"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
Well, I have returned from my Christmas holiday. You know, Christmas is least favourite holiday. Really, I much prefer Thanksgiving and St. Patrick’s Day [Editorial Note: The author of Panis Circenses is not currently imbibing alcoholic beverages while he is in seminary]. In the past 11 years I have only had one or two good Christmases. Unfortunately, this year’s Christmas was true to form. The misses and I were planning on flying to Dayton, Ohio to visit her family. Unfortunately, Fort Worth received an sleet and snow and Dayton received two feet of snow. Horrible! We flights on both Wednesday and Thursday. Finally, on Friday, we made it to DFW airport only to be on stand by for half a day. We made our way from gate to gate missing flight to flight and traveling on the airport’s inter-gate train system. It seems the weather in Dayton had caused a massive back-up of stranded passengers. The only way we could get to Dayton was to fly via Chicago … so we flew to Chicago. Unfortunately, all flights to Dayton were full … so we flew to Indianapolis and had a relative drive two hours from Dayton, pick us up, and take us back. So we traveled and waited for 20 straight hours by train, plane and automobile. On Sunday we attempted to go home but that flight was overbooked and we were on stand-by again. We decided to fly to St. Louis in order to get a connecting flight to DFW. Unfortunately, the connecting flight was overbooked and we had to stay the night in St. Louis at a Double Tree hotel. Finally, we woke up at 4 AM and missed three successive flights to DFW only to get two first class seats home.
Yes, this is a typical Christmas for me; I am used to it by now.
But on the positive side, I received a few good Christmas gifts. A cell phone, a portable DVD player, a few coffee paraphernalia items, and (the best bit) the complete DVD series of The Young Ones.
Also, while I was stranded in St. Louis I ran into a high school friend of mine named Ben Marshall. It seemed that he and his wife and kid were flying home to Virginia from visiting her family in St. Louis. It was surreal to see him there. He hadn’t changed a bit! We had traveled to so many airports and seen so many people that I had told my wife on Friday that the odds that I would see someone I knew was increasingly likely. Sure enough I did. Heck, I ran into my friend Whit at a restaurant in Oxford, England. If I can meet a friend overseas at the same restaurant then I can surely meet a friend in the United States.
But now I am home. I have the week off and will be spending my free time working on my Moody project and working on my teeth. Yes, Circenses will be spending much of his free time (not to mention his money, which is not free) in the dentist’s chair. Frankly, I think their must be some sort of ethical violation for a dentist to look in one’s mouth and go “Ka-ching! Ka-ching!”
Alright, I hope everyone else is having a wonderful Christmas … especially those in Wake Forest.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
The Circenses Faith and Message 2004
Not exhaustive but exhausting.
Prologue
A few weeks ago a pastor of some influence in the SBC questioned my faith and commitment to Christ merely because I defended the faith and beliefs of another more liberal Christian. This pastor assumed that if I defended another person I must inevitably agree with that person. Yes, I was called a liberal who lacked adequate faith and blah blah blah. Now none of this offended me in the slightest. I frankly don’t care what a radical-fundamentalist pastor thinks. I do not care what any of the so-called “leaders” of the SBC think; only their actions concern me. Nevertheless, I was somewhat amused at the scoffing, ignorant and controlling nature of this pastor. He seems to want all people in the SBC to be under the 2000 BFM down to every pastor in a SBC church and every student in a SBC school. Now I know this man is probably (hopefully) not representative of the vast majority of the SBC leadership. Well, many may be ignorant and controlling but very few are scoffing. Most are very loving and humble and do not persecute others who disagree with them on peripheral issues … they usually hire other people to do the persecuting. Nevertheless, I thought it might be time for Circenses to give a few of his beliefs. For you see, I have always considered myself a conservative and never a liberal. I’ve usually been called a rebel but rarely ever a liberal; so I was intrigued by the notion that someone could call me one. Of course, I now no longer know what these labels mean. What makes one a liberal? What makes one a conservative? Is it based on relation to another? Most conservatives who do not know me think I am a liberal. Most liberals who do not know me think I am a conservative. Most liberals and conservatives who do know me think I am a moderate. Moderates who do and don’t me think I am a Christian. Therefore, I must just be a follower of Jesus. If that’s it then that’s not so bad. But rather than give you my and everyone else’s opinion of myself allow me to give you a sample of my beliefs and let you decide. I suppose one could call this the Circenses Faith and Message 2004. Like any confession (not creed) it is merely a snapshot in time and doesn’t hold the individual to any specific set of propositions to which he is forever chained. No, I reserve the right to believe whatever belief my experiences grant me and I am allowed to interpret the Scriptures however I feel they are meant to be interpreted regardless of the opinions of my peers. I take the opinions of others seriously and with due consideration but I will not allow my beliefs to be governed by the majority rule of a small fraction of Christendom at one point in history. I believe what I please and there is absolutely nothing that anyone in the SBC can do about it. It is none of their business and in this regard I answer only to God because He is the only one in authority over me. Having said that ...
I. I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe the Father is fully and eternally God, I believe that the Son is fully and eternally God, and I believe that the Holy Spirit is fully and eternally God. I believe that Jesus was the Son and fully man and God. He was God Incarnate and was literally resurrected and will forever exist as the God-Man. I believe that the Holy Spirit is the empowering presence of God. He is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus. But while I believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and believe this is God, I have my doubts about how they have been formulated in the doctrine of the Trinity. The idea that there are three distinct persons appears to be foreign to the Scriptures. Nowhere does the Bible speak or teach about God being three persons. The Bible only says that God is One. The doctrine of the Trinity and the idea that God is Three and One developed out of a need to protect the true teachings of the Scriptures from heresies. The Apostolic witness does not go into such formulations. It merely states that the Father is God, the Son/Jesus is God, and the Spirit is God. The relation of this Father-Son-Spirit relationship is a mystery that the Bible does not go into and is not a part of the Apostolic teaching and, therefore, should not be a part of our teachings and preachings. The Reformers recognized this fact and discouraged the church from engaging in Trinitarian speculations.
II. I believe that the Bible is the inspired (God-breathed), inerrant, infallible, record of the revelation of God. But while I am an inerrantist I do not mind other Christians and Christian scholars who do not believe in inerrancy. I think they are wrong but their beliefs are their own and it is between them and God. Furthermore, I agree with the neo-orthodox scholars who say that the Scriptures are not the Word of God. To understand what the neo-orthodox scholars mean by this statement it is important to understand that they have a very high view of what the Word of God is. They also have a very high view of revelation. To them revelation is when the Word of God comes to a person. When a person reads the Scriptures it can have two different effects upon them. On one hand, a person can read the Scriptures and God can speak through it to the person and the truth is revealed to that person. On the other hand, the person can read the Scriptures and God does not speak through it to the person and the truth is not revealed to the person. It is only when God speaks through the Scriptures to the person that the Scriptures become the Word of God. Reason suggests that this must be the case. Why is it that someone can read the Bible and have an experience with the Divine while others can read the Bible and not experience anything other than reading a document? The difference is that God has chosen to or not to speak through the Scriptures to the person. So the Scriptures are not the Word of God, the Bible is not revelation but, instead, is the vehicle of revelation and the manner in which God can speak to man. And, lastly, I agree with the 1963 BFM that states that “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” I think this is a beautiful declaration of faith that I am sorry is no longer a part of the Southern Baptist confession. This statement existed to answer questions about how we relate to the Old Testament. Do we stone people who are caught in adultery? Do we exert ourselves on the Sabbath? How do Christians interpret the Law of Moses? The answer is that we follow the teachings of Christ and use Him as our means of interpreting Scripture.
III. I believe in macro-evolution and do not see it as conflicting with the Scriptures. I have a non-concordist view of the first three chapters of Genesis. I do not believe that the Bible speaks about science because it does not wish to speak about science. Evolution is science and speaks of something other than what the Scripture speaks. Evolution and the Bible are neither in conflict nor contradict the other because the two speak of two separate matters. When the Bible gives the account of man’s creation it is no more giving a scientific account of that creation than it is giving an architectural account of the tabernacle when it gives the account of the construction of the Temple. Science is not the Bible’s concern anymore than its concern is architecture. The Bible is concerned with man’s relation to God and the rest of creation. Evolution is not the Bible’s concern and does not mention it. Therefore, from a scientific perspective, I believe in evolution and this belief does not conflict with my understanding of the Bible and neither lessens the value of man nor negates the role of God in man’s creation.
IV. I believe in the literal and physical return of Christ just as much as I believe in His literal and physical resurrection. However, I do not believe in a secret “rapture”. When Christ returns He shall come only once and in glory for all to see. I believe that most of the events in the book of Revelation (chapters 1 thru 19) have already occurred. In this regard I would be considered a preterist. I believe that the so-called millennial kingdom is currently underway (chapter 20). I believe that this millennial kingdom of God was inaugurated at the coming of Christ and continues to this very day with Christ enthroned at the right hand of the father. I look forward to the creation of a new heaven and a new earth at the consummation of the present age with the return of Christ (chapters 21-22).
V. I believe in the resurrection of the body and the spirit (the whole of man) at the end of the present age at the return of Christ. In the intermediate period between death and resurrection I believe that the believer is dead and in the ground and so is his spirit. I do not believe that his spirit is in heaven between death and resurrection. I look at man as a holistic being that is both physical and spiritual. I do not believe that the Bible states that we are in heaven after death. On the contrary, I believe that the Bible is very clear that after death man “sleeps” and turns back to dust from which he came. It is only at the resurrection that man will live again.
