USA TODAY reports that Bruce Waltke, one of the best known evangelical OT scholars of our day, resigned his position at Reformed Theological Seminary, following a controversy begun by his statements, recorded on a website video, affirming that one could believe in evolution and also hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. His comments caused a furor at the Seminary, which allows diversity in views of creation, but doesn't allow faculty to hold a Darwinian position.
The report linked above doesn't explicitly state that Waltke believes in evolution, but he did say that if the church resists established scientific data, it is denying truth, which is God's truth. The report also quotes Scot McKnight expressing dismay over RTS's actions and affirming the need to wrestle with the questions Waltke raised. The interim president of RTS responded that the confessional nature of the institution must provide a boundary within which faculty must function.
I have benefited greatly from Dr. Waltke's ministry--both preaching (he is an excellent speaker) and writing. At the same time, I am puzzled at this development in his thinking--he has been such a stalwart for treating the content of the OT with such integrity. If he has embraced a theistic evolutionary view instead of some form of direct creation, I am disappointed. I can understand thinking that looks at the framework of Genesis 1-2 as other than a literal 24 hour day structure--my own view. The old earth of Hugh Ross and the "day-age" views that are similar are full of problems, from my perspective, but still affirm direct creation by God. But Waltke seems to be allowing for (if not endorsing) a position I see as inconsistent with the high view of Scripture he has always defended.
Waltke's remarks were in a video posted by an organization called BioLogos, that seeks to promote what they call the harmonization of science and faith, which for them seems to be the acceptance of evolution within Christian thinking. Waltke was speaking to a seminar they hosted. Once the controversy began, Waltke asked the video to be removed, but the damage was done. I am not only bothered by Waltke's position, but that as a professor at RTS, he would publicly advocate a position that was out of line with the institution that employed him. If his views had changed, he should have left before creating such an uncomfortable situation for RTS. He should have known better, and done better for a school that had good to him.
In other "creation news" I found out that R. C. Sproul, who did not believe in recent creation, changed his views after hearing Douglas Kelly's presentation, now in the book Creation and Change. It is primarily a theological approach, with reference to science. I've gone through it myself and recommend it if you are interested.
Posted using ShareThis
Friday, April 09, 2010
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Ambivalence About the Evangelical Left
I do not like having biblical faith linked to a political agenda, and believe that much damage has been done over the years by having evangelical leaders play too prominent a role in political settings and debates that go beyond their biblical moorings. Having Christian groups talk about the "Christian position" on the issue of tax rates, or gun ownership, or drilling for oil on Federal lands, for example, seems a stretch. There certainly are Christian principles that apply in all decision-making, but whether we have an income tax or national sales tax isn't a matter of moral absolutes (as I understand it).
That said, I have grown increasingly troubled by a number of trends among those who are broadly identified with the "evangelical left"--left being liberal politically and, to some extent, theologically. Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and Ron Sider have been recognized leaders of the politically active evangelical left for years, and some of the famous "emergent" names have been the theological anchors of the movement more recently--Brian McLaren, for example. I have personally heard the first three speak on more than one occasion, and have appreciated their presentations. I've read McLaren and found his early works thought-provoking, but his newer ones disturbing.
While my own political views have been developed out of what I hope is biblical thinking, I confess that my conclusions tend toward a more conservative/"libertarian with Christian restraints" approach to the tasks of governments, placing the role of social improvement clearly on the shoulders of the Church--recognizing our failures, but pointing to our history of successes at least as bright as government efforts have been. Nevertheless, I recognize that my own thinking is not infallible, and seek to see the wisdom in thinking different from my own, and allow it to help me grow in my understanding and perspective.
I readily grant that Wallis, Sider, et.al., love the Lord Jesus Christ and do what they do from pure motives. However, statements they make and positions they take, coupled with their silence and lack of action on other issues, lead me to my current sense of unease with their movement. I run the risk of overstatement, but let me give you some examples of why I have problems with their thinking.
1. They seek to broaden the "gospel" to include more than the term means. I hear calls for us to include envirnomental stewardship, racial reconciliation, alleviating poverty, and ending wars as "the gospel" and I cringe. These may all be fruits of the gospel, but they are not the gospel. I read an essay on racial reconciliation that said that it was "the heart of the gospel" and spoke disparagingly of any thought that could conceive of the gospel in other terms. I am passionate about racial reconciliation as a necessary product of the embrace of the gospel, but it is not the gospel or its heart. The heart of the gospel is "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3;16. The content of the gospel is "Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and he was buried; and he rose again according to the Scriptures, and he was seen..." (1 Cor. 15:3-4). The call of the gospel is "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).
The gospel is preached to the poor, but it is not about being poor. It is not, "God has designed government to provide you with what you need." It is not even, "A nation where Christians shape policy must take care of you." It is the message of transforming grace experienced through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. The resulting changed life may change a person to the point that circumstances change. It brings the power of God to bear in the believer's circumstances. And it brings the believer into the family of God, where he should (and often will) find the support structures that have been missing in his life through the incarnational ministry of the church.
