Grace & Peace

Commenting on Genesis 12 tonight, Larry asked, "Is this a case where we have a mountain of Mishnah out of a molehill of Torah?" I thought that was a brilliant way to ask the question. Larry modestly said he didn't come up with it, which is probably true (though he's quite witty enough to have come up with it on his own). The image refers to extra-biblical Jewish literature that comments on the text including laws and tradition.

Genesis 12 has generated a lot of scholarly literature. Some of it excellent, a lot of it highly speculative. We talked briefly of the proper role of speculation in theological method. There is a time and place where it is appropriate, principally for testing the rational coherence of an interpretation. However, it is wise to make sure hypothetical and speculative interests don't outweigh the more important questions the text is asking and answering. The point is well-illustrated in a proverbial story in which a student asked his theology professor, "What was God doing before He created the world?" The professor made his point by replying, "Creating Hell for the overly curious!"

Good theological method works to "keep the main thing the main thing"--properly prioritized, and well-disciplined when faced with the temptation to speculate.

I remember once when I had been giving a talk to the R.A.F. [Royal Air Force], an old, hard-bitten officer got up and said, 'I've no use for all that stuff. But, mind you, I'm a religious man too. I know there's a God. I've felt Him: out alone in the desert at night: the tremendous mystery. And that's just why I don't believe all your neat little dogmas and formulas about Him. To anyone who's met the real thing they all seem so petty and pedantic and unreal!'

Now in a sense I quite agreed with that man. I think he had probably had a real experience of God in the desert. And when he turned from that experience to the Christian creeds, I think he really was turning from something real to something less real. In the same way, if a man has once looked at the Atlantic from the beach, and then goes and looks at a map of the Atlantic, he also will be turning from something real to something less real: turning from real waves to a bit of coloured paper. But here comes the point. The map is admittedly only coloured paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together. In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

I had a good friend tell me a story a few months ago about a painful experience she had while serving in her church. She was a leader in the children’s ministry. This particular Sunday, one of the teachers was planning on having the kids sing one of the older songs that highlights the Atonement, and of course, the blood of Christ. (By now, I’ve forgotten which particular song it was, but something like, There is a Fountain). My friend expressed her concern about singing this song, especially with a group of children who, along with their parents, were new to church, and who would have almost no foundation upon which to understand lyrics regarding the cleansing properties of the Savior’s blood. (Not to mention age-appropriateness….You can almost hear the barrage of questions after the song, “Teacher, is there really a fountain filled with blood?!”) I digress….

Anyway, the trap was sprung, and my poor friend had the impossible task of proving, on the spot, that she was not, in fact, a liberal.

You see, this teacher had been reading a book by a very well-meaning evangelical who was explaining how the liberal movement made inroads into major American Denominations, how these inroads are alive and well, and how these erosions typically occur. This sweet, well-meaning, children’s teacher suspects her leader of being one, and when she finds resistance to singing the song, her worst fears are confirmed.

And so my friend, after telling me this story, asks with pain, “Am I a liberal?”

It’s a good question. What is a liberal anyway? Growing up, it was a codeword for them. For all the people that don’t believe like us. Who don’t read the Bible, who don’t preach the Bible, who don’t believe the Bible. They’re also Democrats. We heard, on an annual basis, how our church split off from the Brethren Denomination when the denomination told our church that we should no longer be singing about “the blood.” We said, “Yes we will.” And so they locked our building. We had to buy the property twice. Because of “liberals.”

This language was reinforced at my private Christian college. We heard, in chapel, about how the “liberals” don’t believe the Bible--and immediately thereafter learned in our civics class that they also like raising taxes. Nasty folks. All the while, confusingly, we were being told that we were receiving an excellent liberal arts education.

