius.

"Today the boy is neither the focus of a faith nor a justification for violence.... Today he cannot be used for anything, particularly to endorse our own agenda. Today he just lies there, wiggling. ... As for me, today I bring you good news about the God disclosed in this child, who happens to be the Word made flesh."

(There is nothing else to this post.)


------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

The Chicago Statement, pt 1

I have been thinking about inerrancy (again) quite a bit recently. I heard informally about a prof in a religion department at a Christian college being discouraged by (some) other members of his department from continuing to teach there because his views about biblical inspiration and authority didn't line up with the Chicago Statement. This irks me. I read the Chicago Statement in Seminar in Biblical Literature with Dr. Helyer a few years ago. I remember thinking at the time that I became less inclined to agree with it as the drafters became more specific. Here are my present thoughts as I go through it again now: Read the Full Post.

(I'm working on my thesis. Really. I wrote most of this last night. I'm taking a short break to post it.)

Comments on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

(Based on fulltext retrieved here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy)

PREFACE

1. The authority of the Christian scriptures (the Old and New Testaments) matters. (¶ 1)

For, as Christians we confess “Christ is Lord”; thus we claim to submit to divine authority in the person of Jesus. If the scriptures are the Word of God—if they in some significant sense represent or mediate to us Christ who is the divine Word—then, as evangelicals are typically understood to confess, we must regard the scriptures as authoritative for our faith and practice as Christ’s disciples. To understand the basis for the evangelical claim that the Bible is authoritative for us, we must properly understand the connection between the authority of the scriptures and the authority of Christ our Lord.

2. The authority of the scriptures is contingent upon their inerrancy.

The writers of the Chicago Statement imply that in order for us to “adequately confess” the authority of the Bible we must recognize its “total truth and trustworthiness”—this latter is the doctrine of inerrancy. (¶ 1) To deny biblical inerrancy, they write, is to ignore the witness of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit—thus, to fail in our loyalty to our God in at least two of God’s Persons—and to refuse to submit to the authority of God’s Word, which submission is a necessary condition of “true Christian faith”. (¶ 2)

At the same time, the drafters of the Chicago Statement admit “that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior”. (¶ 4) This implies (along with the next point below) that the statement should not be understood to condemn all who deny biblical inerrancy as false Christians or as heretics.

3. The Chicago Statement is not intended as a creedal statement (¶ 3)

This implies that the drafters of the Chicago Statement did not wish the statement to be employed as a litmus test for orthodoxy. It is not to be regarded so highly as, for example, the Nicene Creed as a statement of orthodox faith (what has been believed “always, everywhere, and by all”). Likewise, the three-day consultation which resulted in the Chicago Statement should not be regarded so highly as an ecumenical council—i.e., on par with the Council of Chalcedon which gives us the definition of Christological orthodoxy. The drafters explicitly lay no claim to infallibility. (¶ 5)

The Chicago Statement is intended to (a) affirm and clarify the doctrine of inerrancy, (b) to exhort other Christians to understand and appreciate the importance of this doctrine, and (c) to spur on “a new reformation of the Church in its life, faith, and mission.” (¶ 3)

[Autonoesis: #2 above is the one point from the Preface which I would like to debate; I’m not sure I’m convinced it is true. Clearly its plausibility will depend on what is meant by “inerrancy” and what is meant by “authority”.]

---

SUMMARY STATEMENT

The truthfulness of God & the revelatory purpose of scripture

I. “God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.”

Explication

1. God does not lie. Hence, whatever is the Word of God is by definition truthful and trustworthy.
2. The Christian scriptures are inspired by God (1 Timothy 3:16)
3. God’s inspiration of the scriptures is for the purpose of God’s self-revelation. (This is apparently thought to be the primary purpose of the scriptures.)
4. Scripture reveals God through Jesus Christ. (The person of Christ is the primary revelation—I mean that the witness of scripture is that God reveals Himself to humanity through Jesus; the object of the witness clearly takes priority to the witness itself.)
5. Scripture in particular reveals God as Creator, Lord, Redeemer, and Judge. (These are important roles for God & God-in-Christ in the story of salvation-history).

Comment

• I’ll accept the first point in my explication on philosophical (i.e., a priori) grounds. (It would seem strange to accept that God does not lie because scriptures accepted as the Word of God say so…just because someone says they never lie doesn’t mean this is true. I don’t think God is an instantiation of Machiavelli’s Prince. And the reason I don’t think so has to do with natural theology (for better or for worse!)).

• I’ll accept the second point on grounds of apostolic authority (i.e., I think Paul said it, and I think he said it as a representative of Christ bearing Christ's authority). However, I’m not committed to apostolic infallibility or inerrancy. (It would seem, BTW, that the claims: (1) biblical authority is contingent upon biblical inerrancy and (2) apostolic authority is contingent upon apostolic inerrancy would stand or fall together…. My skepticism on both points seems connected. But strangely the typical fundamentalist Protestant thing to do, I think, would be to accept the former while being at least somewhat skeptical of the latter. Maybe good Catholics would accept both?)

• Probably, "The Christian scriptures are inspired by God" is supposed to imply "The Christian scriptures are the Word of God"; hence, combined with the first point, "The Christian scriptures are by definition true and trustworthy." (I.e., biblical inerrancy). I'm not sure I'm satisfied yet that "inspiration" has been unpacked enough to justify logic. Has it yet been established that this claim is false: "the scriptures are not the Word of God, yet they contain the Word of God"?

• My points 3-5 might be understood to limit the content of the inspired/inerrant biblical revelation. For instance, the Chicago Statement says here "Scripture is God's witness to Himself"--but is every statement in scripture a statement about God? Similarly, one might question that every statement in scripture is a revelation of God to lost human beings through Jesus Christ as Creator, Lord, Redeemer, and Judge. Perhaps the so-called "infallibilist" (as typically distinguished from "inerrantist") could say, for example, that scientific/historical details about the creation are not inerrant, but the big-picture idea that God is Creator is inerrant. And maybe the openness theologians that ETS disciplined on grounds of their purported rejection of inerrancy a few years ago (or their caricatures, anyway) might say that future/”historical” details about the eschaton are not inerrant, but the big-picture idea that God is Judge is inerrant. And maybe someone could say that all statements about God and God’s actions are inerrant, but historical statements about the actions of human beings (what Pilate or even Moses said or did, say) are not inerrant.

• To be fair, the statement here leaves open that God might have additional purposes in inspiring scripture. But certainly to this point the Chicago Statement does not require people who agree with it to attribute any further purposes to God than to communicate revelation about God, especially about God-in-Christ and certain of God's roles in salvation history.
  

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

In the next twelve days...

Prayers from friends will be appreciated over the next twelve days.
I plan to submit a second chapter of my thesis that Friday, the last day of finals week.
Pray for commitment, focus, and clear-headedness as I strive to make that deadline.


(There is nothing else to this post.)

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

An Anti-Retributivist Soteriology

From Ted Grimsrud:

Jesus’ God is not a God who demands repayment of every ounce of indebtedness. Rather, God is a God of abundant mercy. Jesus taught that debts would be released without any kind of payment (Luke 4:19). The nature of the salvation Jesus proclaims turns the debt motif on its head. His Jubilee theology does not accept the logic of retribution that portrays human beings having an overwhelming debt to God. That logic sees this debt leading God to demand perfect obedience or a violent sacrifice as a necessary basis for paying the debt and thereby earning God’s favor. Instead, Jesus began his ministry by proclaiming a word of pure acceptance—the poor, the captives, the oppressed are given a simple word of unilateral acceptance by God. God simply forgives the debts.

Jesus’ gospel message does lead directly to his death. This death, though, is not the necessary means to affect the salvation Jesus the Savior brings the world. Rather, the death stems from the response of the Powers to the salvation already given by God. Jesus’ straight out mercy reveals to the world God’s saving will with unprecedented clarity.