VI. I believe that “hell” awaits all those who do not have a relationship with God. I believe that at the resurrection the bodies of unbelievers will be resurrected ala Lazarus and will be judged and punished for their sins in “hell.” I do doubt whether or not the punishment involved is eternal, conscious punishment. I suspect that the punishment is the cessation of existence for the unbeliever. The unbeliever would cease to exist forever and that would be his eternal punishment. This is the annihilationist view that I have been toying with for the past two years. I have not made up my mind whether or not this view is Biblically accurate but the Scriptural evidence for this position is mounting.
VII. I believe that everyone has sinned and has fallen short of the glory of God. I believe that everyone has and will sin. But I do not believe that a person is born with a sinful nature. I believe that he has a nature in which he can choose between good and evil but because of his separation from God he inevitably chooses evil and his nature becomes sinful. A person then needs God in order to overcome the sinfulness of his nature. The idea that man inherits a sinful nature by virtue of merely being a man (a descendent of Adam) is a concept foreign to the Scriptures. This was an idea of Augustine’s that has penetrated the church’s teaching but is foreign to the Scripture’s teachings. When looking for Scriptural evidence for this concept most theologians cite Psalms 51:5: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” But, despite the fact that its poetry, the psalmist is referring in this verse to the sin of the mother. I think it’s unwise to base our entire theology of original sin on one poetic verse. Poetry by its very nature is ambiguous and highly subjective.
But let us look at Adam. He was created and was “good” according to God, yet he sinned. He sinned and his nature became sinful. He did not originally sin because he had a sinful nature; rather, he had a sinful nature because he originally sinned. He originally sinned because God gave him the ability to choose between sinning and not sinning. But subsequent to his sin, he took on a sinful nature from which he was unable to release himself. Sin becomes addictive to all and is transferred like the most communicable disease to everyone in which it comes in contact so that everyone who comes in contact with sin sins and is unable to stop sinning. Only God can save the sinner from sin. As in Adam so as in everyone else. We who come after Adam even though we did not sin in the same way as Adam also sin like Adam. We are not born with sinful natures but we catch sinful natures at birth from our sinful environment. The more sinful the environment the more sin we catch. The less sinful the environment the less sin we catch. This is why the Proverbs speak so much about raising children righteously in the fear of the Lord. When we raise children not to sin it lessens their chance of sinning. But because all people sin, no one can ever cease from sinning a part from God. There will never be a person who will not sin and who doesn’t need God. Again, we are just like Adam. We are born without sinful natures but cannot resist sin and, therefore, inherit a sinful nature. If you doubt this allow me to give you another example. Jesus is the Second Adam. He is one who was born a man and lived the life of a man but never sinned. He was not born with a sinful nature any more than Adam was. Yet, when faced with a similar temptation by the Satan, Jesus chose not to sin. It was not a lack of a sinful nature that allowed Jesus not to sin. Adam did not have a sinful nature when he first sinned. It was not that there wasn’t a possibility that Jesus could choose to sin. If there was not a possibility that Jesus could sin then the temptations were meaningless and do not reflect man’s situation. Jesus, a man without a sinful nature, succeeded where Adam, a man without a sinful nature, did not. Adam failed and received a sinful nature because he chose to act apart from God. Jesus succeeded and did not receive a sinful nature because he chose to act with God because He was God. So, just like Adam and Jesus, we are born without sinful natures. But, like Adam and unlike Christ, we sin. And, just like both Adam and Christ, we need God.
VIII. I believe in the JEDP theory of the Pentateuch. I think it is the best current solution for solving some of the anomalies of these books. Also, I believe in Deutero-Isaiah. It seems doubtful to me that Isaiah wrote this section. This section does not claim Isaiah as its author anymore than the Pentateuch claims Moses as its author. I do not believe that Daniel is primarily a historical work written by Daniel. I think the book is a hodge podge of oral tradition, invented stories and apocalypse written by two or more authors and assembled, redacted and glossed over by another author. While Christians have always put the book of Daniel among books of prophecies, the Jews have always recognized the book as among the writings like Jonah and Esther. Much of the book of Daniel is “historically” inaccurate. The writers of Daniel appear to be well aware of the historical “inaccuracies” they are making but, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, shaped their materials to reflect their theological purposes. The book of Daniel is inspired, infallible, and, as I believe, inerrant for its matter. The matter is not "the end of times" because the final authors of Daniel are concerned with the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV in the year 164 BC. This is probably when the book was finally assembled. I also believe that John the apostle wrote his gospel, his apocalypse and the three letters. He probably had assistance with at least the gospel, but, perhaps, also with his apocalypse. With regards to the latter work, I believe Revelation was probably written between AD 67-68, following the time of Nero. I think Paul wrote all of the epistles traditionally attributed to him, including the Pastorals and Ephesians, but I do believe that the apostle Barnabas wrote the epistle to the Hebrews.
IX. I’ve spoken quite often about my egalitarian views. I believe that the Holy Spirit is not gender specific and that any church “office” that a man can hold can be held by a woman, including pastor. I think the Bible is undoubtedly clear on this and have given ample evidence of this in the past so I won’t go into it here.
But I do not think that homosexuality is good and approved by God. The Biblical evidence is quite clear on this and my experience witnessing to homosexuals confirms it. I strongly disagree with those who think that if we allow women pastors we will soon allow gay pastors. For obvious reasons I do not think this is a logical conclusion. Furthermore, I think it is an insult to women to suggest such a thing. Nevertheless, I do not believe that evangelical leaders are handling the issue as well as they should. The love of Christ is much more effective than legal challenges. You cannot sue the kingdom of God into place.
X. With regards to the issue of soul competency, I agree with the Mullins-Hobbs configuration of this doctrine. With the specific doctrine of the priesthood of the believers, I know many fine and wonderful professors who always correct others and say “priesthood of believers”, plural. I agree that the doctrine has an aspect of corporality about it but I do not believe that is a lack of individuality. One cannot have a corporality without individuals. The NT makes that very clear: individual parts making up a body. Yes, I see the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer as both individual and corporate. I always argue both but since the tendency among my peers is to stress the corporate and deny the individual I tend to stress the individual to argue that it’s still there.
XI. I think the NT model for the church is a plurality of elders/pastors and not a single pastor.
XII. I do not think that the flood story as recounted in Genesis is either literal or strictly historical. I do think there was a flood but I think it was probably localized and not covering the entire earth and every mountain. I think that this is a God-breathed, infallible and inerrant story written for a specific theological purpose that is true for its matter. But regardless of its historical “accurateness”, the meaning does not change for us whether or not we see it as historical or not. The same goes for Genesis 1-3 and Daniel. Furthermore, the meaning of a book of the Bible does not change if the author we suppose is different than the actual author. I think Paul wrote the pastorals, but if he didn’t it does not change its meaning or its truth. The human author does not make a book inspired, only the Holy Spirit.
XIII. I think Roman Catholics will be saved just as Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Pentecostals will be saved. While I disagree with much Roman Catholic theology, I do not think that it thoroughly prevents its adherents from a saving relationship with God. I think that the theology does hinder many, and that’s why it should be spoken against, but I do not think it hinders all. Heck, I think a lot of Southern Baptist theology hinders some from a relationship with God but I know that many Southern Baptists have a relationship with Him.
XIV. Also, I love the theology of Soren Kierkegaard and the neo-orthodox movement, particularly Reinhold Niebuhr and Emil Brunner.
XV. I am fascinated with the new perspective on Paul. I think that it has some wonderful aspects and much to offer. It certainly has answered many questions I have had about Judaism and the theology of Paul.
XVI. I believe that imbibing alcohol is Biblically sound but drunkenness isn’t. [Editorial note: the editor of Panis Circenses is not imbibing alcohol while he is in seminary.]
XVII. I believe God is bigger than anything I can comprehend. I know that I haven’t exhausted the experiences that one can have in relation to God. I am always fascinated to hear of other experiences with God. Therefore, while I certainly believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, I keep an open mind about whether or not conscious faith in Christ is required. I know that many before the time of Christ and without knowledge of Christ were saved by their faith. I currently believe that no one can reject Christ and be saved. He who has faith in God will not reject Christ because Christ is God. Regardless, as the author and psalmist of the book of Jonah wonderfully writes, salvation is of God and not man. I leave the knowledge of another’s salvation up to God and witness to all who either reject Christ or do not have fruit. I would expect other believers to do the same for me.
XVIII. I do believe that a believer can lose their salvation and abandon their relation with God. Every book of the NT, except Philemon, warns the believer to persevere lest they fall. The Parable of the Sower spoken by Jesus and parts of Hebrews and 1 and 2 Peter make this possibility quite clear.
XIX. I do not support capital punishment nor think that Christians should fight in war, but I am not at all dogmatic about this. I have quite a few friends in the military both Christian and non-Christian who I greatly love and I never mention this disagreement to them. I do not think it is a major issue.
XX. Lastly, I interpret “honoring the Sabbath” the way Jesus did. The Sabbath was given to man by God; it is for men and not for God. Jesus worked on the Sabbath when He so chose and so do I. But when Jesus did choose to rest, He took what Leonard Sweet calls “instant sabbaths”. These Sabbaths may be on Sunday or they may not. They maybe only for a few hours but they need to be taken. I think I will take one now.