The word is difficult to define. The Random House Dictionary lists about fifteen different definitions. We use it all the time when referring to politics, theology, education, giving, etc. I’d like to take a stab at defining the word strictly in its theological sense. The Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms says it’s:

A movement in nineteenth and twentieth century Protestant circles that builds from the assumption that Christianity is reconcilable with the positive human aspirations, including the quest for autonomy. Liberalism desires to adapt religion to modern thought and culture. Consequently, it views divine love as realized primarily, if not totally, in love for one’s neighbor and the kingdom of God as a present reality found especially within an ethically transformed society (72).

With the rise of science and the optimism it produced preceding the devastating world wars of the twentieth century, the miraculous accounts recorded in the Scriptures became a bit difficult. Since we know now that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the sun around the earth, we also know that the miraculous accounts in the Bible must be explainable as primitive peoples trying to describe things they did not fully understand. However, the Bible is still useful as a source of ethics and inspiration. “Salvation” is education, spiritual enlightenment, and compassionate love for one’s neighbor. “Resurrection” is not so much dead flesh and blood coming back to life as it is the rebirth of a high ideal. So, Theological Liberalism is really a salvage job––an attempt to recast the Bible and the Christian Religion in terms palatable to an enlightened culture, essentially redefining the miraculous in order to keep the beautiful ethic.

Are you a Liberal?

Dr. Daniel B. Wallace reserves the term for those who go so far as to deny the physical resurrection of Christ. That’s a decent test. Most people who deny the Resurrection, yet maintain that they are Christians, will most likely share a set of assumptions that mirrors the tradition of Theological Liberalism. He argues, and I agree, that it is unwise to use the fundamentalists’ various litmus tests used for sniffing out “liberals”––typically theological fine points such as the timing of the Rapture in relation to the Tribulation, which English Bible is most inspired, or whether or not we should sing There is a fountain to concrete-thinking, unchurched pre-schoolers at church (okay, Dr. Wallace never mentioned that last example, but you could see where this was going).

Save the “l-word” for those who claim it. And let’s keep the conversation going with those who disagree on finer points by refusing to demonize them. I responded to my friend’s question by asking her, “Do you believe that Jesus was dead, buried, and actually came back to life––I mean that his body truly came back to life?” She said, “Of course!”

“Then you’re not a Liberal.”



UPDATED: Kelly brought up an excellent point in the comments that deserves mention on this main page. Things may get confusing if someone is describing themselves as a liberal politically. I in no way mean to imply that we should assume that this person is automatically also a liberal theologically. Those are two different animals entirely (similarly, my "liberal" arts education at a conservative Christian college says nothing about the school's politics or its theology). This post is about asking better questions about people's religious beliefs before categorizing them with a bad label.

Recently, the men in my Bible Study started asking questions and doing a bit of research on the "emerging church." It's an interesting subject that has sparked no little debate in the wonderful world of evangelicalism. Scot McKight wrote a piece a couple years ago that is helpful in understanding some of the larger themes. If you're interested, the article is here.

A while back, I noticed that a friend of mine had, "Love Jesus, Hate religion" as her Religious Views on Facebook. I understand the sentiment. What my friend means to say is that she has a personal relationship with Christ, but is not so fond of the institutions that claim to follow Him. Likely this is a way to engage others who are fed up with (or have been burned by) institutional religion. "Jesus isn't the problem. Jesus is cool. It just His followers whom I can't stand, with all their rules and hypocrisy and petty infighting, sectarian differences, etc." Or, on a larger scale, "Religion is a cause of every major conflict the world has ever seen, and continues to see today. If the Muslims and Christians could just agree that Jesus is cool, and follow his teachings to 'love thy neighbor' than we could be rid of all the killing. I'm not like any of the so-called Christians you've met before. I follow the Way of love, and I hate rules and hypocrisy. Let's talk."