Jesus’ death adds nothing to the means of salvation—God’s mercy saves, from the calling of Abraham on. Rather, Jesus’ death reveals the depth of the rebellion of the Powers, especially the political and religious human institutions that line up to execute Jesus. Even more so, Jesus’ death reveals the power of God’s love. Jesus’ death does indeed profoundly heighten our understanding of salvation. It reveals that the logic of retribution is an instrument of evil and that God’s love prevails even over the most extreme expression of (demonic) retribution.

Hmm. I'm not sure I'm ready to accept this teaching.

I want to have both -- that is, both that Jesus' death is the result of an evil world's response to His way of love and nonviolence, and also that Jesus' death is part of God's plan to effect the redemption of the world.

At the same time, I don't want to limit the work of the atonement to Jesus' death, nor to its means. The resurrection seems central (because it is there we see life overcoming death), although I would not want to limit the work of the atonement to the resurrection, either, to the exclusion of Jesus' death--and Jesus' life.

I am so glad we are not saved by correct doctrine, but by the work of God in Christ (whatever the heck that is). :)

(There is nothing else to this post).
------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

More on Same-Sex Issues

Through Halden's blog, I today came across peacetheology.net, which collects some work by Ted Grimsund, who teaches theology and peace studies at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, PA.

Among other topics, Grimsund has written on the topic of homosexuality. He has published a book with fellow EMU professor of theology Mark Thiessen Nation entitled Reasoning Together: A Conversation on Homosexuality. One of Grimsund's chapters is on his website, here. He argues for what he calls "the inclusive perspective".

(There is nothing more to this post.)

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Sacramental Caffeine

See here:
Coffee As A Means Of Grace - A Sip of Theological Humor

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Universal Restoration in Biblical Theology: Part 1

This is the first post of an intended ongoing series on biblical theology.

1. Here I propose an expression of theology I call "universal restoration". (637 words) This is intended as an interpretation of the central message of the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

2. To set up for future posts & interactive discussion, I specifically raise questions concerning biblical support for this theology and implications for our theology of final judgment (i.e., Hell). (105 words)

3. At the end I also list numerous other practical ecclesial & missional issues to which this theology likely has relevance. (84 words)

(You must click below to read the full post.)

The Gospel of the Kingdom of God: Universal Restoration in Biblical Theology

Scott Coulter

Part I

(9/30/08)

a proposed thesis:

1. The Gospel: The message of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament is God’s working in Christ to restore the whole of God’s creation from its marred and fallen state.

2. Restoration: The restored state of God’s creation may rightly be described with the word shalom, which denotes peace, wholeness, and integrity. God’s restored creation is primarily characterized by harmonious, rightly-ordered relationships: both “vertically” between God and God’s creatures, and “horizontally” among all of God’s creatures. Other good words to describe the restored creation include: “reconciliation”, “atonement”, and “justice & righteousness”.

3. Sin: The nature of sin is best understood as relational brokenness: that is, as the opposite of the relational wholeness denoted by shalom. Or, perhaps, it is better to describe sin not as an opposite of shalom but as a privation of shalom—that is, a deficiency in the perfection of shalom. The meaning of salvation (or deliverance, or redemption) from sin is fundamentally that those who are saved are moved from the sphere of the fallen world which is characterized by sin or relational brokenness into the sphere of the restored creation which is characterized by shalom.

4. Partial Restoration vs. Complete (Universal) Restoration in God’s Cosmos:

a. In one sense there can be shalom in one part of the creation while there is brokenness in another part. For example, we can conceive of one human person reconciled to God in Christ while another’s relationship with God is still broken. Similarly, we can conceive of a community of human persons reconciled to one another (and to the rest of the creation) and to God, whose horizontal relationships are characterized by justice & righteousness, and whose vertical relationship to God is whole, in Christ—and we can conceive of this community of shalom existing while in another part of God’s creation simultaneously there are groups of human persons whose relationships with each other, the rest of the creation, and with God remain broken. Sin and righteousness, injustice and peace can simultaneously exist in different parts of the world (or indeed, in different parts of the same community, and even in different parts of a single person’s life understood as the totality of his/her relationships).

b. Yet in another sense, shalom denotes an ideal state of the whole creation. In this sense shalom is not realized unless all relational brokenness throughout the creation has been undone, and the whole of creation has been restored to a state of wholeness, peace, and integrity.

5. Fulfillment—the Work of God in Christ & in His Church:

a. In Christ, God has already accomplished the restoration of God’s creation. God’s accomplishment of God’s plan of salvation is as certain as if the work has already been finished: for indeed it has already been finished in the work of Christ.

b. However, the full effects of God’s restoring work are not yet manifest in the world in which we, the Church of God, now are living. Not only in the world surrounding us, but also within the community that is God’s Church and in the lives of the people making up this community, there is still sin and relational brokenness.

c. It is the mission of the Spirit-filled Church, as given by Jesus to his disciples, to participate in the ongoing work of Christ (as we are Christ’s body) in bringing about reconciliation where there is brokenness, until the end of the present age when universal shalom is fully realized.

d. The ultimate vision of the Church of Jesus Christ is the beginning of the new age when our Lord returns and visibly brings about universal restoration. In this new, restored creation, sin and its effects will have been fully eradicated. There will be no relational brokenness between God and any of God’s creatures, nor among God’s creatures.

---

It is my intent to show, in a series of posts on this blog, that these tenets are a legitimate interpretation of biblical theology. Critical comments and discussion are very welcome. Over time, I will modify my expression of the above statements for clarity, or revise them for faithfulness to the testimony of scripture as I become convinced that either is necessary.

Two questions are of especial interest to me here:

(1) Does scripture teach the theology I have expressed above?

(2) What are the implications of the theology I have expressed above for a biblical theology of final judgment (i.e., a theology of Hell)?

I am also interested in other implications of this theology to practical ecclesial & missional issues including: (a) racism in the Church, (b) denominationalism, (c) the incarnational mission of the Church in the world locally & globally, (d) church government & the ordering of Christian community, (e) the relationship of church & state, (f) non-violence in Christian community & in the mission of the Church in the world, (g) ecological & environmental concerns, (h) social justice concerns, (i) concerns for justice for non-human animals.

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Personal Updates

Thanks to Win C. for creating this graphic and using it to link to this site. Very nice. :)

I have been busily trying to cram in as much thesis writing as possible of late. (Although recently I have been getting stuck.)

I have also been busy with other things, including:

• preparing to formally join Toledo Mennonite Church as a member
• commuting to school by bicycle regularly
• teaching World Religions & Logic
• going on the Northwest Ohio Men's Bike-Hike at Miracle Camp in Lawton, MI
• (This was a very nice intergenerational men's retreat with fellow Mennonites from Toledo, Archbold, and South Bend, IN. It rained constantly. We did bike in the rain and get very wet and dirty. We stayed in dry cabins and talked about nonviolence.)
• participating in an *intense* anti-racism training weekend at Goshen College (The Damascus Road Anti-Racism Training Process)
• I will also be teaching the MYF (High School) Sunday School class three Sundays this semester while our congregation is working through the Gospel according to Luke.
• intermittent procrastination (case in point!)

I may eventually get back to writing public thoughts here...


(There's nothing more to this post.)


------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Hebrews 9, 3, & 4 -- ongoing conversation about eternal judgment

An unnamed friend and I are having an ongoing conversation about eternal judgment. Right now we're discussing the possibility of a post-mortem opportunity for repentance & saving faith.

I think others will be interested in reading some of what I'm saying here (I'm an arrogant little SOB like that, as you know). :)

However, as I don't have permission (I haven't asked), I'm not posting any of the other half of the conversation, except to say that my friend raised points from the following passages from Hebrews.

