He suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.

The next clause of the Apostles’ creed focuses on the death of Jesus the Christ. The first line reiterates his life and place in history. Ben Myers (The Apostles’ Creed) focuses on the word suffered. This word emphasizes the nature of Jesus life and his death. “When ancient people heard the gospel they were tempted to think of Jesus as a supernatural spirit, untouched by physical life.” (p. 59)  The Jesus in whom we believe was a human being who suffered in the flesh.

Only three humans are identified by name in the creed – Jesus, Mary, and Pilate. Jesus and Mary we understand, but Pilate? This is an important reference. Ben Myers, J.I. Packer (Affirming the Apostles’ Creed), Michael Bird (What Christians ought to Believe) and Derek Vreeland (primal credo) all make this point in different ways. Myers puts it well: “At the center of the creed is a story, or at least the summary of a story. We are meant to take our bearings not just from doctrine but from history: from a sequence of events that occurred in a particular time and place.” (p. 62) As Vreeland says “Naming Pilate in the creed anchors the life and death of Jesus in time and space.” (p. 56)

Crucified. The death of Jesus on a Roman cross just outside Jerusalem is the image of Christianity.  Crucifixion was a torturous and ignominious manner of death. For both Jew and Greek it was a shameful death intended to remove all dignity and humanity from the victim. It was a public disgrace and a public spectacle that brought ridicule and taunts from the crowd. Naked, half dead men lingered in full view as they bled and died – usually from asphyxiation. It was, Bird reminds us, “the punishment of slaves, bandits, and enemies of the state.” (p. 115) This death, however, quickly became the symbol of Christianity. The Philippian overseers and deacons are told by Paul to have the same mind as Christ Jesus who “emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, … he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross.” (2:7,8)

The cross was a stumbling block to the Jews (a curse on anyone hung on a tree) and foolishness to the Greeks. A fascinating piece of graffiti from sometime around 200 AD (see here) points to the foolishness of Christians – worshiping a crucified god. The writing is translated as “Alexamenos worships [his] God.”

As Christians we embrace the message of the cross. We are called to emulate the humility it represents. There is much more to be said on this topic. Paul preached the message of cross and wrote to the Corinthian church “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Cor 1:18) We could do a whole series of posts on the importance of the cross in Paul’s epistles – but will leave it here for now.

Michael Bird summarizes:

Despite the mockery and shame associated with crucifixion and despite the utter folly of a crucified Messiah to all and sundry, the early church narrated the story of the cross as the climax of God’s plan, and they embraced the symbol of the cross as the instrument through which God’s kingdom was achieved. If we are to live out the story of the cross, then one of the first things we have to do is get inside the passion story and grasp, not superficially but on a deep level, the full sweep of the story of the cross. (p. 120)

The creed affirms our belief in Christ crucified and all it stands for.

Died and buried. Jesus died in the flesh and was buried in the earth. He didn’t appear to die or simply leave his earthly body without experiencing death. Jesus really died – and the death from which he arose was a real one. That Jesus died a real death is a necessary element of the victory over death achieved in the resurrection. Ben Myers points out the importance of this idea in the early church – Irenaeus emphasized that Jesus experienced what we experienced from birth to death and by walking through these steps he redeemed them for us. Myers summarizes Gregory of Nyssa noting that “Jesus would not really of shared our nature if he had not also shared its limits. Everyone comes into the world through the womb and departs into the tomb. And so the Son of God embraced out humanity at these extreme limits.” (p. 75)

He descended to the dead. The older form of the creed has He descended into Hell. This, however, is not a proper understanding of the phrase in the original Greek. Packer, Myers, and Bird all emphasize this in their books. The word Hell is misleading here because if conjures up an image of punishment and suffering. The Greek Hades or Hebrew Sheol are better terms to consider. Jesus was really and truly dead. He descended to the place of the dead. This phrase strengthens the prior statement that he died and was buried by emphasizing that his fate was the same as all who died – he went to the place of the dead, to Hades. It is from the place of the dead that he arose. On the island of Patmos John received a vision “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” Rev. 1:17-18. He holds the keys of Hades because he experienced death in its fullness.

Jesus was truly humiliated and shamed, he was rejected and suffered extreme physical and mental pain. This happened at a specific time and place in history. He physically died as all humans die and descended to the place of the dead. In the next few lines we come to the victory over death. But that is for the next post in this series.

What is the most significant part of this portion of the creed?

What does it mean for you? for the church?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Last Tuesday we looked at women of the Old Testament. Not commands and laws, but stories about people, what they did and how they did it. It is quite an amazing variety. Today we will look at women of the New Testament (like last week’s post, this is an edited repost from a few years ago). Like the ancient Near East and ancient Israel, first century Galilee, Judea, and the Greek and Roman world were patriarchal cultures. This culture is reflected in the narrative. Still, in the New Testament, even more than the Old Testament, biblical women were not passive wives and mothers staying in the background. Nor were they condemned for their actions (except for the same kinds of failures that condemned men). If there are other specific New Testament examples that we should consider, add them in a comment.

People of Faith

Then Mary said, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” (Luke 1:38)

When the woman saw that she could not remain hidden, she came trembling; and falling down before him, she declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.” (Luke 8:47-48, also Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-33)

Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” … He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly. (Matthew 15:22-28, also Mark 7:24-30)

When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” (John 2:3-5)

This is a group of references, but Mary (in a class of her own) and the two women who came to Jesus for healing were clearly women of faith. They had faith in God and faith in Jesus as God’s prophet … Mary may have known more, but the people who came and heard Jesus in his life probably had no other idea concerning him than that of prophet. She certainly didn’t seem to know more when she came with his brothers to “take charge” of him. (Mark 3:20-34)

Devout Prophet

There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2: 36-38)

It is significant that Luke includes two witnesses here – one male, one female – when Mary and Joseph bring Jesus to the temple for his presentation as first born son. Anna is a prophet. What is the role of a prophet? Isn’t it to speak the word of the Lord to the people? In both the Old and New Testament to prophesy (to speak as a mediator between God and humankind or in God’s stead) is an equal opportunity calling, not one limited to men. We read in Acts 21:8-9 that “Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.“

Sincere Questioner and Witness

Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I have ever done.” (John 4:39)

The entire story of the encounter at the well is worth considering (John 4:1-42). Jesus met the woman when she came for water. She had an openness that is a positive contrast to Nicodemus who came at night (John 3).

Connivers

Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.” (Matthew 14:8, also Mark 6:22-25)

As in the Old Testament, not all examples are laudatory. Mother and daughter are both involved in the execution of John.

Followers and Supporters of Jesus

The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources. (Luke 8:1-3)

The twelve and some women, three of whom are named, were in the closest circle of followers who were leaving all for Jesus. They traveled with the group, didn’t just support it from afar.

Avid Student of Jesus

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying. … “Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38-42)

The women sat with the men to listen to Jesus. This passage is interesting because Jesus specifically commends this attitude and ordering of priorities. Nor should we neglect Martha who was also a devout follower.