Prologue
A few weeks ago a pastor of some influence in the SBC questioned my faith and commitment to Christ merely because I defended the faith and beliefs of another more liberal Christian. This pastor assumed that if I defended another person I must inevitably agree with that person. Yes, I was called a liberal who lacked adequate faith and blah blah blah. Now none of this offended me in the slightest. I frankly don’t care what a radical-fundamentalist pastor thinks. I do not care what any of the so-called “leaders” of the SBC think; only their actions concern me. Nevertheless, I was somewhat amused at the scoffing, ignorant and controlling nature of this pastor. He seems to want all people in the SBC to be under the 2000 BFM down to every pastor in a SBC church and every student in a SBC school. Now I know this man is probably (hopefully) not representative of the vast majority of the SBC leadership. Well, many may be ignorant and controlling but very few are scoffing. Most are very loving and humble and do not persecute others who disagree with them on peripheral issues … they usually hire other people to do the persecuting. Nevertheless, I thought it might be time for Circenses to give a few of his beliefs. For you see, I have always considered myself a conservative and never a liberal. I’ve usually been called a rebel but rarely ever a liberal; so I was intrigued by the notion that someone could call me one. Of course, I now no longer know what these labels mean. What makes one a liberal? What makes one a conservative? Is it based on relation to another? Most conservatives who do not know me think I am a liberal. Most liberals who do not know me think I am a conservative. Most liberals and conservatives who do know me think I am a moderate. Moderates who do and don’t me think I am a Christian. Therefore, I must just be a follower of Jesus. If that’s it then that’s not so bad. But rather than give you my and everyone else’s opinion of myself allow me to give you a sample of my beliefs and let you decide. I suppose one could call this the Circenses Faith and Message 2004. Like any confession (not creed) it is merely a snapshot in time and doesn’t hold the individual to any specific set of propositions to which he is forever chained. No, I reserve the right to believe whatever belief my experiences grant me and I am allowed to interpret the Scriptures however I feel they are meant to be interpreted regardless of the opinions of my peers. I take the opinions of others seriously and with due consideration but I will not allow my beliefs to be governed by the majority rule of a small fraction of Christendom at one point in history. I believe what I please and there is absolutely nothing that anyone in the SBC can do about it. It is none of their business and in this regard I answer only to God because He is the only one in authority over me. Having said that ...
I. I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe the Father is fully and eternally God, I believe that the Son is fully and eternally God, and I believe that the Holy Spirit is fully and eternally God. I believe that Jesus was the Son and fully man and God. He was God Incarnate and was literally resurrected and will forever exist as the God-Man. I believe that the Holy Spirit is the empowering presence of God. He is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus. But while I believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and believe this is God, I have my doubts about how they have been formulated in the doctrine of the Trinity. The idea that there are three distinct persons appears to be foreign to the Scriptures. Nowhere does the Bible speak or teach about God being three persons. The Bible only says that God is One. The doctrine of the Trinity and the idea that God is Three and One developed out of a need to protect the true teachings of the Scriptures from heresies. The Apostolic witness does not go into such formulations. It merely states that the Father is God, the Son/Jesus is God, and the Spirit is God. The relation of this Father-Son-Spirit relationship is a mystery that the Bible does not go into and is not a part of the Apostolic teaching and, therefore, should not be a part of our teachings and preachings. The Reformers recognized this fact and discouraged the church from engaging in Trinitarian speculations.
II. I believe that the Bible is the inspired (God-breathed), inerrant, infallible, record of the revelation of God. But while I am an inerrantist I do not mind other Christians and Christian scholars who do not believe in inerrancy. I think they are wrong but their beliefs are their own and it is between them and God. Furthermore, I agree with the neo-orthodox scholars who say that the Scriptures are not the Word of God. To understand what the neo-orthodox scholars mean by this statement it is important to understand that they have a very high view of what the Word of God is. They also have a very high view of revelation. To them revelation is when the Word of God comes to a person. When a person reads the Scriptures it can have two different effects upon them. On one hand, a person can read the Scriptures and God can speak through it to the person and the truth is revealed to that person. On the other hand, the person can read the Scriptures and God does not speak through it to the person and the truth is not revealed to the person. It is only when God speaks through the Scriptures to the person that the Scriptures become the Word of God. Reason suggests that this must be the case. Why is it that someone can read the Bible and have an experience with the Divine while others can read the Bible and not experience anything other than reading a document? The difference is that God has chosen to or not to speak through the Scriptures to the person. So the Scriptures are not the Word of God, the Bible is not revelation but, instead, is the vehicle of revelation and the manner in which God can speak to man. And, lastly, I agree with the 1963 BFM that states that “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” I think this is a beautiful declaration of faith that I am sorry is no longer a part of the Southern Baptist confession. This statement existed to answer questions about how we relate to the Old Testament. Do we stone people who are caught in adultery? Do we exert ourselves on the Sabbath? How do Christians interpret the Law of Moses? The answer is that we follow the teachings of Christ and use Him as our means of interpreting Scripture.
III. I believe in macro-evolution and do not see it as conflicting with the Scriptures. I have a non-concordist view of the first three chapters of Genesis. I do not believe that the Bible speaks about science because it does not wish to speak about science. Evolution is science and speaks of something other than what the Scripture speaks. Evolution and the Bible are neither in conflict nor contradict the other because the two speak of two separate matters. When the Bible gives the account of man’s creation it is no more giving a scientific account of that creation than it is giving an architectural account of the tabernacle when it gives the account of the construction of the Temple. Science is not the Bible’s concern anymore than its concern is architecture. The Bible is concerned with man’s relation to God and the rest of creation. Evolution is not the Bible’s concern and does not mention it. Therefore, from a scientific perspective, I believe in evolution and this belief does not conflict with my understanding of the Bible and neither lessens the value of man nor negates the role of God in man’s creation.
IV. I believe in the literal and physical return of Christ just as much as I believe in His literal and physical resurrection. However, I do not believe in a secret “rapture”. When Christ returns He shall come only once and in glory for all to see. I believe that most of the events in the book of Revelation (chapters 1 thru 19) have already occurred. In this regard I would be considered a preterist. I believe that the so-called millennial kingdom is currently underway (chapter 20). I believe that this millennial kingdom of God was inaugurated at the coming of Christ and continues to this very day with Christ enthroned at the right hand of the father. I look forward to the creation of a new heaven and a new earth at the consummation of the present age with the return of Christ (chapters 21-22).
V. I believe in the resurrection of the body and the spirit (the whole of man) at the end of the present age at the return of Christ. In the intermediate period between death and resurrection I believe that the believer is dead and in the ground and so is his spirit. I do not believe that his spirit is in heaven between death and resurrection. I look at man as a holistic being that is both physical and spiritual. I do not believe that the Bible states that we are in heaven after death. On the contrary, I believe that the Bible is very clear that after death man “sleeps” and turns back to dust from which he came. It is only at the resurrection that man will live again.
VI. I believe that “hell” awaits all those who do not have a relationship with God. I believe that at the resurrection the bodies of unbelievers will be resurrected ala Lazarus and will be judged and punished for their sins in “hell.” I do doubt whether or not the punishment involved is eternal, conscious punishment. I suspect that the punishment is the cessation of existence for the unbeliever. The unbeliever would cease to exist forever and that would be his eternal punishment. This is the annihilationist view that I have been toying with for the past two years. I have not made up my mind whether or not this view is Biblically accurate but the Scriptural evidence for this position is mounting.
VII. I believe that everyone has sinned and has fallen short of the glory of God. I believe that everyone has and will sin. But I do not believe that a person is born with a sinful nature. I believe that he has a nature in which he can choose between good and evil but because of his separation from God he inevitably chooses evil and his nature becomes sinful. A person then needs God in order to overcome the sinfulness of his nature. The idea that man inherits a sinful nature by virtue of merely being a man (a descendent of Adam) is a concept foreign to the Scriptures. This was an idea of Augustine’s that has penetrated the church’s teaching but is foreign to the Scripture’s teachings. When looking for Scriptural evidence for this concept most theologians cite Psalms 51:5: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” But, despite the fact that its poetry, the psalmist is referring in this verse to the sin of the mother. I think it’s unwise to base our entire theology of original sin on one poetic verse. Poetry by its very nature is ambiguous and highly subjective.
But let us look at Adam. He was created and was “good” according to God, yet he sinned. He sinned and his nature became sinful. He did not originally sin because he had a sinful nature; rather, he had a sinful nature because he originally sinned. He originally sinned because God gave him the ability to choose between sinning and not sinning. But subsequent to his sin, he took on a sinful nature from which he was unable to release himself. Sin becomes addictive to all and is transferred like the most communicable disease to everyone in which it comes in contact so that everyone who comes in contact with sin sins and is unable to stop sinning. Only God can save the sinner from sin. As in Adam so as in everyone else. We who come after Adam even though we did not sin in the same way as Adam also sin like Adam. We are not born with sinful natures but we catch sinful natures at birth from our sinful environment. The more sinful the environment the more sin we catch. The less sinful the environment the less sin we catch. This is why the Proverbs speak so much about raising children righteously in the fear of the Lord. When we raise children not to sin it lessens their chance of sinning. But because all people sin, no one can ever cease from sinning a part from God. There will never be a person who will not sin and who doesn’t need God. Again, we are just like Adam. We are born without sinful natures but cannot resist sin and, therefore, inherit a sinful nature. If you doubt this allow me to give you another example. Jesus is the Second Adam. He is one who was born a man and lived the life of a man but never sinned. He was not born with a sinful nature any more than Adam was. Yet, when faced with a similar temptation by the Satan, Jesus chose not to sin. It was not a lack of a sinful nature that allowed Jesus not to sin. Adam did not have a sinful nature when he first sinned. It was not that there wasn’t a possibility that Jesus could choose to sin. If there was not a possibility that Jesus could sin then the temptations were meaningless and do not reflect man’s situation. Jesus, a man without a sinful nature, succeeded where Adam, a man without a sinful nature, did not. Adam failed and received a sinful nature because he chose to act apart from God. Jesus succeeded and did not receive a sinful nature because he chose to act with God because He was God. So, just like Adam and Jesus, we are born without sinful natures. But, like Adam and unlike Christ, we sin. And, just like both Adam and Christ, we need God.