--------

Re: Hebrews 9:27

I'm really not sure what this verse means. And I'm not just saying that because what it seems to mean on the surface is something I don't like or seems confusing. I really just don't know what it might seem to mean on the surface. The context isn't terribly helpful. Prisca-or-whoever :) is talking about the atonment work of Christ by comparison to the Day of Atonement in ancient Israelite religion. Christ's atonement is superior to Aaron's atonement. Then there's this analogy at the end of the chapter: "Just as human beings are appointed to die once, and after this - judgment, so also, after Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many [cf. Isa 53:12], He will appear a second time to those who eagerly await Him: not to bear sin, but to bring salvation [lit. "without sin, but for salvation"]." (9:27-28, cf. ESV & NET). I guess there's a parallel between human beings' dying once and Christ's having been offered once (in sacrificial death). I suppose that parallel is that they both die only once--so Christ won't be offered a second time, anymore than human beings die a second time. (Aside: John's concept of "the second death" isn't in play here--I wouldn't claim that this is a denial of that notion.) This plays well into the overall context: whereas the high priest must perform the Atonement sacrifice annually at Yom Kippur, Christ's atonement sacrifice is once-for-all-time. Now what can the parallel be between judgment after death for human beings and Christ's returning to bring salvation after His sacrifice? I guess they're related at least in that Christ's return is connected to the judgment. The context into which Christ brings salvation (to whom? to those who eagerly await Him) is the judgment of human beings who have died. I'm not sure that these insights fully capture the thrust of the analogy, though.

A couple observations & suggestions: "human beings" is plural here (anthropois), in "it's appointed for human beings to die once and after this - judgment". So (I think) the author is thinking about judgment on the scope of a universal judgment -- on the last day, coinciding with the return of Christ -- rather than individual judgments. The popular (I'm not sure it's biblical) picture that when an individual dies they immediately meet Christ and are judged and sorted into Heaven/Hell, or Paradise/Hades. (Reformed Protestant Orthodoxy has it, as you might remember from Historic Xian Belief that the righteous/unrighteous are sorted into Paradise/Hades as intermediate states prior to the general resurrection and final judgment which decides who is part of the New Heavens/New Earth/New Jerusalem and who is cast into the lake of fire). Further, in the context of this passage, the point of the analogy (as far as I can make it out) is that human beings don't die a second time; I don't see that it teaches any clear doctrine regarding what may or may not happen in between death and judgment (i.e., whether or not there is any further opportunity for repentance). If you like, it is implied/assumed by the author(ess) here that judgment comes after (not before) death. But I don't think we can force on this verse support of the doctrine that judgment comes *immediately* after death.

So in conclusion, this is not a very clear verse to start with, and what it does seem to say isn't in the context of answering the question whether or not there is a post-mortem opportunity for repentance prior to final judgment. Using it to support the denial that there is such an opportunity is poor proof-texting, in my opinion.

---------

Re: Hebrews 3

vv. 1 - 6 -- Comparison of Jesus & Moses. Jesus superior to Moses.

vv. 7 - 19 -- Exposition of Psalm 95 (7b-11)

Here we have a warning to Christians, based on a warning to the Israelite community at the time of the Psalmist, with a comparison to the story of the rebellion of the first generation of Israelites in the wilderness. The warning is that just as the rebellion, disobeidence, and lack of faith (that God would keep His promise to give Israel the land if they'd just walk into it) of the ancient Israelites provoked God to deny them entrance into the Promised Land ("God's rest"), so too rebellion, disobedience, and lack of faith on the part of members of the church community (in the first century and by extension in the twenty-first century) may/will provoke God to deny them entrance into "God's rest". What is rebellion, disobedience, and lack of faith in the first-century context? "Forsaking the living God" (by turning to some form of idolatry? perhaps: legalism, angel-worship, paganism, or submission to the emperor cult?) in connection with forsaking an initial confidence/faith in Christ's sufficiency. The author of Hebrews exhorts the first-century Christians to persevere to the end in their reliance on Christ for salvation, and not to seek security from some other source (some form of idolatry on the side). The Christians are warned that giving up on their faith/reliance on Christ alone for salvation would mean that they would not be able to enter "God's rest". (A theology of Hebrews is needed to explicate the local concept of "God's rest" in this book--my memory isn't good enough to give an exposition on the concept here. Eternal salvation/life with God after death/judgment is probably a part of the concept here, but I suspect there is some realized eschatology--really some now/not yet or double-fulfillment eschatology--at work in this concept as well.)

What does this passage have to say for our purposes in the present discussion? Well, there is a very real warning of the possibility of not entering God's rest (if you like, of "losing one's salvation"). And there is a historical reminder that some (a generation of unfaithful Israelites) in the past have actually forfeited God's rest. So can we conclude that this passage teaches that some will definitely not enter God's rest? My answer: a tentative maybe/I'm not so sure. There is definitately a warning that such a fate is possible, but the possibility doesn't logically necessitate the actuality for anyone. Now, one might argue that the passage teaches a condition: "If you do not persevere in faith to the end, you will not enter God's rest", and that we have independent knowledge that some have not persevered to the end; hence, we can deduce that some will not enter God's rest. I'd buy that--although we might have to examine further what it would mean that some have not persevered to the end, and also to examine further how absolutely certain we really are that this is a true premise. The best textual argument in this passage for accepting this premise is true is the example of the ancient Israelites who provoked God and did not enter the Promised Land. But I would argue that the Promised Land--"God's rest" in their context--and "God's rest" in the first-century context of the writer of Hebrews are non-identical. Indeed, it is conceivable that some ancient Hebrews who lived in Moses' generation and forfeited "God's rest" in their lifetime might enjoy some other form of rest in an eternal, post-mortem, or post-resurrection context. I am open to argument that this conceivability is not an actual possibility for other reasons (grounded in scriptural exegesis of other passages).

------------

Re: Hebrews 4

The warning & comparison to Moses' generation continues.

v.1 - the promise of entering God's rest still stands. (For whom? For those of us yet living? For those who lived before Christ also? The clear intent of the author's claim here is that the promise stands for "you", the living audience of the epistle. No claim is made regarding the eternal fate or post-mortem options of dead Israelites)

v.2 - in order for the message (euangelion) to benefit, one must listen with faith

vv.3&4 - Those who have believed enter God's rest. God's rest is established from the foundation of the world, in connection with the Sabbath rest of God in Genesis 1.

vv.5-7 -- The offer of God's rest stands: "today", even while some have already failed to enter it (the author of Hebrews on the face of it is more ready to equate the rest forfeited by Moses' generation with the rest offered to the first-century Christians)

vv.8-10 -- Entering the land with Joshua was *not* the true rest of Israel; for God speaks (through the psalmist) of entering rest later on (perhaps even to Israelites in the land in David's time?); the true Sabbath rest for the people of God is participation in God's 7th-day rest from all His works. I take this to mean that it is an eternal rest, at the end of time, when all God's plans for creation of the heavens and earth have come to completion, and the Body of Christ has finished its work of representing the Son of God until He returns. (I theologize rather than straightforwardly exegete here; but then I take it the author of Hebrews does likewise! This is certainly not a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.)

vv.11-13 -- Exhortation: strive to enter God's rest; hold fast, do not fall into the disobedience of unfaith. God knows the truth of every person's heart/mind/intentions/thoughts, and all are thus accountable to God. We cannot hide our faith or lack thereof from Him.

vv.14-16 -- We don't walk alone in our striving & perseverence in faith. Rather, Jesus has walked before us, and represents us in the heavenly tabernacle as our high priest even now, so that we have grace as needed--for resisting temptation to unfaith and (I hope) for restoration from unfaith, with repentance.