Devout

… “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.” (Luke 21:1-4)

Not Quite Getting It (But then neither did the twelve, Mark 9)

Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling before him, she asked a favor of him. And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” (Matthew 20:20-21)

A worldly understanding of power and prestige afflicts both men and women.

Anointing Jesus

Now while Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment, and she poured it on his head as he sat at the table. (Matthew 26:6-13, also Mark 14:3-9)

And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. … And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” (Luke 7:37-50)

Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. (John 12:1-8)

Each of the gospels has some variation of this incident or these incidents. The versions in Matthew, Mark, and John seem to refer to the same incident, but Luke’s story is quite different, making a different point, and doesn’t seem to mesh with the others completely.

Present at the Cross

But all his acquaintances, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things. (Luke 23:49)

Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (Matthew 27:55-56)

There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem. (Mark 15:40-41)

Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. (John 19:25)

The women who traveled with Jesus, the twelve, and the other disciples, were witnesses at the cross to the crucifixion.

The First Witnesses to the Resurrection

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. … Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. (Luke 24:10)

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. … But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. … So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. (Matthew 28:1-10)

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. … But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; (Mark 16:1-8)

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. … When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” … Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” (John 20)

All of the Gospels agree on this point. It was the women, Mary Magdalene and others, who traveled with Jesus who were the first to find the empty tomb, to learn that he was risen, and to spread the news.

In a Central Circle with the Disciples

When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers. (Acts 1:13-14)

The remaining 11 and certain women comprised the core circle here. They who traveled with Jesus in his ministry.

Independently Responsible for Deceit

About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?” “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.” Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” (Acts 5:7-9)

Sapphira was a co-conspirator with her husband. She wasn’t condemned for his misdeed, but for hers.

Devoted to Good Works and Charity

Now in Joppa there was a disciple whose name was Tabitha, which in Greek is Dorcas. She was devoted to good works and acts of charity. (Acts 9:36)

Business Woman, Head of Household

A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.” And she prevailed upon us. (Acts 16:14-15)

Note in particular that she and her household were baptized, the same phrase used when men are the lead in the story (Cornelius and the head of the prison guard for example.)

Fellow Traveler, Witness with Paul

Paul said farewell to the believers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. (Acts 18:18)

He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately. (Acts 18:26)

Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. (Romans 16:3-4)

Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house. (1 Corinthians 16:19)

Greet Priscilla and Aquila and the household of Oneisiphorus. (2 Timothy 4)

This couple clearly had a role in the early church. Both of them were involved and both are emphasized in every story.

The letters of Paul could be quite personal, especially in the final greetings at the end. Priscilla and Aquila figured here, but so did many others. These personal greetings include an interesting array of both men and women. Here we are concerned with the women.

Deacon and Benefactor

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. (Romans 16:1-2)

A deacon and a benefactor. Quite the reference from Paul! This recommendation probably means that Phoebe delivered Paul’s letter to the church in Rome. N.T. Wright in his Commentary on Romans notes:

The implication is that Phoebe is a businesswoman who is able to travel independently, and for Paul to trust her with a letter like this speaks volumes for the respect in which she was held, so it is no surprise that she is a deacon in the church. … She was in a position of leadership, and Paul respected here as such and expected the Roman church to do so as well. … The word “benefactor” means much more, in Paul’s world, than simply “she has been a great help” (NIV): benefaction and patronage were a vital part of the culture, and this makes Phoebe someone to be reckoned with socially and financially and a leader – of whatever sort – in her local church. (p. 761-762)

In this section, Wright’s complaints with the NIV on the word “deacon” (the material bypassed by the first ellipse in the quote) and “benefactor” relate to NIV1984. The 2011 update uses deacon and benefactor.

Hard Workers in the Lord

Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. (Romans 16:6)

Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. (Romans 16:12)

Outstanding Among the Apostles

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. (Romans 16:7)

Here Wright comments that, for Paul, an apostle was one who witnessed the risen Christ. “Junia is thus one of the female “apostles,” the only one so called; though presumably others, such as Mary Magdalene, were known as such as well.” (p. 762)

A Woman of Standing

My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. (1 Corinthians 1:11)

Presumably another woman of standing. Members of her household traveled abroad.

Contending for the Gospel (and at odds)

I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life. (Philippians 4:2-3)

Hostess (perhaps more)

Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. (Colossians 4:15)

Recipient of 2 John

To the lady chosen by God and to her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth (2 John 1)

Several things are apparent from this list.

• Anna, the prophet, was one of the two to welcome the Messiah in the temple.

• Jesus preached to and taught both men and women. Mary was welcome to learn with the others.

• Women played a prominent role in band of people who traveled with Jesus during his earthly ministry. The twelve were all men, and there is important symbolism in the selection of twelve. But it is not clear that inner circle of followers were all male. Women were provided support, traveled along, were at the cross, witnessed the resurrection, and were with the 12 in the upper room before Pentecost, received the Holy Spirit.

• Women, including women of substance, played an important role in the early church.

As with the women we recounted from the Old Testament, these women are multidimensional people capable of almost anything, good or bad. All of the images were taken from Wikipedia and again convey as much or more about the artist and his culture as they do about the subjects.

Is there any example you would add to the list?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

A new study by Matthew J. Thomas called Paul’s ‘Works of the Law’ in the Perspective of Second Century Reception, an expensive published PhD in the academic WUNT series, contends that analysis of the major texts of the 2d Century leads to a singular conclusion: the “new” perspective is earlier than the “old” perspective, and he calls this 2d Century view the “earlier” perspective. The book should be in every theological library.

Thomas is not providing some comprehensive endorsement of the new perspective and neither is this book simply a piece of polemics. Rather it is a patient examination 2d Century evidence with contemporary questions in mind.

What were the 2d Century texts talking about with works of the law?

This early conception of works of the law can be summarized as follows. The law in question is the Mosaic law, which was delivered to the hard-hearted nation of Israel following the apostasy at Sinai. The principal works of this law that come into focus are circumcision, Sabbath and other Jewish calendar observances (such as new moons, feasts and fasts), sacrifices, and laws regarding food, with a focus on the temple and Jerusalem occasionally noted as well. The practices of the Mosaic law are consistently distinguished from good works more broadly, whether these be the natural and universal pious deeds that were performed by Abraham and the righteous patriarchs, the works of the Decalogue, the acts of mercy enjoined by the prophets, or the commandments of Christ and works of his covenant, such as baptism and keeping the Lord’s day.

And these conclusions lead to the rather important conclusion about works of the law as a form of connecting with the people of Israel/Jews/Judaism.

The practice of these works signifies identification with the Jewish people, the Jewish covenant, and “Judaism,” the manner of life and worship prescribed in the Mosaic law. The Jewish nation, covenant and praxis are so closely linked that each can stand as a synecdoche for the others; to be a part of this nation means to be a member of their covenant, and to live and worship according to its dictates. The practice of these works also represents a corresponding move of separation from the Gentile nations. These works are practiced because salvation is believed to be tied in with the election of the Jewish people, which one enters by observing the Jewish law. From a Christian salvation-historical perspective, it can also be said that practicing these works identifies one with the period before Christ’s advent, and with the juvenile and hard-hearted condition of humanity before its renewal by Christ.