The gospel has a context (creation and the history of redemption). The gospel has fruit (community, stewardships exercised, grace and mercy modeled, and yes, justice sought for the oppressed, in the name of Jesus). But the gospel is a message that is succinct and clear and defined in the Bible.
2. The Evangelical Left will make strong pronouncements on the necessity of dealing with poverty, opposing war, improving housing standards, mandating diversity, etc., while refusing to speak with equal force and time against abortion, against homosexual practice, against attempts to expand the definition of marriage beyond a heterosexual, monogamous, union, and other at least equally important biblical issues that have an impact on the culture. Why choose one set of biblical values at the expense of another? Isn't that what they accuse the Evangelical Right of doing?
I have a confession. I've voted for a liberal Democrat before. While in California, I was faced with voting for a pro-choice conservative Republican, and a lifelong, committed pro-life liberal Democrat. The Democrat would raise my taxes. He would favor more government regulations on things I don't think need to be regulated. But every time the issue of abortion came up, he did everything he could to oppose funding, or limit abortion availability. He made his own party mad on the issue repeatedly. It wasn't even hard to choose. My tax rate isn't a matter of biblical absolute. Killing infants in their mother's wombs is sin, and should be considered immoral as well as being illegal.
If I felt that the Evangelical Left was as concerned on the issue of abortion as they are housing policy, I would be much more at ease with their passion. I'm not convinced, though.
3. Why does their theological pursuit always seem to lead them away from clear commitment to a biblical gospel, scriptural authority, and historic orthodoxy? A couple of examples:
That said, I have grown increasingly troubled by a number of trends among those who are broadly identified with the "evangelical left"--left being liberal politically and, to some extent, theologically. Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and Ron Sider have been recognized leaders of the politically active evangelical left for years, and some of the famous "emergent" names have been the theological anchors of the movement more recently--Brian McLaren, for example. I have personally heard the first three speak on more than one occasion, and have appreciated their presentations. I've read McLaren and found his early works thought-provoking, but his newer ones disturbing.
While my own political views have been developed out of what I hope is biblical thinking, I confess that my conclusions tend toward a more conservative/"libertarian with Christian restraints" approach to the tasks of governments, placing the role of social improvement clearly on the shoulders of the Church--recognizing our failures, but pointing to our history of successes at least as bright as government efforts have been. Nevertheless, I recognize that my own thinking is not infallible, and seek to see the wisdom in thinking different from my own, and allow it to help me grow in my understanding and perspective.
I readily grant that Wallis, Sider, et.al., love the Lord Jesus Christ and do what they do from pure motives. However, statements they make and positions they take, coupled with their silence and lack of action on other issues, lead me to my current sense of unease with their movement. I run the risk of overstatement, but let me give you some examples of why I have problems with their thinking.
1. They seek to broaden the "gospel" to include more than the term means. I hear calls for us to include envirnomental stewardship, racial reconciliation, alleviating poverty, and ending wars as "the gospel" and I cringe. These may all be fruits of the gospel, but they are not the gospel. I read an essay on racial reconciliation that said that it was "the heart of the gospel" and spoke disparagingly of any thought that could conceive of the gospel in other terms. I am passionate about racial reconciliation as a necessary product of the embrace of the gospel, but it is not the gospel or its heart. The heart of the gospel is "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3;16. The content of the gospel is "Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and he was buried; and he rose again according to the Scriptures, and he was seen..." (1 Cor. 15:3-4). The call of the gospel is "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).
The gospel is preached to the poor, but it is not about being poor. It is not, "God has designed government to provide you with what you need." It is not even, "A nation where Christians shape policy must take care of you." It is the message of transforming grace experienced through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. The resulting changed life may change a person to the point that circumstances change. It brings the power of God to bear in the believer's circumstances. And it brings the believer into the family of God, where he should (and often will) find the support structures that have been missing in his life through the incarnational ministry of the church.
The gospel has a context (creation and the history of redemption). The gospel has fruit (community, stewardships exercised, grace and mercy modeled, and yes, justice sought for the oppressed, in the name of Jesus). But the gospel is a message that is succinct and clear and defined in the Bible.
2. The Evangelical Left will make strong pronouncements on the necessity of dealing with poverty, opposing war, improving housing standards, mandating diversity, etc., while refusing to speak with equal force and time against abortion, against homosexual practice, against attempts to expand the definition of marriage beyond a heterosexual, monogamous, union, and other at least equally important biblical issues that have an impact on the culture. Why choose one set of biblical values at the expense of another? Isn't that what they accuse the Evangelical Right of doing?