As you say there is some sense of urgency in Chs. 3-4. But on the other hand the force of the "Today" in 4:7 is to remind the readers of the epistle that the offer still stands today, and did not expire between Joshua and David. The force does not seem, at least primarily, to be "you have today to choose faith because tomorrow you might have to face judgment". In preaching from this passage I would probably emphasize the ongoing extension of grace & opportunity from God and God-in-Christ to humanity; not an immanent threat that this extension of grace & opportunity will be cut off. In this passage at least, I do not see that doctrine being taught. This is not to say that faith or unfaith do not matter -- not at all! Rather, that God is gracious to those who struggle in faith, and (I believe) God is gracious even to those who have fallen into unfaith, so that they may yet be restored. Is such restoration possible only before, or also after death? Is it possible only before, or also after the descent of the New Jerusalem and the destruction of death? These are significant questions to which I don't want to claim to have biblical answers--not yet, at any rate.

----------
----------

You say: "I find it hard to believe that God in laying out the message of salvation would leave out the important detail of a choice after this life."

I respond: I can sympathize with your reasoning. But this is still an argument from silence. That doesn't mean your wrong. Or that such reasoning is bad theology. But it is going beyond simple exegesis and proclamation of the Word of God written.
Such reasoning indeed makes me hesitant, if not skeptical, to affirm as doctrine that there is a post-mortem opportunity for repentance. But I wouldn't want to rule it out or condemn such a belief as heresy, either.

---

Another question (I put this into my interlocutor's mouth): "If God can or will save some people after death, why would God, or why should God's servants, even bother with extending an offer of salvation to living people? Especially as it might seem that after death many would be more inclined to accept such an offer, as they are no longer being tempted by all the things that now attract them away from a righteous relationship to God (i.e. 'Sex, Drugs, & Rock&Roll')?"

Response: Because God & the members of Christ's body love the world and the people of the world, and yearn for the restoration of right relationships between human beings, between human beings and God, and between human beings and the ecosystem. God is, and Christians ought to be, interested in more than just someone's "eternal destiny" in the sense of "Heaven or Hell". Not that deathbed conversions are impossible or of no value. But God actually cares about the world and about our lives and relationships and the health of all of the above right now, during our lifetime. God has sent us into the world to do some of the work of restoration here and now, as a foretaste of the grand and complete restoration at the End. God's Kingdom is already here in the Church. At least, it's supposed to be.

---

Further points:

Of course we are responsible as servants of Christ and members of His Body to continue the work He started on earth, and that is first and foremost proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Everyone is responsible for their own response to the message. And the Holy Spirit is doing His own thing in concert with our efforts, and perhaps sometimes apart from our efforts. It is not our responsibility to make others love God or choose repentance. Each individual is responsible for his/her own choices.
But that doesn't mean that some form of restorationism is not true. It does mean (and I suppose this is your point) that the truth of restorationism is irrelevant to our responsibility to preach the Gospel, and to each individual's own responsibility to hear & respond to it. (And we should not confuse these two domains of responsibility.)

-

Eternal separation from God is preached by Jesus and elsewhere in the scriptures as a possibility. A real possibility. I don't know that that--by itself--must prevent bible-believing Christians from hoping that Hell will be empty. Again, if we have good reason to think that some people have failed to meet certain conditions, and if we have good reason further to think that meeting certain conditions is necessary for avoiding Hell as an eternal and permanent destiny, then we have good reason to think Hell will not be empty. But we both agree that we are not responsible to discern the eternal destiny of any concrete individuals. The reality of Hell--regarldess of the number of its occupants--is certainly one impetus to us to preach the Gospel.


---
---
---

I think there's lots of significant agreement between us here; I also think there's room for more fruitful discussion. Feel free please to bring up more relevant passages.

Or if you want to take a hiatus from this conversation for a while, that's OK. :) It doesn't have to be constant and unceasing to be ongoing.

And here is the rest of it.
------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

thoughts on a article discussing homosexuality

I'm putting my longer albeit partial response to the article on homosexuality and Christian ethics which Sarah drew my attention to (see http://xanga.com/songsparrowsound/) here rather than on her blog, for space reasons.

---

Just in case anyone cares…
My thoughts on Justin’s article:

Argument #1: "Our bodies were designed for heterosexuality."

“God designed our bodies to interact in a certain way, so we shouldn't use them in any other way. It's certainly true that God designed our bodies with heterosexuality in mind; that's how new human beings come into the world. I don't think anyone can deny that heterosexual sex is the way our bodies were built to function. But does that mean that using our bodies in any other way is sinful?”
Justin makes a good point here in response to Argument #1: namely that sometimes we do not or cannot do things the way God designed us to do them, and that such deviations from the norm are not immoral. Christ accepts the broken into his kingdom—the blind, deaf, and lame. And it is very good for our churches to include people with physical and mental disabilities, and further for us to learn to see them as our full-fledged brothers and sisters, with their own full-fledged gifts for us. There is no slave or free, male or female, Jew or Greek, wheelchair-bound or Olympic gold-medalist in Christ. We are all one in Christ Jesus, and all gifts are of equal value. Everyone has these gifts.

On the other hand, with these examples: the blind, deaf, and lame (and slaves) – these are effects of the sinful, broken state of the world, and they are things we hope will be restored in Christ’s Kingdom. Christ healed the blind, deaf, and lame, and liberated the captives. Even if he did not and has not healed and liberated all people yet, we believe that he will—because they are symptoms of brokenness, and there is no brokenness in the Shalom of God’s Kingdom when it is fulfilled.
While it is not a moral failing of the man born blind (or his parents) that he is blind, it is something broken to be healed. Is this how we should see homosexuality? A condition of brokenness, less perfect than heterosexuality, but permissible (for now) in our communities? Something that God will wipe away at the end. (Jesus does say that in the Kingdom of God men and women do not marry—maybe sexual orientation is totally irrelevant in the fully realized Kingdom.)
Maybe. But I somehow doubt this is what most faith-based GLBT equality advocates want to say. I think they want to affirm homosex and heterosex as equally good and beautiful and pure and God-pleasing. And so I’m not sure Justin’s response here works as well as GLBT allies would like it to.

That said, here are two qualifications: First, I think there is room for further understanding here—paradoxically, God’s kingdom is fulfilled with the broken, and God chooses the weak to shame the strong. Maybe I’m wrong (in some cases, at least) to see certain states of being (e.g., deafness, paralysis) as “afflictions” or “disabilities”. Maybe I’m seeing with the world’s eyes.

Second, Being Jew or Greek (or any ethnicity), or being male or female, of course, isn’t something to be liberated from. (Although males and females need liberation from sexism and patriarchy). And maybe divisions between homosexual and heterosexual are removed as are those between Jew and Greek and male and female. In fact, I do believe this—all have equal access to God and to salvation, regardless of their orientation. That doesn’t by itself satisfy the issue of the morality of homosexual behavior or relationships, unfortunately.

---

Argument #2: "Sex is for procreation."

“Some people will argue that procreation is a necessary aspect of sex, so that experiencing sexual pleasure in any way that isn't open to the possibility of procreation is a sin. This once widespread belief is now primarily taught only by the Roman Catholic Church and is rejected by most Protestants.”

Um…yeah. Well, let’s leave this one off the table for now. I know and respect Protestants and Catholics who take the traditional Catholic view on this issue (as well as many more that do not). And I side with the latter. For me and for many, this argument is practically irrelevant.

---

Argument #3: "There are no examples of same-sex marriage in the Bible."

“This is a much better argument than the first two. Essentially, it says this: If extramarital sex is wrong, then gay sex would only be permissible in a gay marriage. But, the argument says, there is no such thing as a gay marriage in God's eyes; every marriage in the Bible is heterosexual.”