Here is his conclusion on which perspective more closely aligns with the 2d Century evidence, and it is so important to repeat what is often ignored — namely, the “new” perspective is actually new perspectives and not a singular perspective in which the principal thinkers agree all the way down.

In summary, the early perspectives on works of the law are found to align far more closely with the so-called “new” perspective than the “old” perspective, particularly with respect to the meaning and significance of these works. On these issues, the alignment between early and new perspectives is such that one can regard the “new” perspective as, in reality, the old perspective, while what we identify as the “old” perspective represents a genuine theological novum in relation to the early Christian tradition.

Now to the differences:

However, this close alignment does not hold on the question of why these works are opposed, as the distinctive emphases of Sanders and Dunn find little patristic support, and only Wright’s reasoning carries substantial correspondence among these early sources. Moreover, it is noteworthy that, notwithstanding his occasionally undiplomatic language, it is Wright who does the most among new perspective authors to incorporate old perspective concerns in his arguments, particularly with respect to Torah’s inability to address the underlying issue of human sinfulness. If an “old perspective” adherent – perhaps more likely from the Reformed than the Lutheran tradition – finds Wright’s arguments to sufficiently account for the underlying anthropological reasons why works of the law cannot justify, then they are likely to be satisfied with early perspective reasoning on this issue as well.

Thomas offers some observations on how this early perspective fits with Paul’s own letters, and his conclusion is profoundly salvation-historical or apocalyptic (depends who is talking), namely, that in Christ all things are new.

First, these sources would suggest that in rejecting the works of the law, Paul’s focus is on the concrete issue of the place of the Torah in the Christian’s life, and not on broader questions of obedience to a moral law or concerns about works in general.

Second, in light of the early patristic testimony, it appears that Paul’s rejection of the works of the law was not original to him. … Rather, it appears that Paul is responding to the law of Christ that is held in common with the other apostles, and though his apostleship means that he indeed acts as a steward of this law, it is Christ who redefines and intensifies, not Paul.

This leads to the third point. A major theme in this study is that the early patristic sources frequently make reference, whether directly or indirectly, to the law of Christ as a primary reason why these works of the Mosaic law are no longer binding. … Rather than being rejected because of Paul’s experiences or their exclusive social function, these works represent the major points of discontinuity between Moses’ law in the old covenant and Christ’s law in the new, and thus naturally recur as flashpoints in contexts where the validity of one dispensation or the other is in question.

Finally, these early perspectives would suggest that while these works are indeed flashpoints, the conflicts over works of the law are not, at heart, about works of the Mosaic law at all, but rather about the identity of Jesus as the Messiah.

By Vonda Dyer

It’s “Giving Day” in north Texas, and I’m celebrating what our agency calls #minervasoul, because we have the privilege of supporting clients who want to end poverty as we know it through innovative higher education, others who want to eradicate human trafficking in our city, some who want to tangibly love people better by the way that they do business, and yet others who are lifting people out of homelessness. The one thing they all have in common is that they want to make the world where they live and work a kinder, more generous place to be. I’m following the North Texas generosity online as I send last emails and make sure the kids and grandparents have what they need before my husband and I embark on a two-week journey through Greece to experience some of the places where God used the apostle Paul to build and spread the Church.

I find it no coincidence that I am typing these words with a few hours of sleep and a burning in my heart to breathe the air, see the places and connect my minds-eye back to the essence of what drove Paul to preach with such fervor and urgency about the glorious life that Christ would bring to this dusty earth and into our hearts.

This departure and pilgrimage is met with the announcement of the Willow Creek Advocacy Group and a process that still lies in the spaces between what is right and true, what lies in a man’s heart and what happened with one of the most influential and powerful men in global church leadership in my lifetime. He was both boss and friend, pastor and human. We watched this revelation of abuse of power unfold before our very eyes, and I have never wept as much as I have in this last year over the depravity of man, even well-intentioned man, and the tornadic destruction it wields in its wake. So as I have packed, settled work accounts, kissed my children one last time, I am reflecting on Paul’s desire for us to be free from all of the earthbound things that tend to bind us. I am grateful for my new “online church” with its beautiful, colorful, rag tag community of believers and doubters, advocates, researchers, doctors, lawyers, pastors, ministers and faithful prayer warriors that have gathered to see this set right. I’m writing this in response to the many requests that have flooded my cell phone over the last few days. I have so many thoughts, but no conclusions. What I know for sure is that this Willow Creek Community Church crisis that has become part of my life in various ways for more than two decades, still makes me burn, like Paul, for a fully biblically-functioning church here on earth.

As of yesterday, I want to thank these four individuals that were announced publicly for stepping forward to begin a process that I hope and pray will be redemptive for all involved. From all I read, they seem to be a great group of people. It is my desire to honor and respect the process that the independent Advisory Council offers, unless they give me reason to distrust their motives, process or actions in how this is handled.

This investigation is a defining moment for Willow Creek and for the Evangelical Church at large. It has the opportunity to reveal, highlight, and model how the bride of Christ can be led by servant leaders who allow the indwelling Christ to define their leadership patterns, behaviors, relational patterns, emotional health, and organizational decision-making, once again.

This situation has created great distrust by the way in which the Willow Creek leadership mis-handled my situation alone, let alone all the others. This situation has had severe consequences for me personally and for all involved. It needs to be resolved, for the gross injustice that has occurred to be made right, for the sin that has caused such destruction to be revealed and dealt with, and for the unhealthy power structure that has damaged so many to be removed and rebuilt biblically.

I believe that Bill’s actions and the Willow Creek debacle will be studied for many years to come.  Willow Creek and the Willow Creek Association’s current and future response to abuse within the church is critical because of their national and global influence on church leadership. These findings and how they are dealt with have the potential to provide a model for what is good and acceptable for leaders and churches going forward. This is a great opportunity for the church to hit the reset button on Christ-centered, biblical relational and organizational leadership.

The investigation into Bill Hybels’ actions regarding his abuse of power and sexual misconduct is a huge task. It requires legal, spiritual and relational integrity for the Advisory Group chosen to investigate him. I cannot confirm whether the Advisory Council has the skills to oversee the proper investigation, as I’m not aware of their prior experience with oversight of weighty investigations regarding abuse of power and sexual misconduct. That said, someone must step up to lead a process that calls for clarity, repentance, and ultimate healing for everyone involved.

I choose to believe that God is in control of the situation and has brought it to bear for the purpose of refining and redefining Biblical leadership for the modern-day church, to bring purity and holiness to the Bride of Christ.