VIII. I believe in the JEDP theory of the Pentateuch. I think it is the best current solution for solving some of the anomalies of these books. Also, I believe in Deutero-Isaiah. It seems doubtful to me that Isaiah wrote this section. This section does not claim Isaiah as its author anymore than the Pentateuch claims Moses as its author. I do not believe that Daniel is primarily a historical work written by Daniel. I think the book is a hodge podge of oral tradition, invented stories and apocalypse written by two or more authors and assembled, redacted and glossed over by another author. While Christians have always put the book of Daniel among books of prophecies, the Jews have always recognized the book as among the writings like Jonah and Esther. Much of the book of Daniel is “historically” inaccurate. The writers of Daniel appear to be well aware of the historical “inaccuracies” they are making but, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, shaped their materials to reflect their theological purposes. The book of Daniel is inspired, infallible, and, as I believe, inerrant for its matter. The matter is not "the end of times" because the final authors of Daniel are concerned with the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV in the year 164 BC. This is probably when the book was finally assembled. I also believe that John the apostle wrote his gospel, his apocalypse and the three letters. He probably had assistance with at least the gospel, but, perhaps, also with his apocalypse. With regards to the latter work, I believe Revelation was probably written between AD 67-68, following the time of Nero. I think Paul wrote all of the epistles traditionally attributed to him, including the Pastorals and Ephesians, but I do believe that the apostle Barnabas wrote the epistle to the Hebrews.
IX. I’ve spoken quite often about my egalitarian views. I believe that the Holy Spirit is not gender specific and that any church “office” that a man can hold can be held by a woman, including pastor. I think the Bible is undoubtedly clear on this and have given ample evidence of this in the past so I won’t go into it here.
But I do not think that homosexuality is good and approved by God. The Biblical evidence is quite clear on this and my experience witnessing to homosexuals confirms it. I strongly disagree with those who think that if we allow women pastors we will soon allow gay pastors. For obvious reasons I do not think this is a logical conclusion. Furthermore, I think it is an insult to women to suggest such a thing. Nevertheless, I do not believe that evangelical leaders are handling the issue as well as they should. The love of Christ is much more effective than legal challenges. You cannot sue the kingdom of God into place.
X. With regards to the issue of soul competency, I agree with the Mullins-Hobbs configuration of this doctrine. With the specific doctrine of the priesthood of the believers, I know many fine and wonderful professors who always correct others and say “priesthood of believers”, plural. I agree that the doctrine has an aspect of corporality about it but I do not believe that is a lack of individuality. One cannot have a corporality without individuals. The NT makes that very clear: individual parts making up a body. Yes, I see the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer as both individual and corporate. I always argue both but since the tendency among my peers is to stress the corporate and deny the individual I tend to stress the individual to argue that it’s still there.
XI. I think the NT model for the church is a plurality of elders/pastors and not a single pastor.
XII. I do not think that the flood story as recounted in Genesis is either literal or strictly historical. I do think there was a flood but I think it was probably localized and not covering the entire earth and every mountain. I think that this is a God-breathed, infallible and inerrant story written for a specific theological purpose that is true for its matter. But regardless of its historical “accurateness”, the meaning does not change for us whether or not we see it as historical or not. The same goes for Genesis 1-3 and Daniel. Furthermore, the meaning of a book of the Bible does not change if the author we suppose is different than the actual author. I think Paul wrote the pastorals, but if he didn’t it does not change its meaning or its truth. The human author does not make a book inspired, only the Holy Spirit.
XIII. I think Roman Catholics will be saved just as Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Pentecostals will be saved. While I disagree with much Roman Catholic theology, I do not think that it thoroughly prevents its adherents from a saving relationship with God. I think that the theology does hinder many, and that’s why it should be spoken against, but I do not think it hinders all. Heck, I think a lot of Southern Baptist theology hinders some from a relationship with God but I know that many Southern Baptists have a relationship with Him.
XIV. Also, I love the theology of Soren Kierkegaard and the neo-orthodox movement, particularly Reinhold Niebuhr and Emil Brunner.
XV. I am fascinated with the new perspective on Paul. I think that it has some wonderful aspects and much to offer. It certainly has answered many questions I have had about Judaism and the theology of Paul.
XVI. I believe that imbibing alcohol is Biblically sound but drunkenness isn’t. [Editorial note: the editor of Panis Circenses is not imbibing alcohol while he is in seminary.]
XVII. I believe God is bigger than anything I can comprehend. I know that I haven’t exhausted the experiences that one can have in relation to God. I am always fascinated to hear of other experiences with God. Therefore, while I certainly believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, I keep an open mind about whether or not conscious faith in Christ is required. I know that many before the time of Christ and without knowledge of Christ were saved by their faith. I currently believe that no one can reject Christ and be saved. He who has faith in God will not reject Christ because Christ is God. Regardless, as the author and psalmist of the book of Jonah wonderfully writes, salvation is of God and not man. I leave the knowledge of another’s salvation up to God and witness to all who either reject Christ or do not have fruit. I would expect other believers to do the same for me.
XVIII. I do believe that a believer can lose their salvation and abandon their relation with God. Every book of the NT, except Philemon, warns the believer to persevere lest they fall. The Parable of the Sower spoken by Jesus and parts of Hebrews and 1 and 2 Peter make this possibility quite clear.
XIX. I do not support capital punishment nor think that Christians should fight in war, but I am not at all dogmatic about this. I have quite a few friends in the military both Christian and non-Christian who I greatly love and I never mention this disagreement to them. I do not think it is a major issue.
XX. Lastly, I interpret “honoring the Sabbath” the way Jesus did. The Sabbath was given to man by God; it is for men and not for God. Jesus worked on the Sabbath when He so chose and so do I. But when Jesus did choose to rest, He took what Leonard Sweet calls “instant sabbaths”. These Sabbaths may be on Sunday or they may not. They maybe only for a few hours but they need to be taken. I think I will take one now.
A DRY CAMPUS
Here is an interesting dialogue from another blog with comments by Southern Seminary president Dr. Al Mohler. As always, a disclaimer: the editor of Panis Circenses is not imbiding alcohol while he is in seminary.
Wheaton College's decision last year to relax their alcohol (and dancing) policy has apparently instigated some policy reform in other fundamentalist institutions (or at least discussion)... Seattle Pacific University is in the midst of such a conversation, according to this story from the Seattle Times.
I'll admit I have a hard time understanding the institutionalized teetotalism discussed here - evangelicals seem to be realizing that many of the activities identified as 'evils' (dancing, cards, movies, alcohol, etc.) by our fundamentalist forbears are not forbidden by Scripture, but are still clinging to the legislation that was the product of such theology. Southern has a similar ban on alcohol use - we are in tobacco country though, so smoke up! - and I got to hear Dr. Mohler address the issue my first semester here in a Systematic Theology class (wondering how that question came up in a Systematic class? Last day of the semester was a free-for-all Q&A!). He explained that he readily admits that there is no biblical warrant for forbidding a Christian use of alcohol. But given the attitudes among Southern Baptists on alcohol (not known for enjoying a glass of Shiraz), it would be unwise to revoke a policy which would cause disunity in the Convention and be a source of worry for members. I'd never thought of the issue in that way - it certainly helped me to understand why people who are so biblical in their theology would retain such a policy (i.e. It would be unbiblical to unecessarily take action that would lead to disunity). So what do you think? Whether you drink or not - Should schools such as Wheaton, SPU, and Southern retain policies for the sake of denominational unity? And for any high-level administrators at evangelical institutions - I'd love your take on this!
Posted by Matt at December 1, 2004 11:38 PM
Comments
Southern can't change its policy. The political ramifications would be huge. Other schools need to evaluate where their denominations are and make the call on a case-by-case basis.
I too am not in favor of the dry policy here in and of itself. But I am in favor of seminaries being accountable to the churches that pay to keep them in business, and I'm glad to submit to the policy if unity can be preserved, and we can hold many weightier theological issues in common.
Posted by: Aaron at December 1, 2004 11:59 PM
if the convention is held together by such tenous issues as alcohol use, then it has bigger troubles than whether or not the seminarians know a white wine from a red. i think this is the problem all we Baptists in general have, on a larger level: that we don't know what unity consists of--we think that it is an achievement, when we do not realize that church unity is an ontological reality. We ARE one body, like it or not.
Posted by: myles at December 2, 2004 12:37 AM
I would hope that Dr. Mohler would labor, over time, to change the policy of the seminary. This is not a huge issue practically, but it has huge implications (What is authoritative: tradition vs. the Word ?, binding consciences without biblical warrant, etc.). With that said, I do respect the desire for unity and peace: we are required to forbear with our brothers. Slow, gradual sanctification (maturity?) vs. radical, take no prisoners revolution is preferred.