Justin makes some good points in his response to this argument.

Let me add this one observation to them: there are plenty of examples in the Bible of heterosexual marriages in which spouses (usually the women—I can’t really say “partners” here) are mistreated.

Marriage as loving, freely-chosen, equal partnership between one man and one woman is hardly the biblical standard (at least descriptively).

Culturally, we probably value “being in love”—and what that means for us--a lot more than, say, the Apostle Paul did, or Moses. (Or even Jesus?)

What are the implications here for Christian sexual ethics??

--

Argument #4: "Because God says so." (aka "There's a rule against it.")

“If God really does say so - if there really is a divine rule against same-sex relationships - then we need to follow it. But is there one?”

Prooftext #1: The Sodom Story (Gen. 19)

“Generally, serious Traditionalist scholars don't use the Sodom story to make their arguments, anyway. They do, however, use the following passages.”
Thanks, Justin. :) (Although it’s probably not fair to call someone non-serious just because they’re more fundamentalist than the bible scholars I have aligned myself with in the past)

Prooftext #2: Idols and Consequences (Romans 1:18-32)

“Now let there be no mistake; Paul has nothing positive to say about homosexuality in this passage. Clearly he views it as a bad thing, or at the very least, a "shameful" and "unnatural" thing. We must recognize that. At the same time, we must also recognize that homosexuality is not the point of this passage, even though some Christians today try to use it that way. It's mentioned for a specific reason in connection with specific acts that were familiar to his audience.”

Yes, I can buy that, and I think it’s a good point, even if I might disagree on some details with Justin here. (And I’m not sure about that.) I’m also not 100% sure about the implications of this point, hermeneutically, but I can nod and go on following Justin’s argument.


Prooftext #3: The Sinful "Arsenokoitai" (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10)

Yup. It’s definitely important that we understand what the referents of "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai” are—and that is the crux of interpretation of this passage for the purposes of this in-house debate in evangelical Christianity.
I certainly have no reason to reject Justin’s suggestions here. But maybe others have more reason? Again, I’m comfortable letting his point stand at least for the sake of continuing to follow his argument.


Prooftext #4: The Abomination (Leviticus 18-20)

While I’m not comfortable dismissing a passage just because it’s in Leviticus, I recognize that something’s being in Leviticus means it takes more work to decide if it’s relevant to Christian ethics (and how it might be so relevant), than it does if it appears in say the Gospels or Paul’s Letters.

Another point I’d add here: perhaps “lying with a man as with a woman” refers to a very specific homosexual act: namely anal penetration. I’m no expert—but I can easily imagine that this one act might be harmful or morally bad in a way that other homosexual acts might not be. And at the very least I can see how this particular act might fall in the same category of uncleanness as sex during a woman’s period or tattoos. Maybe anal sex is wrong, period. Maybe anal sex was more dangerous a few millennia ago than now, and so was wrong for the Israelites then for that reason. In either case, this could be a further reason to not take this passage as a blanket condemnation of homosexual relationships.


I haven’t closely read the rest of the article (yet).
But thanks, Sarah, reading it has been valuable so far.

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Atonement: 1 of ?

Almighty God, who has given your only Son to be unto us both a sacrifice for sin, and also an example of godly life: Give us grace to receive thankfully the fruits of his redeeming work, and to follow daily in the blessed steps of his most holy life; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

The Book of Common Prayer

Contemporary Collect Proper 15

For the authors of the New Testament, the death of Jesus of Nazareth was the "anomaly" that threatened allegiance to whatever language- and thought-forms they might have inherited, and that required a new model, or "paradigm," by which to see themselves, to see others, and to see God.

Roy Harrisville, Fracture: The Cross as Irreconcilable in the Language and Thought of the Biblical Writers, p. 271 (2006)

Jesus was, in his divinely mandated (i.e., promised, anointed, messianic) prophethood, priesthood, and kingship, the bearer of a new possibility of human, social, and therefore political relationships.

John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, p. 52 (2nd ed, 1994)

---

The above quotations introduce Scot McKnight's recent book, A Community Called Atonement.

I've been wanting to read more about atonement theology for a while, for I have many questions. I've chosen McKnight's book because of its accessibility (the text is 156 pages and it isn't aimed exclusively at a professional audience), because I had heard of him before--he wrote the NIV Application Commentaries on Galatians and 1 Peter (in 1993), and that book on Mary--The Real Mary: Why Evangelical Christians Can Embrace the Mother of Jesus (in 2006). I am not a regular reader of his blog, JesusCreed.org, but I have visited it a handful of times. It also came to my attention (here) that McKnight is an Anabaptist.

As I work through this book, I'll continue to post here. (I know, I haven't finished working through the introduction to the Martyr's Mirror yet...)

---

Prologue -

We need to recognize that there are multiple metaphors (or images, if you're uncomfortable with the word 'metaphor') in scripture for talk about atonement. And of course there are multiple metaphors in the history of Christian theology. McKnight thinks we need to be aware of the purpose of each metaphor in order to be successful in communicating about God's redemptive work in Christ Jesus. McKnight uses the metaphor of a bag full of golf clubs - you don't putt with a sand wedge on the green or open with the putter at the tee. "What does each club in our bag offer us, are we using all the clubs in our bag, and is there a bag defined enough to know where to place each of those clubs?", McKnight asks.

I want to suggest that our "bag" is biblical theology. Let's ask the questions: "Are we drawing out and making use of all the models of atonement suggested by the biblical imagery?", and "What are the effects of our frequent (or infrequent) use of each model upon our theology and our living?"--for example, how does one's being thoroughly used to Calvin's penal substitution model affect the way we approach biblical interpretation, theology proper (i.e. theology of God), soteriology, theology of justice and forgiveness, of church and state, of community? What would happen if we lost this model altogether? What would happen if this model lost its dominant hold on our evangelically-trained minds? Further, let's ask, "Do all the models of atonement with which we're familiar really comport with and grow out of biblical theology done well?" These are some of my questions about atonement theology.

---

Ch. 1: Atonement: The Question, A Story, and Our Choice

1. Atonement is a creative act of God. "Christians believe that...God really did redemptively create..." (1). When God atones, God creates new hearts (Jer. 31), new relationships, and new communities, and celebrates with the creation of new wine (John 2).

2. Atonement is the gospel of the kingdom of God. "The atonement...is the good news of Christianity.... It explains how that gospel works" (1).

3. God's work of atonement is centered in the work of Christ, but it is bigger than a single event in the story of Jesus. "...this all took place in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and (the silent part of the story) in the gift of the Holy Spirit" (1).

The Question: Does Atonement Work?

"Does the claim of the gospel extend to what can be observed in the concrete realiteis of those who claim to be its beneficiaries?" (1). That is, "Does atonement work?" (1). (This puts me in mind of our discussion on Michael's blog about evidence and falsifiability here). The way he puts this resonates with me as an extremely vital question: "Are Christians any better than anyone else in their relationship with God, self, others, and the world? ... Are Christians--taken as a whole--more loving people? Are they more forgiving? Are they more just? Are they more peaceful? Are they really better?" (1-2).

McKnight tells me that since I agree with him that "the credibility of the Christian faith is determined" by an affirmative answer to each of these questions, I am reading the right book (2).

He proceeds to give the affirmative answer I'd like to give, and bases it on an anecdote about a Christian ER worker who literally washes the feet of a man whom no one else wanted to touch (3-4).

Is it that easy a question to answer, though? McKnight has just said: "I'm not talking about individuals, for it is all too easy to find a bad Christian and a good Muslim or Buddhist and say, 'Christianity doesn't work but Islam and Buddhism do!'". So surely finding a good Christian isn't sufficient to provide an answer to this question. Especially when there are so many good Muslims or Buddhists, presumably.