I have a confession. I've voted for a liberal Democrat before. While in California, I was faced with voting for a pro-choice conservative Republican, and a lifelong, committed pro-life liberal Democrat. The Democrat would raise my taxes. He would favor more government regulations on things I don't think need to be regulated. But every time the issue of abortion came up, he did everything he could to oppose funding, or limit abortion availability. He made his own party mad on the issue repeatedly. It wasn't even hard to choose. My tax rate isn't a matter of biblical absolute. Killing infants in their mother's wombs is sin, and should be considered immoral as well as being illegal.
If I felt that the Evangelical Left was as concerned on the issue of abortion as they are housing policy, I would be much more at ease with their passion. I'm not convinced, though.
3. Why does their theological pursuit always seem to lead them away from clear commitment to a biblical gospel, scriptural authority, and historic orthodoxy? A couple of examples:
- Shane Claiborne has an amazing testimony of commitment to the poor and to living out his faith in community. I admire his faith. He is my brother. Yet in his book, The Irreisistible Revolution, he cites his mentor, Tony Campolo, for challenging him as to whether, if there were no heaven or hell, he would follow Jesus for the joy he brings now. Claiborne says he has reached that point and is happy about it (p. 117). I read that and wondered how he could be more spiritual than the apostle Paul, who said that if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are the most pitiful fools on the planet (1 Cor. 15:19). We can only have hope now in Christ because he has changed us by his grace through his death and resurrection, which is all about a life beyond this one. It includes this one, but points toward the next.
- Brian McLaren was on NPR last week and said that he was taught a view that God was in Heaven wanting blood and Jesus had to die to satisfy that desire. Now, he understands that Jesus's death on the cross was orchestrated to have God identify with victims instead of the powerful who persecute them. This rejection of atonement is a further step away from orthodox Christian belief and teaching from the Scripture. If "it pleased the LORD to bruise him" (Isa. 53:10) it would seem that God the Father orchestrates the death of his Son. If there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22), it would follow that God, in fact, did desire the blood of Jesus to be an atoning sacrifice for sin and a propitiation for sinners.
- Traditional evangelicals are accused by some on of the Evangelical Left of being so focused on getting people to Heaven we forget to care about them now. May I ask some of my "EL" friends, do they believe any of their neighbors are in danger of going to Hell? Do they ever preach on the dangers of eternal punishment to be avoided. Do they call the poor to repentance, or just the rich? Why is gospel proclamation in the historic sense missing from their efforts, their manifestos, and their campaigns? Wasn't it traditional evangelicals who founded rescue missions as well as foreign missionary societies? General William Booth and the Salvation Army would not fit any left/emergent model. What efforts are being undertaken systematically by those of the Evangelical Left to see people go to Heaven and not go to Hell? Or have they given up on Hell as a reality? Is Hell only bad housing here? Is it being too poor to buy health insurance? As Jesus said to the Pharisees in their neglect of the weightier matters of the Law while keeping secondary matters, perhaps we all should have done both. It is a false dichotomy to say we must choose one over the other, but if the choice must be made between a homeless person being offered an eternal home and forgiveness or a comfortable temporal home without God, I know what must prevail.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Inside Jokes for Believers: Review of "Stuff Christians Like"
Jonathan Acuff is a church insider--a pastor's kid who saw all the good, the bad, and the truly strange aspects of conservative Christian culture growing up, and continues to observe it today from the vantage point of a believer who hasn't let Christian weirdness drive him away from the faith. He has blogged about these various evangelical practices, behaviors, and idiosyncracies at Stuff Christians Like and now has collected some of his essays into a book by the same name. You can read it, or listen to a free download availalble at ChristianAudio.com.
I read the book, and found many of Acuff's stories amusing, and not a few of them just a bit painful, as his observations prove both true and embarrassing in terms of how the evangelical subculture functions. From repetitive words in prayer to singles praying Jesus doesn't come until they get married and have sex, most everything he writes rings true.
Acuff uses his insights to make points, and he does so without lots of anger or vitriol--using well placed sarcasm instead. He isn't heavyhanded in his applications when he makes them, either. He clearly loves the church in all her weirdness.
As with any such book, there is unevenness to the quality of the essays and insights. While some demanded I read them carefully to enjoy them fully, others, seemed like "skim quick" material. The book, and the website, are lighthearted and good relaxation material.
I read the book, and found many of Acuff's stories amusing, and not a few of them just a bit painful, as his observations prove both true and embarrassing in terms of how the evangelical subculture functions. From repetitive words in prayer to singles praying Jesus doesn't come until they get married and have sex, most everything he writes rings true.
Acuff uses his insights to make points, and he does so without lots of anger or vitriol--using well placed sarcasm instead. He isn't heavyhanded in his applications when he makes them, either. He clearly loves the church in all her weirdness.
As with any such book, there is unevenness to the quality of the essays and insights. While some demanded I read them carefully to enjoy them fully, others, seemed like "skim quick" material. The book, and the website, are lighthearted and good relaxation material.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