Maybe you and Dr. Mohler can discuss over your favorite Merlot? Cigars, too?
Posted by: Brett Flenniken at December 2, 2004 12:41 AM
If that meeting were to ever take place you can be sure it will be reported on here - but it sounds highly unlikely! Maybe over an ice-cold glass of sweet tea.
Posted by: matt h. at December 2, 2004 01:31 AM
I want to go to SBTS... and I understand it's a dry schoool.... but it's SO worth it! (But I mean come on........... no SMIRNOFF ICE???!!!)
Posted by: Aaron Shafovaloff at December 2, 2004 02:02 AM
I like punk rawk. But I was asked by an elder, who's also my occupational supervisor and an administrative pastor at my church, to stop wearing sweatshirts and Dickies jackets that had patches representing certain bands on them. The reason being, these secular bands sang about certain things that might stumble some weaker brothers. It was really hard for me to submit (especially since I spent so much time sewing these patches on), but I did. For these kinds of issues you gotta look at Romans 15:1-3 and 1 Cor 10:32-33.
Posted by: Aaron Lord at December 2, 2004 04:40 AM
I think the dry policy should stand. To do otherwise would send a message that it is acceptable and you open the campus up to other evils. Why does anyone studying for the ministry want to drink on campus or off? I don't understand the want to consume that which is proven to kill brain cells.
Posted by: The Pastor at December 2, 2004 10:37 AM
Pastor - none of these institutions seems to be debating the acceptability of alcohol use among Christians (or ministers). Maybe we should be, I don't know. What other 'evils' would the campus be opened up to? There have been scores of brilliant Christians who enjoyed moderate (and not-so-moderate) alcohol use - the whole 'alcohol kills brain cells' thing just doesn't seem to be very helpful or hold much water. On the same token, why would anyone want to eat McDonalds when it is proven they lead to higher blood pressure, higher cholesterol, higher risk of heart disease, etc.? The subject makes more sense when painted in light of restricting our own Christian liberty for the sake of our brethren (although I'm not sure it should be imposed - still thinking that through).
Posted by: matt h. at December 2, 2004 12:11 PM
There is no prohibition against alcohol, although drunkenness and "addiction" are definitly forbidden. in fact, in Deuteronomy 14:22-26 you will find specific liscence to spend the tithe feasting before the Lord with wine or strong drink. I don't think we can question that.
However, many institutions enforce extra-biblical rules of discipline. Curfews are an example. No one has to abstain for life, or observe a curfew, but if that discipline is too burdensome for the few years he spends in college and/or seminary, he is not fit for leadership.
Times of training are times of enforced discipline. Try joining the army and see how much liberty you have during training. Extreme discipline focuses the mind on the task at hand, and makes better soldiers.
Posted by: david at December 2, 2004 02:21 PM
some discipline instituted by an institution is good. i mean, what would happen if all institutional restraints were released? you'd have a libertarian society, which is...well, i was going to say Republicanism gone to seed...but i won't. (read that with a guilty little smirk that is immediately ashamed of itself).
anyway, yes, discipline. but, there comes a time at which all instititutions, ministerial, or otherwise, have to let the students make that call. otherwise, the mistakes of the past are perpetuated along with the sucesses. some of the successes may be predicated on the mistakes, which is a totally other discussion. however, ministerial training grounds need to let their students make those calls when it comes down to it, given that the students are the church, not only "as well", but also "when the administration is dead".
so, lift your chirazz and drink up.
Posted by: myles at December 3, 2004 09:44 AM
This is a very interesting discussion--and very responsible comments. I want to be intellectually and theologically honest about the alcohol issue. The case for a total abstinence policy is based, not on a clear biblical prohibition of all beverage alcohol use, but on the clear convictions of so many faithful Christians who pay our bills, pray for us, and expect us to uphold the very highest standards of moral conduct. The Scriptural warnings about drunkenness are clear, and many of the families to whom you will minister have been ravaged by alcohol abuse and addiction, or drunk driving and its consequences.
As ministers of the Gospel, we must be very sensitive to the issue of moral credibility. Frankly, alcohol is just not an issue worth wasting even one atom of my leadership credibility--and I would think this true for most Southern Baptists.
One final thought has to do with covenant. This institution makes a covenant with its churches and its students, and that covenant is made by students in accepting admission to the institution--and that covenant binds us all to a total abstinence policy so long as we are enrolled or employed at Southern Seminary. Covenant is a moral issue as well, and, because it each of us enters it willingly, it does not violate Christian liberty. Have a great final exam week. Blog on.
Posted by: AlbertMohler at December 3, 2004 12:21 PM
Oh--and Myles--the administration ain't dead yet.
Still kicking for now.
Posted by: AlbertMohler at December 3, 2004 12:22 PM
myles..you certainly are not a presbyterian...you must be a regular Baptist!!! Its Shiraz NOT chirazz!!!
Posted by: mark at December 3, 2004 05:37 PM
Wow - this post has elicited more interaction than any have in a while, even pulling Dr. Mohler into the conversation. Dr. Mohler - you certainly explained the reasoning for Southern's policy to my satisfaction (and no everyone, I'm not just saying that because I'm a SBTS student and am under covenant obligations!).
David - I do not think the issue of discipline is central here - I would argue that students at Westminster (where they can drink) are just as, if not more, disciplined. If anything, our SBC pastors could use better Christian discipline - not sure that comes from teetotalism.
Here are my two cents. If I were J.P. Boyce and were founding the seminary all over again I certainly would not institute the policy. But I understand and appreciate the position that Dr. Mohler, and we as the SBTS community, are in to be sensitive to our supporting churches. And I think there is some sense in which we should have such a love for our Southern Baptist churches that we would welcome some limited liberties for the sake of not wounding our fellowship and unity. Perhaps this is a case where Luther's paradox of "servant to none/servant to all" is helpful.
Posted by: matt h. at December 3, 2004 08:51 PM
yeah, it was a typo. i know it's "shiraz", as i have some in hand at the moment. and for the record, i seriously don't believe that Albert Mohler, who canned the school of Social Work and, providentially, sent Truett our Dean of Academic Affairs, really posted here.
Posted by: myles at December 4, 2004 07:27 PM
sorry about the last piece. mohler brings up strong feelings in me, most of them not positive. and for that, i apologize. i'm sure he has good intentions, but i just fundamentally disagree with a lot of what he has done. there's no need for social work in the Gospel? the Gospel is social work.
Posted by: myles at December 4, 2004 07:35 PM
I suppose you are entitled to your own evaluation Myles, but from what I can tell the problem was that there was a lot of "social work", but little to none of the gospel. But to say that "the Gospel is social work" certainly requires clarification - I hope you're not going for some good ol' fashioned Rauschenbusch-like theology! Maybe that glass in your hand has clouded your thinking on the matter? :)
Posted by: matt h. at December 4, 2004 09:15 PM
The Gospel is not mere social work nor mere morality, it is relationship and transformation, in my view. Transformation, or discipleship, then leads to both social work and morality. But the spirit that emanates from this new being is not one that gets caught up in the boundary issues but one that gets caught up in hope. Therefore, legalism becomes moot as well as the question of whether or not we are to take care of those in need in our society. Of course we do.
I'd rather give my tithe to a good charity than a morally-fixated church any day. And, I'd rather invest my time in feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, or healing the sick than "evangelizing the lost" any day. (I'm such a hypocrite, though.) ;) Well, maybe not. Because the truth is, I really never find myself doing either. (Give me a break, I'm in an awkward stage in my growth.)
Posted by: Blake at December 6, 2004 12:20 AM
Blake - welcome! But it is troubling that in your comments on the nature of the gospel you never once mention sin, atonement, righteousness, etc. What impedes relationship? Why must we be transformed? Those concepts have no significance apart from a proper perspective on the nature and necessity of the atonement.
And the duty of the church to be active in pursuing a 'redeemed society' is not an either/or... churches should be active in both clothing the naked/feeding the poor and in preaching the full message of Christ's saving work on behalf of his people.
Posted by: matt h. at December 7, 2004 09:27 AM
This is an intersting discussion--one which I stumbled upon in the vacuous world of cyberspace. I applaud Matt H. for raising this question. I'm having a hard time with the logic offered by the Southern administration. Rather than risk controversy (which the Southern Baptist Convention has proven on a global scale that it is not averse to), will the institution continue to bow the proverbial knee to "those who pay the bills"? By this standard, the morals of the future SBC leaders is up for sale, to be mandated by the highest bidder. So instead, they will continue to foster a generation of closet-drinkers, who instill the kind of hypocrisy that is causing a mass exodus from the church. I say, if we are going to be biblical then we must admit that every major character in the Bible (with the possible exception of those acquiescing to the Nazarite mores) drank alcohol. We should therefore educate the layity about the truth. While we are at it, why not treat the students at Southern Seminary like adults, who are free to search the Scriptures and perceive the Spirits guidance without legislation. Peace.
Posted by: Jake at December 7, 2004 04:15 PM
Jake, Southern Seminary is an institution of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is, therefore, accountable to the Southern Baptist churches that collectively form that Convention. This is not selling out to the highest bidder. This is plain old accountability, a concept that the old Southern pretty much missed completely.
This issue is not of paramount importance to the gospel or to Christian theology in general. It is a Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8 kind of issue, one in which we are called to be fully convinced in our own minds, but always acting in a loving way toward the conscience of others. It's not worth fighting over.