Here are a few answers to questions I have been receiving. They leave me with more questions than answers, at this point:

1. I have not been contacted by anyone about the particulars of the pending investigation, the intended process, or the makeup of the Advisory Council, but I hope that I can trust this council in a way that I haven’t been able to trust Willow Creek leadership so far. Their actions will determine my level of trust and involvement.
2. I do not know whether they will “look into actions themselves” or whether they will hire professionals with significant experience and expertise in these matters to truly investigate these serious allegations with a completely unbiased approach.
3. I do not know if they will make the findings public so that the heart of the matter may be revealed in full.
4. I do not know if they will go back in time to review all known infractions with regard to Bill’s choices, from the beginning of his ministry.
5. I do not know if the grievous infractions will simply be “noted so that the church can move on”, or if the abuse of power that led to a multitude of other unjust, unbiblical and destructive behaviors will be brought to light and rectified, paving the way for a new model for redemptive leadership.
6. I do not know if they will immediately go to the most obvious places to look, with regard to this investigation – that being the emails, files, texts, phone calls going back as far as 2014 with the initial allegations of a 14-year affair, all the way to the most recent woman investigated, and including his communication with female leaders, including Heather Larson, into present day. The women in the news media outlets have already had their stories thoroughly corroborated and vetted by reporters, in order to present truthful accounts of their allegations. Simply investigating the women again will not be thorough nor sufficient to uncover what has been hidden. There also needs to be a safe place created for others to come forward, if they have a story, without fear of reprisal, shaming or further victimization. I do not know if there are plans for this.
7. I do not know if the investigation will include inviting Bill into a process of biblical repentance, for his own sake, the sake of his family, his church, his organizations and for the sake of all who at one time traded their sinfulness for the fullness of Christ, as Bill has preached this most of his life. I pray for this kind of restoration.
8. I do not know if the investigation will go beyond the women’s stories and Bill’s misconduct, to the issues of how the allegations and process were mishandled by Willow Creek and WCA leadership, and to the systems that protected him and itself, and allowed all of this to happen.

If Bill is unrepentant, he will stand before the world, who, I believe, will consider his unwillingness to cooperate with investigations as an admission by default.  He must live with the consequences of his choices. We may always wonder why he has been unwilling to open his life to being investigated fully, accurately, and thoroughly, for the sake of integrity and his own spiritual well-being, and for the healing of those he wounded.

The church has a bright future because the sovereignty and grace of God allows it to flourish in spite of man’s choices. But the church is most glorious when she radiates in truth, with the full expression of Christ, without blemish, living and moving about in this world, expectant for the kingdom to come.

If this investigation is done well, it “will sift wheat from chaff” in leadership structures of the church and encourage that which remains to thrive, for the sake of the gospel. The Evangelical Church must bring Jesus back to the forefront of spiritual leadership and fully recognize him once again as the Head of the Church. The Evangelical Church must address the issue of power abuse and sexual abuse running rampant in “successful” churches. Instead of being in the headlines for covering up misconduct and abuse and giving standing ovations to abusers, let’s be known for leading the way toward repentance and health, for the church of the future.

“So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

Ephesians 4:11-13

As I mentioned earlier this summer, I am preparing for an adult education discussion class on the Apostles’ Creed as an introduction to Christian doctrine this Fall. The primary resources for this class are the Bible (of course) and four books on the Apostles’ Creed: Primal Credo by Derek Vreeland, Affirming the Apostles’ Creed by J. I. Packer,  The Apostles’ Creed by Ben Myers, and What Christians ought to Believe: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine Through the Apostles’ Creed by Michael Bird.  Over the next several months I will post on this topic on Thursdays as I prepare to lead the discussion on Sundays. Comments from readers are welcome, and one reason for posting before rather than after the class. The first class is this coming Sunday and thus the first post in this series is today.

All four of these books, but especially Michael Bird’s, begin with a defense of creeds in general and of the Apostles’ creed in particular. The defense is necessary because many Protestants claim to stand on the Bible alone, seeing no need for the creeds. Derek Vreeland (Discipleship Pastor at Word of Life Church in St. Joseph, Missouri) notes the importance of the Apostles’ creed as a stabilizing agent in his spiritual journey – wisdom he was first introduced to by his college advisor (at a secular university no less). “The Apostles’ Creed serves as an extremely useful confession of the essentials of the Christian faith. The ancient church has given the creed to the modern church as an indispensable gift.” (p. 3) Christians need to know some theology – and the Creed is a good way to teach this theology.

J.I. Packer frames the importance of the creed as a guard against the rather shallow gospel proclaimed in much of North American evangelicalism. The gospel is often reduced to ABC: “(1) all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, you included; (2)  believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved; (3) confess Jesus Christ as the risen Lord, and he will in due course welcome you into heaven.” (pp. 15-16) This truncated, reduced, and streamlined approach “becomes a misrepresentation, one that sows the seed of many pastoral problems down the road.” (p. 17) The creed was born as a summary syllabus of Christian belief and a response to heretical beliefs espoused by some. Packer singles out the Gnostics in particular. “The Creed’s sequence of topics, and some of its phrases, express not only apostolic teaching but also the explicit negation of Gnostic dualism at every point.” (pp. 18-19) The creed (see the end of this post) lays out the major corner stones of orthodox Christian doctrine.

Today on our own turf, we face pagan ignorance about God every bit as deep as that which the early church faced in the Roman Empire. The ABC approach is thus not full enough; the whole story of the Father’s Christ-exalting plan of redeeming love, from eternity to eternity, must be told, or the radical reorientation of life for which the gospel calls will not be understood, and the required total shift from man-centeredness to God-centeredness, and more specifically from self-centeredness to Christ-centeredness, will not take place. All that the Creed covers needs to be grasped and taught, as an integral part of the message of the saving love of God. (pp. 22-23)

The ABC gospel alone (apart from a more complete teaching) is a me-centered salvation card.

Michael Bird gives the best and most complete introduction into the need for the Creed in his first two chapters: Christian Creeds for Beginners and Why You Need the Creed. The Creed (the rule of faith) predates the canon. It does not predate the writings included in our Bible, but it helped to guide the selection of those writings from among a range of others. This means that we can confidently regard readings of the Bible that contradict the rule of faith (Apostles’ creed) as in error.

Bird outlines the process: (1) Hebrew Old Testament -> (2) Jesus -> (3) Apostolic Teaching -> (4) Christian Scriptures -> (5) Rule of Faith -> (6) Early Creeds -> (7) Biblical Canon.  It is important to realize that steps 4 and 7 are distinct. “Scripture here means “a sacred writing with religious authority.” It does not mean canon as “an authoritative list of authoritative writings made by divine inspiration, carrying divine authority, and universally recognized.” (p. 32)  The apostolic teaching handed down not only texts (the writings in our Bibles and others) but also the interpretive framework for understanding them. The rule of faith and the early creeds delineate orthodox belief.