Please understand, I am not about to pick on my friend. I know that she is a dedicated Christian who sincerely desires to engage others in religious dialogue. I am, however, offering a critique of the method. I think words matter. Especially words found in the Scriptures. If you broadly claim, even broadcast, that you hate "religion" without any nuance or qualification whatsoever, then you forfeit an important Biblical term. James writes, "Real religion, the kind that passes muster before God the Father, is this: Reach out to the homeless and loveless in their plight, and guard against corruption from the godless world (James 1:27, The Message). So, James likes religion. In fact, the very best religion is that which cares for defenseless people (i.e., orphans and widows).

Similarly, many have jettisoned the word "Christian" for the less hypocritical "Christ Follower." Again, the word is an important Biblical term (see Acts 11:26). Followers of Christ have been called "Christians" for more than 20 centuries. Is it important to drop the term because of bad ambassadors?

Nit picking? Quarreling over words? Hopefully not. I'm just asking for a bit of nuance. If you love Jesus and hate religion, I'll ask why you hate caring for orphans and widows. But if it's hypocrisy you hate, or false religion, than simply say so.

Finally, please understand that I understand that bumper sticker slogans and t-shirts are designed to be provocative--to blow up categories (barriers, even) in order to promote a healthy conversation. I'm all for it. And I'll even do it on occasion. But with awareness that some of those categories will have to be remade further on down the road. I'm a Christian. I love Jesus, and real religion.

Athanasian Creed

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally. Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.

For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another. But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit. The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite. Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited. Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God. Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.

As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords. The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son. Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons. Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.

It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh. For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and man. He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother--existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ. He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity. He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures. For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.

He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead. 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. At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire. This is the catholic faith. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

A term literally meaning “universal” or “worldwide.” The word is most often associated with Roman Catholicism but originally became standardized in Christian theology through the formula appearing in early Christian creeds that affirms belief in “one holy catholic and apostolic church.” To affirm the church’s catholicity is to suggest that the church is universal in scope. In other words, the church is not restricted to any one ethnic group or geographical location but is open to Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female (Gal. 3:28), with its gospel message being directed “to all nations.”

Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 24.

My friend asked an insightful question several days ago:

Hi Dan.
I happen to know :)that you grew up in a church where pre-trib was canonized in the church's statement of faith and that you went to a seminary that is solidly in that camp. And yet I also perceive that many younger evangelical scholars are moving away from a strong pre-trib position, or are at least sympathetic to other views/system. I'd be interested in any thoughts/evaluation you have on where you see the evangelical church headed on this doctrine. Will we always be so splintered or is there some consensus emerging in the near future?

First some background. I grew up in an Independent church that was strongly influenced by the Dispensational tradition. One of the many theological distinctives of this tradition is that it holds to a belief that the Bible teaches that Christ will return to earth before he rules on earth for a thousand years (Premillennialism).

More particularly, this tradition has emphasized that the Bible teaches that the church will be removed from the earth before a seven-year period of intense suffering known as the “Tribulation.” This view is the Pre-tribulational view referenced above by my friend. The timing of these “end-times” events has been a point of contention to the point of bickering and division within certain streams of evangelicalism. As an earlier generation of conservative evangelicals watched mainline denominational institutions succumb to liberalism, these finer points of eschatology became the outer wall of defense against liberal inroads. The second president of the seminary from which I graduated (Dallas Theological Seminary) even pointed this out in print, commenting that he had never met a liberal who believed in the pre-tribulational rapture (my paraphrase). One of several litmus tests for conservative dispensational theology, the timing of these eschatological events was and is included in the doctrinal statement of the Seminary as well as in the doctrinal statements of many of the churches of similar tradition.

My friend perceives that the tradition may be softening on some of the finer points, at least to the point of sympathetic dialogue with others who hold different views. I think he’s right. In fact, Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has documented this emerging consensus in evangelical theology (at least at the scholarly level) in his The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective.