The reason Southern Seminary has been such a controversial place in the last ten years is because the school has returned to being accountable to the churches of the convention. Those who formerly ran things around here, who didn't want things to go that way, are the ones who reacted and made the issue controversial.
Posted by: Aaron at December 10, 2004 01:15 AM
you assume that the churches had the light as it were, while the old Southern was a ship tossed in the sea. what if the old Southern was speaking valued words to churches that did not want to hear? just a thought. our institutions of learning have a role that, if we let them, is prophetic to the local congregation, illuminating blind spots that sometimes persist.
Posted by: myles at December 11, 2004 06:07 PM
Yes, I do make that assumption, but not without good warrant.
Posted by: Aaron at December 11, 2004 10:14 PM
seeing as many of my profs from two different schools did their PhD at the "old Southern", i'd be interested to hear someone's take on it now, as to the differences before and after.
Posted by: myles at December 13, 2004 10:02 AM
anyone? bueller, bueller?
Posted by: myles at December 15, 2004 10:02 AM
Are you looking for a perspective from current students/faculty?
Posted by: matt h. at December 15, 2004 02:02 PM
either one. seriously. i'm interested in the student perspective on the new/old.
Posted by: myles at December 15, 2004 06:26 PM
Well, seeing as this post is fading into the background, I suppose I'll give it a shot. The climate at SBTS pre-1993 will be interpreted differently depending on who you talk to. I know conservative students who were here during the time who were shocked at the heresy they heard in the classroom, even denying the virgin birth. The problematic thing is that while full-fledged liberalism was being taught, it was done with a wink and smile. Professors would encourage students to adopt the traditional language of SBC churches, and to not show their theological cards. So you had a generation of pastors who came out "sounding" orthodox, but when pressed, they subscribed to a host of heretical views. Moderates seem to remember the days being marked by tolerance, openness, and a heightened 'academic vigour.' Battle for the Minds, a documentary on the events surrounding Molly Marshall's dismissal at SBTS, is probably a fair representation of the moderate position (although it is a gross misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the conservative agenda).
As far as the current climate goes - it is a human institution like any other and has problems and faults to be sure. But in spite of these, the seminary is grounded in its historic and biblical commitments. It has become less inbred as outstanding scholars from outside of the SBC have been brought in to join the faculty. There is a heightened commitment to the local church, as students and faculty are actively involved in ministry and service (I've been told that pre-1993 faculty were expressly not allowed to serve in any pastoral office in local churches). Above all there is an understanding that the institution exists to serve our SBC churches, so students - whether they plan on teaching, pastoring, engaging in foreign mission work - are constantly reminded and pointed toward a greater love and commitment to the church in accord with biblical truth.
Wheaton College's decision last year to relax their alcohol (and dancing) policy has apparently instigated some policy reform in other fundamentalist institutions (or at least discussion)... Seattle Pacific University is in the midst of such a conversation, according to this story from the Seattle Times.
I'll admit I have a hard time understanding the institutionalized teetotalism discussed here - evangelicals seem to be realizing that many of the activities identified as 'evils' (dancing, cards, movies, alcohol, etc.) by our fundamentalist forbears are not forbidden by Scripture, but are still clinging to the legislation that was the product of such theology. Southern has a similar ban on alcohol use - we are in tobacco country though, so smoke up! - and I got to hear Dr. Mohler address the issue my first semester here in a Systematic Theology class (wondering how that question came up in a Systematic class? Last day of the semester was a free-for-all Q&A!). He explained that he readily admits that there is no biblical warrant for forbidding a Christian use of alcohol. But given the attitudes among Southern Baptists on alcohol (not known for enjoying a glass of Shiraz), it would be unwise to revoke a policy which would cause disunity in the Convention and be a source of worry for members. I'd never thought of the issue in that way - it certainly helped me to understand why people who are so biblical in their theology would retain such a policy (i.e. It would be unbiblical to unecessarily take action that would lead to disunity). So what do you think? Whether you drink or not - Should schools such as Wheaton, SPU, and Southern retain policies for the sake of denominational unity? And for any high-level administrators at evangelical institutions - I'd love your take on this!
Posted by Matt at December 1, 2004 11:38 PM
Comments
Southern can't change its policy. The political ramifications would be huge. Other schools need to evaluate where their denominations are and make the call on a case-by-case basis.
I too am not in favor of the dry policy here in and of itself. But I am in favor of seminaries being accountable to the churches that pay to keep them in business, and I'm glad to submit to the policy if unity can be preserved, and we can hold many weightier theological issues in common.
Posted by: Aaron at December 1, 2004 11:59 PM
if the convention is held together by such tenous issues as alcohol use, then it has bigger troubles than whether or not the seminarians know a white wine from a red. i think this is the problem all we Baptists in general have, on a larger level: that we don't know what unity consists of--we think that it is an achievement, when we do not realize that church unity is an ontological reality. We ARE one body, like it or not.
Posted by: myles at December 2, 2004 12:37 AM
I would hope that Dr. Mohler would labor, over time, to change the policy of the seminary. This is not a huge issue practically, but it has huge implications (What is authoritative: tradition vs. the Word ?, binding consciences without biblical warrant, etc.). With that said, I do respect the desire for unity and peace: we are required to forbear with our brothers. Slow, gradual sanctification (maturity?) vs. radical, take no prisoners revolution is preferred.
Maybe you and Dr. Mohler can discuss over your favorite Merlot? Cigars, too?
Posted by: Brett Flenniken at December 2, 2004 12:41 AM
If that meeting were to ever take place you can be sure it will be reported on here - but it sounds highly unlikely! Maybe over an ice-cold glass of sweet tea.
Posted by: matt h. at December 2, 2004 01:31 AM
I want to go to SBTS... and I understand it's a dry schoool.... but it's SO worth it! (But I mean come on........... no SMIRNOFF ICE???!!!)
Posted by: Aaron Shafovaloff at December 2, 2004 02:02 AM
I like punk rawk. But I was asked by an elder, who's also my occupational supervisor and an administrative pastor at my church, to stop wearing sweatshirts and Dickies jackets that had patches representing certain bands on them. The reason being, these secular bands sang about certain things that might stumble some weaker brothers. It was really hard for me to submit (especially since I spent so much time sewing these patches on), but I did. For these kinds of issues you gotta look at Romans 15:1-3 and 1 Cor 10:32-33.
Posted by: Aaron Lord at December 2, 2004 04:40 AM
I think the dry policy should stand. To do otherwise would send a message that it is acceptable and you open the campus up to other evils. Why does anyone studying for the ministry want to drink on campus or off? I don't understand the want to consume that which is proven to kill brain cells.
Posted by: The Pastor at December 2, 2004 10:37 AM
Pastor - none of these institutions seems to be debating the acceptability of alcohol use among Christians (or ministers). Maybe we should be, I don't know. What other 'evils' would the campus be opened up to? There have been scores of brilliant Christians who enjoyed moderate (and not-so-moderate) alcohol use - the whole 'alcohol kills brain cells' thing just doesn't seem to be very helpful or hold much water. On the same token, why would anyone want to eat McDonalds when it is proven they lead to higher blood pressure, higher cholesterol, higher risk of heart disease, etc.? The subject makes more sense when painted in light of restricting our own Christian liberty for the sake of our brethren (although I'm not sure it should be imposed - still thinking that through).
Posted by: matt h. at December 2, 2004 12:11 PM
There is no prohibition against alcohol, although drunkenness and "addiction" are definitly forbidden. in fact, in Deuteronomy 14:22-26 you will find specific liscence to spend the tithe feasting before the Lord with wine or strong drink. I don't think we can question that.
However, many institutions enforce extra-biblical rules of discipline. Curfews are an example. No one has to abstain for life, or observe a curfew, but if that discipline is too burdensome for the few years he spends in college and/or seminary, he is not fit for leadership.
Times of training are times of enforced discipline. Try joining the army and see how much liberty you have during training. Extreme discipline focuses the mind on the task at hand, and makes better soldiers.
Posted by: david at December 2, 2004 02:21 PM
some discipline instituted by an institution is good. i mean, what would happen if all institutional restraints were released? you'd have a libertarian society, which is...well, i was going to say Republicanism gone to seed...but i won't. (read that with a guilty little smirk that is immediately ashamed of itself).
anyway, yes, discipline. but, there comes a time at which all instititutions, ministerial, or otherwise, have to let the students make that call. otherwise, the mistakes of the past are perpetuated along with the sucesses. some of the successes may be predicated on the mistakes, which is a totally other discussion. however, ministerial training grounds need to let their students make those calls when it comes down to it, given that the students are the church, not only "as well", but also "when the administration is dead".
so, lift your chirazz and drink up.
Posted by: myles at December 3, 2004 09:44 AM
This is a very interesting discussion--and very responsible comments. I want to be intellectually and theologically honest about the alcohol issue. The case for a total abstinence policy is based, not on a clear biblical prohibition of all beverage alcohol use, but on the clear convictions of so many faithful Christians who pay our bills, pray for us, and expect us to uphold the very highest standards of moral conduct. The Scriptural warnings about drunkenness are clear, and many of the families to whom you will minister have been ravaged by alcohol abuse and addiction, or drunk driving and its consequences.
As ministers of the Gospel, we must be very sensitive to the issue of moral credibility. Frankly, alcohol is just not an issue worth wasting even one atom of my leadership credibility--and I would think this true for most Southern Baptists.