Our churches need creeds – according to Bird “Learning the creeds helps us to grow a truly biblical faith!” (p. 37)

The best thing about the creeds is that they conveniently sum up the main truths of the Christian faith and put them into a concise narrative framework. … A creed is not simply a checklist of things I’m supposed to believe, but a synopsis of the entire sweep of redemptive history that narrates a sequence including God, creation, redemption, and consummation. These are the basic acts in the divine drama as Scripture tells it. (p. 37)

Publicly reciting the creeds means we stand in a single unbroken line that stretches from Jesus and the apostles all the way forward to the churches in our own day. (p. 39)

Bird, of course, has a good deal more to say here. I’ve summarized 40 pages in a few paragraphs. But I’d like to wrap up with a personal reflection. As I began to seriously wrestle with what it meant to be a scientist and Christian in the twenty-first century, it was the creed that kept me anchored. In particular the Apostles’ Creed. I realized that the questions I struggled with the most (centered on a doctrine of Scripture and the centrality of so-called ‘literal’ readings) were not essentials of orthodox Christian faith. The ancient creeds are thoroughly biblical, but say nothing about Scripture. Statements of faith that begin with “We believe in the Bible” or variants thereof are invariably modern. Questioning these is not equivalent to rejecting the Christian faith.

What do you think of Bird’s argument of the interrelation of canon and creed?

Do we need the creed? If so why?

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

Chapter three in Luke Timothy Johnson’s Miracles: God’s Presence and Power in Creation surprises me most. Why?

Because Johnson wants to repossess an epistemology that makes miracles credible while accusing the secularist epistemology of an inadequate approach to knowledge and life itself. It’s totally refreshing.

He begins where he ended in chp 2, with doublemindedness, something that infects so much of the church today.

Double-minded Christians profess faith in the incarnation but insist on measuring the incarnate Jesus of the Gospels through historical analysis; they profess belief in the continuing presence of the resurrected and exalted Lord but bracket that conviction in their perception of ordinary life. Incarnation and resurrection are as difficult to accept by the mind conditioned by a secular vision of the world as are the signs and wonders ascribed to the saints.

So Johnson develops four themes (two today) that reframe a way of living and seeing and thinking that inscribe God and the ways of God in the world into life. He begins here:

Imagining the World That Scripture Imagines

We are restricted by our secular age, and it tells us what “reasonable” means but what it means is an expression of what it wants the world to be.

The epistemological inadequacy of the secular construction of the world is linked to its restriction of authentic knowledge to a single set of mental processes applied to material objects and the interactions among them, and its banishing of alternative modes of knowing to the epistemological rubbish heap. Thus “reason” is defined in terms of the accurate description of the things apprehended by the senses, their analysis, measurement, calculation, prediction, and control. Modes of cognition activated by poetry, art, and music do not count as real knowledge. What stems from fantasy and the imagination belong to the realm of the “not real” and therefore the not serious.

Johnson sees major problems here:

The greatest deficiency of the secular construction of reality, in fact, is its refusal to recognize that it is in fact an imaginative construct rather than a straightforward perception of “how things are.” By no means is the epistemological reduction effected by the Enlightenment simply natural or obvious. It consists first of all in an overall construal of reality as a material and self-contained system of interrelated causes, knowable exclusively through the senses.

Johnson will be criticized by some for “imagine” words but he’s got the long end of the stick here:

By imaginative worlds, rather, I mean those conceptions of reality brought into being first through the imagination but then fully capable of being brought into physical realization through specific physical practices that embody that conception. … Once an imaginative world is revealed through concrete and specific practices, it is perceived as “real,” and once it has been practiced long enough, it can even be perceived by its participants as “natural” or even obvious.

Does he mean “faith”?

We also learn to read the Bible in this imaginative worldview:

But the Copernican revolution I suggest means reading the Bible not for the accuracy of its description but for the power of its vision, seeking in its compositions not information about the world that produced Scripture, but the way in which Scripture itself creates, through imagination, a world that might be inhabited.

But in truth, the language of heaven and earth enables readers to “see” a world that does not offer itself easily to immediate comprehension, but rather discloses itself slowly to those who are open to the mystery that lies beneath the surface.

God as Creator

By looking at humans through his imaginative worlds he cuts through many discussions:

The real divide is between atheists and believers. Deists and agnostics fall on either side of the divide because they neither affirm nor deny anything very important.

His imaginatiview worlds(view) focuses on who we live by Creed, Scripture, and heart.

What we can say is that it is the language of the heart within the believer that makes the language of the Bible sensible, even compelling, and makes the language of the creed something gladly to embrace, while the atheist finds the language of the Bible unintelligible when not obscure, and regards the creed a perfect example of intellectual vacuity.

What he does is offer nine points of “critical theological concepts.” What does it mean to affirm God as creator in such a way that it impacts what we know and how we live?

By this I mean that while we may not be able to provide an adequate account of the positive content of a conviction of faith, we know that its denial distorts essential truths by which we live.

First, profession of God as creator is, as I have suggested, the supreme example of a critical theological concept.

Second, the phrase “in the beginning” (Gen. 1:1) must be thought of not in terms of time but in terms of causality.

Third, Scripture and the human heart also attest to the truth that God’s creative activity continues as the fundamental sustaining and shaping power at work in all things, as the cause that causes all other causes.

Fourth, the Christian confession of God as creator is therefore not a theory about how things came and come into existence, but rather a perception that all things are always and at every moment coming into existence.

Fifth, everything that exists, insofar as it exists, is capable of revealing God.

Sixth, all that is sensible in the world—every material thing that presses upon us and that we engage in our daily rounds—points beyond itself to an unseen power that brings it into existence.

Seventh, humans are called to see God’s creative activity at work in every worldly process and event, in the coming-into-being of all that comes to be.

Eighth, this vision of creation—a vision supported by the entire weight of scriptural witness—is entirely compatible with theories of evolution, for it sees God’s world as always in the process of becoming, never finished once-for-all, always flowing from the infinite creative energies of an all-powerful giver of life.

Ninth, the understanding of creation sketched here does not in the least preclude responsible discourse concerning the “signs and wonders” through which God’s power and presence in creation are made more explicit.

Source: Why Study Theology? Reflections for the evangelical charismatic church

1st September 2018 By Lucy Peppiatt, who teaches at Westminster Theological Centre and is the author of Unveiling Paul’s Women

A Charismatic Journey

I remember very clearly, in my 30’s, realizing that I wanted to study theology at degree level. I had no idea that it would end with me doing a PhD, leading a college, writing books, and teaching. It hadn’t been a “career move”! I thought I was studying theology so that I’d be a better co-pastor with my husband and because I loved it. I also thought then that these were good enough reasons for all that study and investment, and I still think they are.

I couldn’t fail to notice, however, that I was in a minority in my church circles. In fact, I didn’t personally know any other women (and knew only a handful of men) involved in our world of charismatic Christianity in the UK who were studying or had studied theology to PhD level. And the ones who had pursued higher degrees had done it as part of ministerial training. I was a layperson who didn’t really think I was being ‘trained.’ I was simply learning, and loving it.

Historically, evangelical charismatics have carried a suspicion of formal theological education. The fears were that you might become too critical, too jaded, too cynical, too cerebral to be fit for anything practical, or worst of all, lose your faith. Negative experiences of young people going off to study theology at university, only to be deconstructed and left in pieces, scared off the older generation all together and they warned young people not to pursue theology. Even I encountered this in my 30’s from some well-meaning advisors. Thankfully, the mood has shifted a bit, both in the university and in the church. I meet more and more Christians in the evangelical charismatic world who really don’t need to be persuaded that studying the Bible, Christian doctrine, and church history in an academic setting is a good thing! I also think that the academy has become more, not less, respectful of faith positions.