This is not doctrinal erosion down a slippery slope toward liberalism. It is a shift in emphasis in the discussion of eschatology. Instead of working so arduously with high levels of certainty on figuring out the timing of end-times events, evangelical camps who historically have been at odds are spending more time discussing the points at which we agree. I think it’s good. In the past we spent so much effort charting the end of the world, that we eclipsed the main focus of eschatology (the return of the resurrected Lord, the resurrection of the dead, judgment, the renewal of the earth, and the eternal reign of Christ).

The overemphasis of fine points has also led (I think) to an apathetic attitude from people who are rightly “tired of the fight,” to the point that they too are ignoring the main focus of eschatology (perhaps best illustrated by the self proclaimed “Pan-millennialist” who believes, “It will all pan out in the end.”). The knee-jerk that removes all statements of eschatology from church doctrinal statements is not wise. The hope of our faith is grounded in revealed truth that the faithful will be raised from the dead and vindicated by the risen Lord.

My professors are working hard to keep “the main thing the main thing,” while properly and humbly prioritizing the finer points of eschatological timetables. As Christians we have a robust hope. The last enemy, Death, has been conquered by the risen Christ. Since He is alive, then He is coming back. Since His body came back to life, so will our bodies. He will judge and He will reign. The faithful are strengthened by this hope to persevere through their sufferings while participating in His redemptive action by spreading the Gospel, caring for physical needs, tending the earth, etc.

Great question, Philip. I hope and pray that we will not always be so splintered. The doctrinal statements will not likely be revised any time soon. But I think the eschatological emphases of many evangelicals are better mirroring the emphases of the Scriptures. Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

The Greek word translated in English as “Christ” is the equivalent of the Hebrew term Messiah and means “anointed one.” Although not intrinsic to its meaning, the NT use of the term Christ tends to point to the deity of Jesus. Christology is the theological study devoted to answering two main questions: Who is Jesus? (the question of his identity) and What is the nature and significance of what Jesus accomplished in the incarnation? (the question of his work).

Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 25.

The division of Christian doctrine dealing with the Holy Spirit. The word arises from the Greek words pneuma (spirit) and logos (the teaching about). Pneumatology explores the person and work of the Spirit, especially the Spirit’s involvement in human salvation.

Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 92.

From the Greek word anthropos (human) and logos (word), that is, words about, or teaching concerning, humankind. Anthropology in general refers to any study of the status, habits, customs, relationships and culture of humankind. In a more specific and theological sense, anthropology sets forth the scriptural teachings about humans as God’s creatures. Christian anthropology recognizes that humans are created in God’s image but that sin has in some way negatively affected that image. Anthropology is also interested in the question of the constitution of a human being….

Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 10

The topic in systematic theology that deals with issues of the nature and character of the Bible. Bibliology attempts to understand what kind of book the Bible is, how it is authoritative for Christian faith and practice, and to what extent and in what manner the Bible is to be understood as divine revelation.

Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 20.

Literally, “the study of salvation.” This topic within the corpus of systematic theology deals with the work of the triune God in bringing creation, and especially humans, to enjoy the divine purpose for existence. More specifically, “objective” soteriology speaks of the life, death, resurrection and exaltation of Christ in relation to human salvation. In addition, “subjective” soteriology (the work of the Spirit in the application of Christ’s salvation) deals with the process whereby individuals are brought to God’s saving goal. Topics generally covered include election, calling, regeneration, faith, repentance, conversion, justification, sanctification and glorification.

Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 108.

The area of theological study concerned with understanding the church (derived from the Greek word ekklesia, "church"). Ecclesiology seeks to set forth the nature and function of the church. It also investigates issues such as the mission, ministry and structure of the church, as well as its role in the overall plan of God.

Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 42.

Derived from the Greek term meaning “last,” eschaton refers to the ultimate climax or end of history wherein Christ returns to earth to establish his eternal kingdom of righteousness and justice among all nations. Eschatology, then is the theological study that seeks to understand the ultimate direction or purpose of history as it moves toward the future, both from an individual perspective (What happens when a person dies?) and from a corporate perspective (Where is history going, and how will it end?).

Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 46.