I'm going to assume McKnight means to give something of a promissory note here for further justification for his affirmative answer to the all-important question he has raised.

---

McKnight goes on to say that "how we frame atonement will make all the difference for the world" (4). In other words, the models of atonement we use and the way we use them is going to make a practical difference. In particular, he notes right away, it will make a difference in the composition of our churches--whether they are socially and racially homogenous or integrated, to start with. (Only about 10% of American churches, he says, are racially integrated.) (5)

"The gospel we preach shapes the kind of churches we create. The kind of church we have shapes the gospel we preach" (5).

He charges that we have shaped our theories of atonement and our preaching of the gospel "to keep our group the same and others out" (5).

I can believe this. It is plausible that people who don't need to be saved from social problems because they are privileged preach an atonement theory focused on rescuing them from the consequences of sins they have committed from within their privileged positions. And that people who feel discontent with their social status preach an atonement theory that promises deliverance into a higher social status--a "social gospel" or "health & wealth gospel" or a "gospel of liberation". If our group doesn't need--or rather doesn't want--to hear a gospel preached about God's plan for the poor and oppressed, we probably won't end up including the poor and oppressed who will respond to this gospel in our church pews and congregational business meetings.

There are other questions: such as, what are the effects of the atonement for those gays, lesbians, bisexual or transgendered persons for whom Jesus died? Are they reconciled to God as they are, with God's blessing on their sexual orientation and behavior? Or are these things they perceive as part and parcel of their created identities symptoms of a disease to be cured by the work of atonement? A church's position on this atonement issue will obviously shape the composition of their visible membership as well.

---

Also see: David Neff's review at CT

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Theology in Sickness and in Health

I'm just taking a quick breath in the midst of my present attempt to articulate (with concision!, and clarity) the problems with Blackburn's supervenience challenge to the moral realist (see Blackburn 1993, Essays in Quasi Realism, essays 6 & 7).

Ben Myers has blogged in brief today on Karl Barth and a Christian theology of sickness & death (Faith and Theology: "Karl Barth on sickness, health, and doctors"). And already this entry has generated a little discussion.

Myers and Kim Fabricius note a tension in Christian theology between, as I take it, God's opposition to sickness and death as the Creator of life and sustainer of health on the one hand, and God's permission of human mortality on the other.

For example, Myers says (citing Barth) that it is in virtue of "God’s own opposition to sickness" that "doctors and patients are together following God’s will as they resist the demonic power of sickness". Fabricius then opines (based on his reading of Genesis 2-3) that "it is not death but the fear of death that is the condition of fallen humanity, and not the disintegration of the human body (which in fact begins at birth) but our frenetic attempt to avoid and delay it at all costs that speaks of the sin of pride," and he goes on to note that the Apostle Paul remarked that "dying is gain" and boasted of his physical infirmities.

(I say:) It seems Paul came to accept his own death as good, right, and proper, situated in God's plan for Paul's life as a small piece of God's plan for the unfolding of His Kingdom. Yet Jesus also healed the sick and raised the dead as a sign of the immanence of the Kingdom of God.

Some application: On the one hand, we are on God's side in condemning and resisting sickness, decay, and death. On the other hand, we are on God's side in accepting an end to (this) life from His hand, knowing perhaps that physical, literal death is a necessary precondition for the resurrection of the (superior) body.

So with fear and trembling and proper humility, we should fight to live, but not condemn others who wish to accept death (rather than say one more round of chemo); also we should accept death, but not condemn others who fervently desire to go on living. James' admonishment against boasting about the future in 4:13-16 seems appropriate here: "You ought to say, 'If the Lord wills, we will live...'"

---

I wonder also if this tension might have bearing on Michael's questions regarding the benefit of the doctrine of Providence ("The Purpose of Providence"). To quote Myers:

"After speaking of sickness as a demonic threat which must always be resisted, Barth goes on to say that real freedom to live comes only when a person realises "that he is in God's hand, that he is surrounded by Him on all sides", i.e., when we accept the limitations of our own lives. And so Barth also says that sickness "ushers in this genuinely liberating insight". In a "concealed" form, sickness is also "the witness to God's creative goodness, the forerunner and messenger of the eternal life which God has allotted and promised to the person who is graciously preserved by Him within the confines of his time" ([Church Dogmatics] III/4, p. 373)"

Michael's questioning points me to ask the frightening question: "What can I trust God for?" It seems we know so little of God's will, such that He may allow or prevent fatal highway accidents. This not only raises the epistemic question: "Is faith in God falsifiable?", but the acute existential question: "Does God really take care of me?"

Myers' quotation of Barth suggests an answer which my philosophically-trained instincts have already prompted: God always acts for my good (and, I believe, for every person's good and for all our good together), and sometimes what is good for me is mortality; other times what is good for me is healing. Ultimately, on my reading of scripture, God says what is good for me is eternal life: both spiritual (now & ongoing) and literal (future) resurrection from the dead.

If universal restorationism is the true view of Hell, then ultimately God will bring every person to their ultimate good: eternal life with God. If annihilationism or ECT is the true view of Hell, on the other hand, I think to be consistent we should say it is for each person's good that they not be brought into the reality of eternal life with God against their will. (Indeed, the restorationist would also say this, but simply leaves the door open to the will of the damned's undergoing change.)

The problem is not, perhaps, that we know so little of the will of God--we know, trivially, that God's will is for our good--but the problem is that we seem to know so little of what is truly our good.

The believer in divine Providence must say that, given our empirical evidence, sometimes it is good for some people to get sick and die; other times it is good for some people to get sick and then get better, or to die and then be resurrected. (Remember Mary & Martha's question to Jesus: Why didn't you come sooner so that Lazarus didn't die in the first place?)

So here are two questions: (1) Can we accept the conclusion that sickness and death (or whatever apaprent evil, including permanent or temporary damnation) is really for the good of those upon whom it befalls? (2) Given this consequence of belief in Providence, does believing in Providence make someone a better person? That is, is the belief itself good?
------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Course Feedback from the Fall

I got my course evaluations for both Logic and World Religions today. A lot of it is what I expected. The majority of comments are positive, and a number of the negative ones are informative and helpful, or just confirming of problems I already knew about and want to address. One of the more helpful comments in World Religions, for example, said that there was more out-of-class work in World Religions than in this student's Anatomy class, which seems backwards. (World Religions here is a 1000 level class, and I took it as two 300 level classes; I knew this would be a problem, I just need to scale back the amount of work a bit more than I did).

The most amusing negative comment was from a student in World Religions. I reproduce it exactly as it appears on my sheet:

Don't grade the paper's so harsh, it's not an english class.

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Reductionism and Supervenience: A Proof in Modal Logic

Below, I prove that if reductionism is true then the supervenience thesis is true.
(See Simon Blackburn, “Supervenience Revisited” in his Essays in Quasi-Realism, 1993.)

Reductionism: N (x)(G*x ⊃ Fx)

Necessarily, for all x, if x is correctly described by a natural property description represented by G*, then x has the moral property represented by F.

The Supervenience Thesis: N (∃x)(Fx & G*x & (G*x U Fx)) ⊃ (y)(G*y ⊃ Fy))

Necessarily, if something exists that has moral property F and is correctly described by G*, and its being F supervenes on its being G* [or, conversely, it’s being G* underlies its being F], then for all y, if y is G*, then y is F.


All modal operators here are to be understood as involving analytic or conceptual necessity/possibility. (As opposed to, say, metaphysical or natural necessity/possibility).

Supposedly G. E. Moore’s open question argument gives good reason to reject reductionism. Reductionism is equivalent to what Moore called the “naturalistic fallacy”. Blackburn argues that anti-reductionists lack a good explanation for their acceptance of the supervenience thesis.