There’s still more work to be done though, in persuading Christians that study and learning should be a normal part of their discipleship and growth in the faith. I don’t really understand the resistance, but I still see it around me, so these are some of mine and others’ thoughts on why all Christians should study some theology.

Perspectives: a professor

I listened to an interview recently with D. Stephen Long (Professor of Ethics at Southern Methodist University), who began by saying that the main reason to study theology, the science of God, is because the study of theology is ‘a useless discipline.’ He goes on to explain what he means by that. He’s noticed over the years that, ‘If I need to give students a reason why that matters, then often those reasons become more important than the subject matter itself.’ The reason to study theology, the study of God, is to study God, and ‘Knowledge of God is an end in itself, it is not a means to something else. … As Augustine put it, “God is to be enjoyed, not used.”’

His second reason though is that the uselessness has a ‘use function.’ (Useless doesn’t mean pointless.) The contemplation of truth, beauty, and goodness is part of the essence of what makes us more human.

In addition to this, he notes that there’s always been an awareness in the church that faith drives us to seek wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. This has been mine and countless others’ experience. You can’t know God and not want to know him more. Charismatics are great at singing about it—“I wanna know you more…”—not so great at engaging with the multiple ways that God has given us to do it!

The way to know God more in order to love him more, is to learn more about him. Of course that means seeking him and his presence in prayer, worship, and contemplation, and asking the Spirit to reveal the mysteries of God to our hearts, but it also means applying our minds in ways that we apply them to learning any subject: learning the original languages of the Bible, reading books, researching meaning, listening to teachers who are more learned than we are, asking questions, etc. The two pursuits should go together, and when they do, there are so many reasons why this helps us to be better Christians and more effective disciples.

Perspectives: a student

Out of interest I asked a bunch of charismatic Christians in their 20’s who had either studied academic theology, or were in the process of studying, or were about to start studying, why they had chosen to do what they were doing. Here’s what they came up with – and this is in no particular order.

1. It helps you to learn from others’ mistakes.
2. It gives you the ability to speak more precisely and truthfully about God.
3. It challenges your assumptions, which strengthens your ability to rebut sceptics/skeptics.
4. It gives you an idea of what the non-negotiables of the Christian faith are.
5. It keeps you from error and believing nonsense.
6. It means you can study your own traditions and learn about where you fit in in church history.
7. It gives you the opportunity to think about the pastoral implications of what you believe.
8. The truth sets you free and studying good theology sets you free.
9. It enables you to have an answer for the hope that’s within you.
10. It shapes your character because what we believe defines us.
11. It feeds your mind and your spirit.
12. It gives you more confidence when people ask you questions about the Bible and your faith.
13. The church has often abused its power. It’s important for all people to know what they believe and not leave it up to the leaders.
14. You have a duty and obligation to study your faith.
15. It’s arrogant to assume you know all there is to know already, or that it’s irrelevant to you, or that it might be at your fingertips should you want it.
16. It takes discipline and work and that’s a good thing.
17. It deepens our worship of God.
18. It can be deeply moving and illuminating (someone remembered a story of a young man who just wept in response to understanding the implications of the incarnation).
19. It gives you tools for further learning, you find out where to look for more information and who to turn to for answers.
20. It is inspiring to know the stories and thinking of so many men and women through the ages who have known Jesus.
21. It’s humbling to find that there’s so much to discover, to realize that you don’t know it all, and that no, you weren’t the first person to think that.

I think that was most of what they said. Clearly, these are the comments of young people who have been strengthened and equipped by their studies for mission and discipleship, not disempowered. They came up with loads more than I had first had in my little list. There are only two things I would add. In my experience, it helps you to know why you disagree with other Christians and so hopefully, to disagree better. And they implied this, but I want to spell it out—good theology leads you to love God and love your neighbour better.

Those are a lot of good reasons! I want to add another perspective and that is from my experience as both a theology student, now a teacher myself, and a pastor of young people.

Perspectives: a pastor

There is something that grows in Christians, which happened to me and I’ve seen in others, which is a hunger for depth and substance that can only be met by intentional and disciplined study. Of course you can read books on your own, but it’s not the same as being in a classroom, learning from someone who knows more than you, whose faith you respect, and whose character you admire. There is something compelling, in a world where the Christian faith is so often disparaged or dismissed, about a man or woman who has turned their impressive intellect into seeking God, studying the scriptures, turning over stones, considering other possibilities, and coming up with reasoned, intelligent, and biblically based answers for why you should put your whole trust in the person of Jesus Christ and your whole life into his hands.

Further to that, there’s a delight you experience when someone takes a Bible story and explains the background, or the meaning of a word that you wouldn’t have known otherwise, when they use their scholarship to bring the Bible to life. Or when someone shows you God in a different light that suddenly makes so much more sense to you because you feel maybe you knew it deep down but you couldn’t have articulated it. Or when someone tells you about a time in church history where you see exactly the same issues that you’re facing going around again and it helps you to work out what you think and how you should respond. Or when you hear a theologian’s comments on the society that you live in and you’re able to step out of your culture for a second for a better and more enlightened perspective. Or when you read the writings of a Church Father or Mother on the nature of God that becomes an outpouring of praise and worship and you feel that too. If you’re a Christian, it’s about bringing all the aspects of your life together with time to reflect and think about who God is, why we think and do what we do, and how that might affect the world. It’s the stuff of life.

I know that studying theology isn’t always like that. Some books/authors can be dull, pompous, obscure, irritating, and just plain wrong … but that is also half the fun of it! And I also know that if we had amazing teaching programmes in all our churches and all our conferences that we could maybe find those things there, but we all know that it’s not like that. There’s a more serious side to this conversation because the truth is that I was bored and frustrated in the charismatic church. I was bored of the talks that were just one story after another. I was tired of repetitive and me-centred worship. I was frustrated by simplistic answers that I knew weren’t well thought through and were going to be pastorally disastrous. I think I was in danger of mentally drifting off and becoming disengaged. Theology won me over and kept me in the centre of the church in a way that I needed.

One of my little group of 20’s said that he’d been warned off thinking too much on the grounds that if you engage your mind, you short-circuit the work of the Spirit. He joked that his church culture had taught that we’re transformed by the removal of our minds! We don’t want this. We don’t want a brain drain. We need to attract and to keep the curious, the questioners, the seekers, the hungry, the bored. We need to feed them, nurture them, and engage them. We need to realize that teenagers and young people need more than cool youth leaders and worship songs. They need depth and good answers to their questions. I hope that WTC will be part of a change in culture in the charismatic church where it will become the most natural thing in the world for Christians to be educated in their faith.

WTC

Why do people not study? There’s always the time and money thing, and I get that, but I think there are two bigger barriers. The barriers I see most are that theological study is seen as either intimidating or irrelevant—the stumbling blocks of the under- and over-confident!

We are doing everything we can at WTC to eliminate the stumbling blocks. We’ve created a place where it’s not intimidating, it’s not irrelevant, and where it is affordable and accessible. We’re trying to make sure that there are no more excuses, unless someone finds they are still too far from a Hub, and we’re working on that.