One final thought has to do with covenant. This institution makes a covenant with its churches and its students, and that covenant is made by students in accepting admission to the institution--and that covenant binds us all to a total abstinence policy so long as we are enrolled or employed at Southern Seminary. Covenant is a moral issue as well, and, because it each of us enters it willingly, it does not violate Christian liberty. Have a great final exam week. Blog on.
Posted by: AlbertMohler at December 3, 2004 12:21 PM
Oh--and Myles--the administration ain't dead yet.
Still kicking for now.
Posted by: AlbertMohler at December 3, 2004 12:22 PM
myles..you certainly are not a presbyterian...you must be a regular Baptist!!! Its Shiraz NOT chirazz!!!
Posted by: mark at December 3, 2004 05:37 PM
Wow - this post has elicited more interaction than any have in a while, even pulling Dr. Mohler into the conversation. Dr. Mohler - you certainly explained the reasoning for Southern's policy to my satisfaction (and no everyone, I'm not just saying that because I'm a SBTS student and am under covenant obligations!).
David - I do not think the issue of discipline is central here - I would argue that students at Westminster (where they can drink) are just as, if not more, disciplined. If anything, our SBC pastors could use better Christian discipline - not sure that comes from teetotalism.
Here are my two cents. If I were J.P. Boyce and were founding the seminary all over again I certainly would not institute the policy. But I understand and appreciate the position that Dr. Mohler, and we as the SBTS community, are in to be sensitive to our supporting churches. And I think there is some sense in which we should have such a love for our Southern Baptist churches that we would welcome some limited liberties for the sake of not wounding our fellowship and unity. Perhaps this is a case where Luther's paradox of "servant to none/servant to all" is helpful.
Posted by: matt h. at December 3, 2004 08:51 PM
yeah, it was a typo. i know it's "shiraz", as i have some in hand at the moment. and for the record, i seriously don't believe that Albert Mohler, who canned the school of Social Work and, providentially, sent Truett our Dean of Academic Affairs, really posted here.
Posted by: myles at December 4, 2004 07:27 PM
sorry about the last piece. mohler brings up strong feelings in me, most of them not positive. and for that, i apologize. i'm sure he has good intentions, but i just fundamentally disagree with a lot of what he has done. there's no need for social work in the Gospel? the Gospel is social work.
Posted by: myles at December 4, 2004 07:35 PM
I suppose you are entitled to your own evaluation Myles, but from what I can tell the problem was that there was a lot of "social work", but little to none of the gospel. But to say that "the Gospel is social work" certainly requires clarification - I hope you're not going for some good ol' fashioned Rauschenbusch-like theology! Maybe that glass in your hand has clouded your thinking on the matter? :)
Posted by: matt h. at December 4, 2004 09:15 PM
The Gospel is not mere social work nor mere morality, it is relationship and transformation, in my view. Transformation, or discipleship, then leads to both social work and morality. But the spirit that emanates from this new being is not one that gets caught up in the boundary issues but one that gets caught up in hope. Therefore, legalism becomes moot as well as the question of whether or not we are to take care of those in need in our society. Of course we do.
I'd rather give my tithe to a good charity than a morally-fixated church any day. And, I'd rather invest my time in feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, or healing the sick than "evangelizing the lost" any day. (I'm such a hypocrite, though.) ;) Well, maybe not. Because the truth is, I really never find myself doing either. (Give me a break, I'm in an awkward stage in my growth.)
Posted by: Blake at December 6, 2004 12:20 AM
Blake - welcome! But it is troubling that in your comments on the nature of the gospel you never once mention sin, atonement, righteousness, etc. What impedes relationship? Why must we be transformed? Those concepts have no significance apart from a proper perspective on the nature and necessity of the atonement.
And the duty of the church to be active in pursuing a 'redeemed society' is not an either/or... churches should be active in both clothing the naked/feeding the poor and in preaching the full message of Christ's saving work on behalf of his people.
Posted by: matt h. at December 7, 2004 09:27 AM
This is an intersting discussion--one which I stumbled upon in the vacuous world of cyberspace. I applaud Matt H. for raising this question. I'm having a hard time with the logic offered by the Southern administration. Rather than risk controversy (which the Southern Baptist Convention has proven on a global scale that it is not averse to), will the institution continue to bow the proverbial knee to "those who pay the bills"? By this standard, the morals of the future SBC leaders is up for sale, to be mandated by the highest bidder. So instead, they will continue to foster a generation of closet-drinkers, who instill the kind of hypocrisy that is causing a mass exodus from the church. I say, if we are going to be biblical then we must admit that every major character in the Bible (with the possible exception of those acquiescing to the Nazarite mores) drank alcohol. We should therefore educate the layity about the truth. While we are at it, why not treat the students at Southern Seminary like adults, who are free to search the Scriptures and perceive the Spirits guidance without legislation. Peace.
Posted by: Jake at December 7, 2004 04:15 PM
Jake, Southern Seminary is an institution of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is, therefore, accountable to the Southern Baptist churches that collectively form that Convention. This is not selling out to the highest bidder. This is plain old accountability, a concept that the old Southern pretty much missed completely.
This issue is not of paramount importance to the gospel or to Christian theology in general. It is a Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8 kind of issue, one in which we are called to be fully convinced in our own minds, but always acting in a loving way toward the conscience of others. It's not worth fighting over.
The reason Southern Seminary has been such a controversial place in the last ten years is because the school has returned to being accountable to the churches of the convention. Those who formerly ran things around here, who didn't want things to go that way, are the ones who reacted and made the issue controversial.
Posted by: Aaron at December 10, 2004 01:15 AM
you assume that the churches had the light as it were, while the old Southern was a ship tossed in the sea. what if the old Southern was speaking valued words to churches that did not want to hear? just a thought. our institutions of learning have a role that, if we let them, is prophetic to the local congregation, illuminating blind spots that sometimes persist.
Posted by: myles at December 11, 2004 06:07 PM
Yes, I do make that assumption, but not without good warrant.
Posted by: Aaron at December 11, 2004 10:14 PM
seeing as many of my profs from two different schools did their PhD at the "old Southern", i'd be interested to hear someone's take on it now, as to the differences before and after.
Posted by: myles at December 13, 2004 10:02 AM
anyone? bueller, bueller?
Posted by: myles at December 15, 2004 10:02 AM
Are you looking for a perspective from current students/faculty?
Posted by: matt h. at December 15, 2004 02:02 PM
either one. seriously. i'm interested in the student perspective on the new/old.
Posted by: myles at December 15, 2004 06:26 PM
Well, seeing as this post is fading into the background, I suppose I'll give it a shot. The climate at SBTS pre-1993 will be interpreted differently depending on who you talk to. I know conservative students who were here during the time who were shocked at the heresy they heard in the classroom, even denying the virgin birth. The problematic thing is that while full-fledged liberalism was being taught, it was done with a wink and smile. Professors would encourage students to adopt the traditional language of SBC churches, and to not show their theological cards. So you had a generation of pastors who came out "sounding" orthodox, but when pressed, they subscribed to a host of heretical views. Moderates seem to remember the days being marked by tolerance, openness, and a heightened 'academic vigour.' Battle for the Minds, a documentary on the events surrounding Molly Marshall's dismissal at SBTS, is probably a fair representation of the moderate position (although it is a gross misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the conservative agenda).
As far as the current climate goes - it is a human institution like any other and has problems and faults to be sure. But in spite of these, the seminary is grounded in its historic and biblical commitments. It has become less inbred as outstanding scholars from outside of the SBC have been brought in to join the faculty. There is a heightened commitment to the local church, as students and faculty are actively involved in ministry and service (I've been told that pre-1993 faculty were expressly not allowed to serve in any pastoral office in local churches). Above all there is an understanding that the institution exists to serve our SBC churches, so students - whether they plan on teaching, pastoring, engaging in foreign mission work - are constantly reminded and pointed toward a greater love and commitment to the church in accord with biblical truth.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Left Las Vegas
Well, I went to Vegas this weekend. … Remember those two lispy, limp-wristed movie critics played by Damon Wayans and David Alan Grier on In Living Color? Well, their catch-phrase seems to accurately sum up my feelings about Las Vegas: “Hated it.”
I had planned to write a “gonzo” journalistic piece about my experiences in Vegas but the town was so vapid that I’d rather not waste my energy and talents. Hunter S. Thompson may find inspiration but Circenses couldn’t find interest. I am probably the only person in America who finds Las Vegas boring. Absolutely, mind-blowingly, baby-smackingly, boring! So boring, in fact, that I can’t even use my displeasure of Vegas to write a satirical piece. Five points.
First, I did not gamble and never would. Even so, even if I was inclined to gamble, I am such a non-conformist that I would never want to demean myself by associating my actions with the actions of others. I walked through many casinos and found it ludicrous. Old people and trashy middle-agers wasting hours in front of machines that rob them of their money and time. Sort of like those who play video games and blog too much. You know who you are. Anyway, the casino halls are full of people without souls. “No souls,” I said to my wife. Abject humanity living in a limbo or worse, living in their own hell. Everyone is in hell and no one knows it.
Second, the food is terrible. No matter where I went and no matter how much I paid I found the food to be horrible. I came to the conclusion that eating is of secondary importance in Las Vegas. No one really thinks about it. They are more concerned about gambling, fornicating, and drinking, in that order. It’s almost like they finally come to the conclusion after some time of debauchery that, “Oh, yeah. I do need to eat,” and anything will do. And those who provide the food are also the ones who provide the debauchery of gambling, fornicating and drinking. They realize, “Oh, yeah, we need to provide food for people to continue gambling, fornicating and drinking,” and anything will do. I was very disappointed with the cuisine.