1. N (x)(G*x ⊃ Fx)
// ∴ N (∃x)(Fx & G*x & (G*x U Fx)) ⊃ (y)(G*y ⊃ Fy))

2. ASM: ~ N ((∃x)(Fx & G*x & (G*x U Fx)) ⊃ (y)(G*y ⊃ Fy))       AIP
3. P ~((∃x)(Fx & G*x & (G*x U Fx)) ⊃ (y)(G*y ⊃ Fy))          from 2
4. W1 ~((∃x)(Fx & G*x & (G*x U Fx)) ⊃ (y)(G*y ⊃ Fy))       from 3
5. W1 ~(~(∃x)(Fx & G*x & (G*x U Fx)) ∨ (y)(G*y ⊃ Fy))       from 4
6. W1 ~~(∃x)(Fx & G*x & (G*x U Fx)) & ~(y)(G*y ⊃ Fy)       from 5
7. W1 ~(y)(G*y ⊃ Fy) & ~~(∃x)(Fx & G*x & (G*x U Fx))       from 6
8. W1 ~(y)(G*y ⊃ Fy)                     from 7
9. W1 (∃y)~(G*y ⊃ Fy)                     from 8
10. W1 (∃y)~(~G*y ∨ Fy)                     from 9
11. W1 (∃y)(~~G*y & ~Fy)                     from 10
12. W1 ~~G*a & ~Fa                     from 11
13. W1 G*a & ~Fa                     from 12
14. W1 G*a                     from 13
15. W1 (x)(G*x ⊃ Fx)                     from 1
16. W1 G*a ⊃ Fa                     from 15
17. W1 Fa                     from 14, 16
18. W1 ~Fa & G*a                     from 13
19. W1 ~Fa                     from 18
20. W1 Fa & ~Fa                     from 17, 19

21. N (∃x)(Fx & G*x & (G*x U Fx)) ⊃ (y)(G*y ⊃ Fy))                     from 2-20, IP
------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Martyr's Mirror 5: Are the Anabaptists the True Church?

(...Click below for full post)

From The Martyr's Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght; translation by Joseph F. Sohm:

---

Now the point will be to give the reasons why we have called this whole work, with all the persons contained therein, after the Anabaptists; from which, as the second question, might be asked: whether all the persons mentioned, confessors as well as martyrs, none excepted, confessed the same as what the Anabaptists of this day confess? or whether any believed, practiced, or maintained higher or lower, more or less, in this or that article?

We shall treat these matters separately, and one after the other, giving the reasons as well as the answers.

REASON WHY WE HAVE CALLED THIS WHOLE WORK AFTER THE ANABAPTISTS

The reason which has induced us is twofold:

1. Because, as we have shown clearly, there have been persons in every century, from the beginning of the Gospel all along, who have believed and taught the article of holy baptism, with other articles noted in the margin-on account of which the Anabaptists have received this name-in the very same manner as the Anabaptists, and have, each in his time, instructed, engrafted, and confirmed their contemporaries therein, as may, be seen in the whole history, especially in the first fifteen centuries.

2. Because we have not found mentioned in the writings of authentic authors anything concerning those persons whom we have noted as true witnesses, which conflicts with the above-mentioned doctrines of the Anabaptists. And whenever something has been laid to their charge, which is not in harmony with the uprightness of the faith professed by them, we have shown that the witnesses to such charge were not authentic or acceptable; or that the things brought against them, were committed by them not after but before their conversion; or that, if they at any time have fallen into them, they truly forsook them before their death, and from which all this appears.

But whenever we have found that any, as regards the faith professed, were actually guilty of serious errors, offensive misconceptions, or bad actions, for which the above excuses could not be brought forward; we have dropped such entirely, and not mentioned them; that the pious and most holy witnesses of Jesus Christ might not be defiled with their unclean and unholy leaven.

---

Summary:

At issue seems to be that van Braght intends this history to be properly catholic. That is, he doesn’t mean to be restricting the scope of this history to one denomination or tradition, but wants to present a history of the (True) Universal Church. If he leaves certain people or groups out of the picture, it is because they are not part of the True Church in his judgment, and not because they are part of a different denomination.

So, he wants the history to be about the Church, not a particular subset of the Church, and yet he calls the work after the Anabaptists—one particular group. So why does he title the work after the Anabaptists? His response is, basically, that throughout the whole history of the (True) Church, the true Christians have been Anabaptists. “Anabaptists”, for van Braght, does not designate a Reformation tradition with its origins in the 1500s; rather it is the Tradition of the Church.
His identity claim (Anabaptists = The True Church) is based upon (1) a doctrinal definition of the Anabaptist faith, which includes adult baptism along with other beliefs not clearly specified here (Remember I have argued previously that in van Braght’s own view, the practice of adult baptism does not make one part of this tradition by itself; it is not a solely sufficient condition for being an Anabaptist, because he excludes the violent Munsterites from this tradition), and (2) the (impressive!) claim that there have always been Christians (since Jesus, or since Pentecost, anyway) who fit this doctrinal definition.

Anyone guilty of “serious errors” (heresies?), that is, serious departure from the above definition of the Anabaptist faith in thought, word, or deed, have been omitted from the history, in order to limit the scope of this history to the “True Church” that has kept itself pure.

Response:

First:

I remain taken aback, and indeed offended by this approach, insofar as it fails to recognize the legitimacy of most of the Church, and the relevance of most of Church history. It seems like folly to ignore the influence that certain “paedo-baptists” have had on Christian theology, even surely the theology of the Anabaptists:

There is much with which Anabaptists do (and, should, in my view) find fault with in, say, the theologies of Augustine and Luther (regarding the relationship of Church and State for both thinkers, and regarding the hermeneutics of Luther–i.e. his Law-Gospel dialectic). On the other hand, even if doctrines such as the priesthood of all believers and justification by faith can be discovered through legitimate NT exegesis, these doctrines in the mouths of these thinkers, I contend, have influenced many within the Mennonite Church today, and probably the 16th century Anabaptists as well. If we decide (as I am often tempted to do) to reject Luther’s theory of justification for a more Catholic one, the problem persists.

Again, while there were, I understand, those among the 16th century Anabaptists who held to heretical Christologies, I think most good Mennonite-Anabaptists are good Trinitarians. Surely there were paedo-baptists among the members of the Council of Chalcedon. (I would contend that Trinitarian orthodoxy was around before the Council of Nicea; but whether we are ignorant of the councils or not, at least the first four have surely influenced Mennonite thought–just as Luther has with hopefully biblical views such as the priesthood of all believers.)

Further, the way Anabaptists today read the Bible, whether they make use of the historical-critical method or a more fundamentalist approach, necessarily draws on contributions made (quite recently!) by paedo-baptists (many Lutherans on the one hand and many Presbyterians on the other, among others).

All this is to say that even if we were writing a history of Anabaptist denominations, we would have to talk about the influences of non-Anabaptist thinkers.

Second:

I am not sure how van Braght can escape the charge of arbitrariness in choosing what doctrines are marks of “the True Church”. The only way out I can see is by an appeal to biblical authority and good vs. bad exegesis of the scriptures.

Third:

Why should the true, visible Church be identified by its doctrines, primarily?



------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Defining “Natural”: A Philosophical Problem for Discussion

This is something on which I could use some help.

Preface:

“Entities” is to be understood in the broadest possible way. Entities may be existent or non-existent, simple or complex, irreducible or reducible, emergent or fundamental,[1] mental or non-mental, material or immaterial, etc. (Can you think of any significant bases I haven’t covered here?)

Let’s use “naturalism” to refer to the ontological claim that no entities exist that are non-natural.

Something is “non-natural” iff it is not identical to, reducible to, or wholly composed of natural entities.