I love our students and the enormous variety of people that turn up. All of them are Christians wanting to strengthen their knowledge and understanding of their faith, but for very different reasons. The majority of our students are from almost any sphere of work you could think of: the health service, accountancy, caring, farming, business, the charity sector, etc. They generally say they ‘want to go deeper with God.’ Others want to study to enrich their ministries in the local church. Some are paid by the church, are church leaders, or are preparing for church leadership. Still others are in recovery from addiction or building a new life having served a prison sentence. It all makes for interesting discussion in the classroom!

These are mostly people who come just to study applied kingdom theology for life and work. But we’re also branching out in 2019 to begin two new vocational programmes in ‘Kingdom Theology and Student Ministry’ and ‘Kingdom Theology and Church Planting and Leadership.’ These are exciting new ventures and will offer more focused training.

I’ve already said that I really don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to study theology, but I hope that this post will help those who are wondering why you would, what you’d get out of it, and if it’s for them. I hope in a small way I’ve described why studying and teaching theology, the science of God, is challenging, exciting, and endlessly fascinating.

As I read the last section of The Lost World of Scripture by John Walton and D. Brent Sandy it became apparent that there was more than one post worth of material here for us to chew on. John and Brent begin by listing some safe and some unsafe conclusions concerning Scripture and biblical authority. Here “safe” means within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy and a high view of Scripture as an authoritative revelation of God. They are not presenting a finalized set of principles for biblical interpretation but a set of ideas for consideration, discussion, research and reflection. These are talking points for the church.

It is safe … The following is a summary of the discussion by John and Brent although I have reordered some of their conclusions.

It is safe to believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture. John and Brent are committed to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture (although inerrancy is applied to the intended message as we will see) and affirm the verbal, plenary (i.e. unqualified, absolute) inspiration of Scripture. Even variant wordings, event orders, and emphases can be inspired to convey the intended message. We don’t need to harmonize to protect Scripture from error.

God spoke words, not simply ideas. … Faith communities validated the words received and it is those words that we affirm as inspired.

Divine truth was revealed in speech and action. The source was God, not humans; they could not have come up with this on their own. Jesus himself was and is the quintessence of divine revelation, the personification of the Father’s communication in human form. …

Further, Scripture is the product of plenary inspiration. God is the source of all of Scripture. Because God breathed it in its entirety, he is the source event for variant wordings [including those among the Gospels]. (p. 295)

Going beyond this …

It is safe to believe that the way God communicated to humans is more complex than we have been accustomed to think.

It is safe to believe that the Old Testament and New Testament were located firmly in the cognitive environment of the ancient world.

It is safe to believe that God revealed truth orally. (“written forms were inspired because oral texts were authoritative and because written texts reliably represented the truths stated in oral texts.” (pp. 294-295)) Written forms are not inherently superior (although they do preserve somewhat better).

It is safe to believe that God empowered faithful followers to pass along oral texts of divine truth.

It is safe to believe that inspired truth was communicated and preserved without the necessity of exact wording. For example, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, his words were passed on and eventually translated into Greek, then Latin and Coptic, and finally into a whole host of other languages (I benefit most from English translations). “Yet through all the twists and turns of the process of transmission, reliable and truthful representations of what Jesus said and did were preserved.” (p. 296)

It is safe to believe that God often works through processes that we would label “natural,” and that therefore when a “natural” explanation can be offered God is not thereby excluded.

It is safe to believe that the Holy Spirit superintended the process of preserving divine truth.

It is safe to believe that once divine revelation was inscribed in writing, written versions did not supersede oral versions.

It is safe to believe that the authority behind a book is more important than identifying someone as the sole or direct author. For example, Moses could be the authority figure in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy without being the direct author of the books as we have them. It is not essential to affirm that Isaiah wrote the entire book of his name. Communities were generally involved.

It is safe to believe that the existence of an autograph is not always realistic or necessary.

It is safe to believe that some later material could be added and later editors could have a role in the compositional history of a canonical book.

It is safe to believe that there could be duplicate texts with variation. “For some Christians it is necessary to find ways to harmonize the differences so that from modern Western historical standards the differences disappear. But that is ethnocentric – or more accurately, culture-centric.” (p. 300)

It is safe to believe that Old World Science permeates the Old Testament. “God was not revealing cosmic geography, physiology, or meteorology.” (p. 301)

It is safe to believe that the inspiration of written texts of the New Testament is an inference based on the inspiration of the Old Testament. This is an interesting one for John and Brent to add. I expect that they are considering the fact that there is no internal or external affirmation of inspiration for the New Testament. But the authority attributed to the Old Testament by Jesus and the Apostles is reasonably extended to include the canon of the New Testament as affirmed by the church through the work of the Holy Spirit.

It is safe to believe that conventions for reporting events in the Bible differ from our contemporary conventions of history writing.

It is safe to believe that the Bible can use numbers rhetorically within the range of conventions of the ancient world.

It is safe to believe that Old Testament prophecy and New Testament identification of fulfillment do not need to align. Both are inspired. This one could use a great deal more discussion. But it isn’t a line to draw in the sand.

So what isn’t safe according to John and Brent? There are a number of key points here, most responding to assertions put forth by skeptics and skeptical scholars about the nature of the Bible.

It is not safe to believe that the Bible is just like any other book. The Bible uses language, forms, and conventions of the ancient world because this is how effective communication works. The unique status is inherent in the message about God revealed in the text (God’s self-revelation to his people).

It is not safe to believe that the Old Testament is derivative mythology combed from the ancient world.

It is not safe to believe that everything we find in the Bible can be explained in natural terms.

It is not safe to believe that people and events portrayed in narrative about the real past are fictional or literary constructs. The narrative history of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Ruth, Samuel, David, Solomon, Jeroboam, and so forth … clearly identify real people in a real past. Of course we must be careful here … if Jonah or Job for example were not intended to convey the narrative history of real events or people, then we should not force them into this mold. “Our decisions must be driven by our best assessment of what the biblical narrator intended.” (p. 304) I am convinced that the genre of Job and Jonah is not narrative history … but that is a topic for another post or two.

It is not safe to believe that biblical books have used pseudepigraphy, forgery, or false attribution. We have copies of many ancient books (e.g. Enoch) that purport to be written by some famous person. John and Brent affirm that this does not happen in the canonical books of the Bible. However, they also warn that we should consider the ancient context. Writings from a school of prophets following Isaiah could be contained in the book of Isaiah without jeopardizing the authority of the text.

The statements above are in direct response to skeptical claims concerning the nature of Scripture. These skeptical claims are not consistent with the authority and inspiration of Scripture. The last point John and Brent make (actually in the middle of their list – I’ve taken it for last) is directed toward the expectation of faithful Christian readers of Scripture.

It is not safe to believe that inerrancy is falsified by the orality of Scripture. Certain versions of inerrancy are falsified by a careful reading of Scripture itself. But this should redirect our thinking. “The alternative is to recognize that inerrancy needs to be redefined in light of the literary culture of the Bible.” (p. 303) Personally, I think we are better off using other words to frame the authority of Scripture in a positive form rather than redefining inerrancy. Scripture is truthful and reliably preserves and conveys the nature, message, and mission of God.  It carries the authority of God. It is counterproductive to the faith to try to squeeze Scripture to fit a mold of our own making.

What do you think of this set of statements concerning our approach to Scripture?

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

What is the difference between a dead dog and a dead chemistry professor lying in the middle of the road?

I’ve been at the American Chemical Society meeting in Boston all week – so there have been plenty of chemistry professors around. As far as I know none were lying in the middle of the road. These meetings are always a good chance to reconnect with old friends and to learn what other groups are doing. This week I had the chance to reconnect with a professor from my graduate school days. I posted on his book – Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? a couple of years ago, but it seems appropriate to repost it today.

Henry (Fritz) Schaefer was a professor of chemistry at the University of California Berkeley for 18 years (1969-1987) before moving to the University of Georgia, where he has now been for almost 30 years. I was a graduate student at Berkeley when Fritz was on the faculty and participated in a lunch gathering he had with Christian graduate students for a year. His influence as a Christian and a productive and respected scientist was an invaluable example for me.

This book arose from a series of lectures he has given over the years. He got started lecturing on science and Christianity in response to an incident from his first experience teaching freshman chemistry at Berkeley in January 1984. To cover time after a bit of a technical failure with an expected demonstration … well let’s read his own telling of the story:

I said, “While we’re waiting for the moles, let me tell you what happened to me in church yesterday morning.” I was desperate. There was great silence among those 680 students. They had come will all manner of anticipations about freshman chemistry, but stories about church were not among them!

At least as surprised as the students, I continued, “Let me tell you what my Sunday School teacher said yesterday.” The students became very quiet. “I was hoping the group at church would give me some support, moral spiritual, or whatever, for dealing with this large class, but I received none. In fact, the Sunday School teacher first told anecdotes about his own freshman chemistry instructor, who kicked the dog, beat his wife, and so on. Then he asked the class, in honor of me:

“What is the difference between a dead dog lying in the middle of the road and a dead chemistry professor lying in the middle of the road?“

The class was excited about this and I hadn’t even gotten to the punch line. They roared with laughter. … “the difference between a dead dog lying in the middle of the road and a dead chemistry professor lying in the middle of the road is that there are skid marks in front of the dead dog.” It was a new joke at the time, and the class thought it was outstanding. (p. 3-4)

After the class a number of students came down to talk with him – several of whom simply wanted to know what he had been doing in church. Some of the students asked if he would give a lecture on the topic – the first such lecture was in April 1984; the 400th in the summer of 2016 (from a listing in Appendix B of the book). I was a TA for freshman chemistry one of the terms Fritz taught the class – quite possibly January 1984; the timing is about right.

The lectures are interesting. His story of his journey to faith as a young professor is fascinating (From Berkeley Professor to Christian). I disagree with his conclusions in the chapter Climbing Mount Improbable, Evolutionary Science or Wishful Thinking. Fritz takes an old earth, progressive creation view. He rightly points out the confusion surrounding the origin of life, but I find the evolutionary mechanism for the diversity of life far more persuasive than he suggests. He makes an important point however. This disagreement is not over an essential of the Christian faith. For example, Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne are included without reservation in his lists of scientists who are Christians. Fritz also takes a somewhat more conservative Presbyterian view (PCA I believe) on some issues than I do – but again not essentials of the Christian faith.

Scientism. I’d like to conclude this post by looking at one of the other chapters: C.S. Lewis: Science and Scientism. In this chapter he digs into the space trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength). These books look at the out-workings of “slavish scientific materialism.”

Scientism isn’t a common word today – reductionism is more common and conveys something of the same image today. Concerning scientism: “Webster’s second definition fits Lewis’s usage well; “a thesis that the methods of the natural sciences should be used in all areas of investigation including philosophy, the humanities, and the social sciences: a belief that only such methods can be fruitfully used in the pursuit of knowledge.” (p. 123)

C. S. Lewis wasn’t opposed to science, in fact his view seems to be to let the facts be the facts, and this included evolution, but scientific reductionism (scientism) is a real problem. His surviving BBC broadcast acknowledges both evolution and the problems with scientism. In particular humans are not simply the product of evolution – the nature of humans as new men in Christ goes beyond evolution. Start at 8 minutes for the relevant part for this post.

The self you were really intended to be is something that lives not from nature, but from God. (11:58-12:06)

Fritz quotes a reply by Lewis to Professor Haldane’s criticism of his space trilogy. In this reply, found in Of Other Worlds, (p. 76-77), Lewis defines scientism as “a certain outlook on the world which is usually connected with the popularization of the sciences, though it is much less common among real scientists than their readers. It is, in a word, the belief that the supreme moral end is the perpetuation of our own species, and this is to be pursued eve if, in the process of being fitted for survival, our species has to be stripped of all those things for which we value it – of pity, of happiness, and of freedom.” In an age colored by eugenics and the final solution of Hitler’s Germany, such a fear was not unfounded. Science was connected with social Darwinism, and this could be brutal. Eugenics was quite popular in the US and the UK prior to World War II. William Jennings Bryan’s objections to evolution in the 1920’s had much the same foundation.

Scientism today doesn’t take quite the same approach, but the reduction of humans to nothing but chemical reactions and such remains a threat. Fritz cites several examples in the this chapter, including an article in the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry (his specialty) where an author states “Living systems are wonderfully well-suited to their purpose, but the design is shaped by blind evolution instead of imaginative intelligence.” (p. 133) Another article I’ve found telling is the inaugural article in PNAS by Anthony Cashmore who wrote concerning humans “The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar. The laws of nature are uniform throughout, and these laws do not accommodate the concept of free will.” Humans are nothing special in the grand scheme of things. Fritz comments “The reductionist has no definitive basis for his or her decision to greet or eat a stranger. Such a a worldview should be resisted, as Lewis did so well. I know, as surely as I accept Coulomb’s Law (like charges repel; opposite charges attract), that love is better than hate, and that the truth is better than a lie.” (p. 135) Although not as blatant as eugenics and the creation of a master race, there are significant questions in our culture today. The view that an embryo is nothing but bags of chemicals may be a threat. The idea that a fetus is not “human” before birth is a larger threat. Many such questions can be posed. When does humanity begin? Are less than genetically perfect humans of value? How much value? Is a life with Down’s syndrome worth living?

It is important to realize that the problems raised by scientism are not really scientific problems, the solution isn’t to fight the science. The problem is social, grounded in human failings. Fritz concludes the chapter (and his lecture) “My challenge to those of you who are not familiar with C. S. Lewis’s writings is to read his classic Mere Christianity and consider the claims of Jesus.” (p. 136)

Science and Christian faith need not be at odds – many active scientists (a theme running through a number of the essays and lectures in Conflict or Coherence) find the two coherent rather than in conflict.

Who has been particularly influential in your life and faith?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.