Aim:

For present purposes, what we want is a definition of “natural” that allows naturalism to be an internally coherent thesis that someone can legitimately defend as a defeasible, a posteriori hypothesis. Naturalists claim that naturalism is a contingent truth.

Preferably, our definition of “natural” will leave room for the class of natural entities to contain more than the class of physical entities. Naturalism should not automatically entail physicalism.

Method:

I take it that in order for naturalism to be a posteriori and a contingent truth, it must be possible to present an argument for naturalism that is not circular or question-begging. (Perhaps the argument will finally be judged unsound; what matters right now is not the truth value of naturalism but its alleged contingency.)

I take it that the best argument available for naturalism is an argument from the empirical, meta-scientific observation of explanatory completeness[2] something like what follows (this a specifically physicalist version of the argument; I want to explore ways to modify the argument to make it apply to more inclusive forms of naturalism):

Scientific research of the last hundred years or so has had great success in finding physical (hence, natural) explanations for observed phenomena. There is no longer any reason (so the argument goes) to postulate the existence of any special, non-physical entities in order to account for observable, physical effects. Hence, the thesis of

“the ‘causal closure’ or the ‘causal completeness’ of the physical realm,
according to which all physical effects can be accounted for by basic physical
causes (where ‘physical’ can be understood as referring to some list of
fundamental forces)”[3]

has been well-confirmed. The methodological consideration of simplicity thus justifies the ontological hypothesis that the only fundamental entities that exist are those entities which make up the subject matter of physics.

First Try:

The history of science may be taken to confirm physicalism [see above] or else the thesis that there are no unexplainable phenomena. (Note: by definition, “phenomena” is restricted to the realm accessible to our observation). So naturalism could be the claim that we don’t need to posit any queer, non-scientific, supersensible entities in order to give (efficient) causal explanations of any observable phenomena. (We may consequently be justified to infer that there are no such entitites.) Everything we can observe can in principle be explained by other things that we observe, without recourse to the unobservable.

If we said that to be “natural” is to be observable (“non-natural” = “unobservable”), could we call the claim that nothing non-natural is a necessary component of an (efficient) causal explanation a scientific discovery, a posteriori, or a contingent truth?

No. Because something is observable by definition insofar as it causally generates observable effects; and if this is right, then it is an analytic truth, known a priori, “discovered” on reflection rather than observation, that all necessary posits of scientific explanations are observable, or “natural” on the above definition. (If I’m wrong and something can be non-observable but generate observable effects–subatomic particles, for example–then we have to reject our definition of “natural” because we want subatomic particles to count as “natural”, since the physical is supposed to be the paradigm case of the natural.)

Conclusion: This try hasn’t worked because the key claim turns out not to be a confirmable, defeasible, scientific hypothesis but rather a conceptual truth.

Help Desired!!

---

[1] By “fundamental” I intend “non-emergent”…can you please confirm or correct my terminology here?

[2] See David Papineau, “Naturalism”, §1.2-1.3, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/. I call this observation “meta-scientific” because it is a general observation about the fruits of recent scientific inquiry, rather than a particular observation that occurs within a particular scientific research program.

[3] Papineau, “Naturalism”, §1.2.
------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Readings on Philosophical Naturalism

I was awake early this morning so I came to campus very early, getting to Scott Hall around 7:00am. I found that the alarm was going off all throughout the building. So, I'm sitting in a computer lab in the Business Dept. this morning.

Yesterday I got three books and an article on philosophical naturalism. (I'll probably only read the introductions to each of the three books). I may have comments later--today or in a couple of days--related to this topic.

The books are:

Naturalism in question, Mario De Caro and David Macarthur (eds.) (Harvard, 2004)

Naturalism: a critical appraisal, Stephen Wagner and Richard Warner (eds.) (Notre Dame, 1993)

Naturalism: a critical analysis, William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (eds.) (Routledge, 2000)

The third book (Craig & Moreland's) is much more thoroughly and explicitly Christian/theistic in its orientation. The second (Wagner & Warner's) is more about philosophical non-naturalism without as much reference to theism (I think). The first is interested in broadening the scope of "nature" beyond the limits of "scientific naturalism" or "scientism".

I'm presently interested in this topic because philosophical naturalism is an important presupposition of certain expressivist arguments in metaethics.

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

A little moral epistemology

I cycled to campus for the second morning in a row (the third time ever). I estimate it takes about 30 minutes (give or take 5). I saves me a dollar on bus fare and whatever I'd pay to ride a stationary bike at a fitness center (although I'm sure it isn't constant activity the way aerobic exercise should be--it's actually an easy ride).

No rain today, so my tires are cleaner and my brakes are working better than yesterday. :)

I'm noticing that I'm out of practice with regular, spontaneous praise and thanksgiving. I don't spend enough time outside, being, wondering, enjoying--as Michael's been saying, properly playing. :) I think that means I need to spend serious time in the Psalter.

---

Note to self:

One of the more serious challenges for moral realism is moral epistemology. How can we know normative truths?

I suspect that moral knowing involves empirical investigation (a posteriori knowing) into what contributes to a certain notion of eudaimonia/well-being/happiness/a good life (or, on the flip side, what contributes to a certain notion harm). Thus far I think I'm in basic agreement with the Cornell realists--the reigning metaethical naturalists. But this empirical knowledge is not where our normative concepts of, e.g., well-being come from.

I suspect that our concepts of well-being properly originate partly in revelation (a posteriori, but not perhaps empirical knowing) and are partly innate (a priori knowing). I understand innate concepts as concepts that we form for the first time when we first use them to cognize something in our experience. So to say that we have innate concepts of well-being means that when we experience well-being (or a privation of well-being)--either for ourselves or in observation of others' lives--we recognize it as such. Such cognition is not necessarily infallible just because it involves native concepts.

I am open to both special revelation filling out and correcting our conceptions of well-being and privation of well-being, and to some form of internal spiritual regeneration (a la Plantinga's WCB model) doing the same.

(Comments welcome from all on the above!)

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Prayer for this morning...

I have had a beautiful morning already. :)

I missed the 7:30am bus, so I decided to bike all the way to the university (I probably got there ten minutes sooner than I would have if I had waited forty minutes for the next bus by my apartment).

It was raining. :)

It was a very good morning to cycle through the residential streets to the bike trail that leads to the UT campus. There were many green trees overhead.

So, my jeans are damp, and I'm trying to cultivate a proper mood of praise and thanksgiving and wonderment in the creation.

Psalm 65

Praise is due to you, O God, in Zion,
and to you shall vows be performed.

[...]

Blessed is the one you choose and bring near,
to dwell in your courts!
We shall be satisfied with the goodness of your house,
the holiness of your temple!

[...]

You visit the earth and water it;
you greatly enrich it;
the river of God is full of water;
you provide their grain,
for so you have prepared it.
You water its furrows abundantly,
settling its ridges,
softening it with showers,
and blessing its growth.
You crown the year with your bounty;
your wagon tracks overflow with abundance.
The pastures of the wilderness overflow,
the hills gird themselves with joy,
the meadows clothe themselves with flocks,
the valleys deck themselves with grain,
they shout and sing together for joy.

---

From Take Our Moments and Our Days: An Anabaptist Prayer Book - Ordinary Time
         Wednesday morning

Call to Praise
Lord, open our lips
and our mouths will proclaim your praise.
You are good to those who wait for you,
to all who seek you.

Gloria Patri...

Psalm 103

Thanksgiving
My heart is ready, O God;
I will sing your praise.
Your steadfast love is higher than the heavens,
and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.

(free prayers of thanksgiving)

Be exalted, O God, above the heavens,
and let your glory shine all over the earth.

Amen.

Mark 11:25; Ephesians 4:30-5:2

Silent or spoken reflection on the readings.


------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.