Third, everything is an illusion. There is nothing of substance there. Small wonder that magicians thrive there. The hotels are all lights while the construction is shoddy. Even when you find a wonderfully designed hotel like the Bellagio or the Venetian, the supposed marble and stone and wood are all facades of painted plaster and plastic. It is a good illusion but an illusion none the less. Las Vegas is almost like an adult version of Disney World. If you can’t go around the world then come to Vegas where you can visit Venice, Paris, Egypt, Rome, and New York all within blocks of one another. Quite tacky. (I actually took a gondola ride inside a hotel made to resemble Venice!) But the illusions don’t stop there. Everywhere you go you see comedians impersonating famous celebrities: you have comedians becoming famous for impersonating people more famous than themselves! Furthermore, there are countless acts where people impersonate certain individuals for a living from Elvis to Joan Rivers. Ludicrous! If anything, this lack of substance was more distasteful than anything to me. A real affront to my sensibilities.
Fourth, pornea. Adult bookstores, topless dancers, g-strings, slots and sluts, bikini bull-riding and poor Mexicans passing out pornography. Nuff said.
Finally, I could not get comfortable in order to enjoy myself. Now I am in seminary and not allowed to imbibe alcohol, but even if I could drink in Vegas (which I didn’t) I wouldn’t. The places to drink are so ghastly that I could not enjoy a Guinness or a Martini in such a place. And the people only appear to drink to get drunk and that’s quite revolting. Alcohol is a gift from God and we should not abuse such a gift by over-indulging. Yes, I have to be comfortable to enjoy the pleasures of life. I saw nothing there that resembled the Eagle and the Child.
So was there anything good about this weekend? Yes. Eight points.
1. Free parking. I never had to pay to park and there were plenty of places to park. The hotels do not charge for parking because they know they will get your money other ways. They just want you in the hotels and will suffer allowing you to park for free in order to just get you in.
2. Hoover Dam. The dam is only half an hour from Vegas and worth the trip. I can now say that I have been to Hoover Dam.
3. The Grand Canyon. I flew over the Grand Canyon and enjoyed the view. That natural wonder ain’t no result of 40 days of flooding. Let’s not cheapen God’s natural work by making it as much of an illusion as Vegas is.
4. The West. I have now gone farther west than I have ever gone and can add two more states to my list of ventures.
5. The Book of Daniel. I brought a few books to read while I was in Vegas. One was an Anchor Bible Commentary on the Book of Daniel. This was one of the best commentaries that I have ever read. I highly recommend it. My knowledge of the book of Daniel and the Bible in general has grown considerably. I’ll write more on this in due time.
6. A good deed. My wife was given three bucks by some friends of her mother’s with which to gamble. Well, when we both made up our mind that we were not going to deposit any funds into the game I made up my mind to give the money to charity. So the first time I saw a Salvation Army worker outside a Walmart, I gave him the money. Take that Vegas!
7. Starbucks in the hotel. Nuff said.
8. The book. I am now able to appreciate the Thompson book a lot more now that I have seen the "real" thing. I now know what Thompson was talking about when he spoke about "Fear and Loathing"; it's all there. The people, the hotels, the dreaded Circus Circus. Yes, I visited the Circus Circus and saw the carousel bar where "the fear" got to Dr. Gonzo. I now understand.
9. And this is the kicker: In Vegas, we won. We did not gamble at all, but we left with more money than we started with and more money than we put into the system. It has been said, very accurately, that the house always wins. Well, this time the house did not win. I am not going to tell you how all this occurred, but let me just say that this time we won and won big and made out with flippin’ great wads of cash.
So I really suppose that this was a good experience from several stand points, but still I hope I never go back to Vegas.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
I am off to Las Vegas this weekend. I'll be staying at the Golden Nugget in the heart of downtown.
I won't give any details on what I plan to do, but I will try to give my impressions when I get back. I'd like to write a "gonzo" post ala Thompson's book. I plan to bring along a notebook and scribble notes as I go.
I actually studied Hunter S. Thompson my first year of college and wrote a few "gonzo" journalistic pieces throughout my time at ASU. One piece told of a friend and myself searching for a store throughout Washington D.C. for a place that sold beer at night. [Editorial note: the author of Panis Circenses is not imbibing alchohol during his time in seminary.] The piece was quite good and was published in my school's history journal. I attempted to write some "gonzo" pieces this summer and early fall but a few good people in high authority did not appreciate what I was trying to do. I think I will try again, but this time I plan to make sure that everyone knows that this journalsitic story is simulated fiction/non-fiction. That is, it's a true story that has been exagerated with fiction for effect and emphasis. The only problem is that I do not think that it can be called "gonzo" if you admit that the story is partly fiction.
I've been writing a novel both off and on now for four years, but mostly off. I do have this one chapter that is ... well, I won't describe it, but it does involve subjects which my experiences in Las Vegas might help inspire. I might incorporate some of my "gonzo" post into the chapter.
Regardless, I do have a great number of other posts I have been planning to write but I will probably not post them until after Christmas when I am on my break from work.
Enjoy your weekend. Anything worth doing is worth doing well.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Reality Bites
Ain’t nothing like the real thing.
— Catherine Seipp is a writer in California who publishes the weblog Cathy's World. She is an NRO contributor.
I tried to watch The Real Gilligan's Island, the new TBS reality series in which two Skippers, two Gilligans, etc. compete to see who can be rescued first, but gave up on the wretched enterprise after 15 minutes. And it's not because I'm too highbrow for Gilligan's Island either — far from it.
Shortly after Sept. 11, I began thinking that the wonderful thing about Gilligan's Island — which has been dubbed into 30 languages and has never, not once, been off the air since its CBS premiere 40 years ago — is how perpetually enraging it must be to anti-Americans around the globe. When the Castaways put on a show, it's always a festival of Dead White Males — a musical version of Hamlet, to the tune of Carmen.
And the characters! The Millionaire displays an unseemly Western uxoriousness toward to his one wife — insulting to societies where women are fourth-class citizens, after the children and the camels. Mary Ann, besides her fondness for short-shorts, is offensively spunky to anyone who thinks women belong in burkas.
Then there's Gilligan, the essence of the naïve, childish American — as Americans are so often described, ad nauseum, abroad. But bumbling, unsophisticated Gilligan has a way of ruining the plans of every Soviet cosmonaut or banana-republic dictator who drops by the island.
"Representing the average citizen at his most ordinary," literary critic Paul Cantor wrote in his 2001 book Gilligan Unbound: Pop Culture In the Age of Globalization, "Gilligan presides over a kind of democratic utopia on the island and is repeatedly called upon to act as its savior." What's more, he always prevails.
But that's fiction, which even in its schlocky pop culture form can expand to the larger-than-life dimensions of myth. The Real Gilligan's Island, on the other hand, is a tedious, sorry business in which one of the Mary Anns gives a Millionaire a suggestive backrub, and a Skipper turns blue and has to be airlifted off the island for medical reasons. (He later returns, to the maudlin tears of his fellow contestants.) And that's reality — or at least, the small, base, hot-tub-hopping world of reality TV.
Even when reality shows have at first a certain amount of charm — American Idol, The Simple Life, The Apprentice, for instance — they become unbearable fairly quickly, which doesn't stop networks from putting on endless new versions. Not that they're proud of it, of course.
"Reality shows are not the kind of thing that develops connectivity and emotional relationships with our viewers," former WB entertainment president Jordan Levin said at a news conference, adding that "I don't think the economics of reality programming, once you dig through the numbers, are all that advantageous."
This doesn't mean that Levin didn't enjoy the quick (if unemotional) fix of High School Reunion's boffo ratings, for instance, maybe just that he hated himself while doing so. In any case, the WB premiered a new version of the show this week.
Reality is the genre that everyone loves to hate. Dick Van Dyke poked his finger down his throat and made a gagging noise when reporters asked his opinion about it. Writer-producer Judd Apatow, bitter when his critically acclaimed but low-rated college comedy Undeclared was about to be cancelled by FOX a few years ago, sent an angry e-mail to fans when the producers of FOX's The Chamber and ABC's The Chair began fighting over who thought of which sadistic, gross-out game show first.
"So basically they've turned Clockwork Orange into a show," Apatow complained. "The people who control TV are scared and desperate right now. The only thing worse than a crappy TV show which Paddy Chayevsky couldn't have conceived in his worst nightmare is two megacorps fighting over who thought of the crappy show first."
"That's the television business, it's not show business," veteran manager and producer Bernie Brillstein shrugged about reality TV when I sat chatting with him after lunch one afternoon. Brillstein's many TV hits include The Sopranos, Politically Incorrect, and Saturday Night Live. Still, he's realistic about reality, even though he predicts dourly that one day some network is going to come with a reality show called simply Gross!
"I hate reality shows," Brillstein told me. "It goes against everything I believe in. But you've got to fill 21 hours of programming so what are you gonna do? I don't believe any of these network executives wake up in the morning and say, 'Oh, my God, I've gotta do Fear Factor.' They're intelligent, decent guys. But they have to come up with cheaper programming because there aren't a lot of stars left in the business. Milton Berle's show did 80 percent" — meaning that 80 percent of viewers watching TV at the time were watching Berle — "now if you get 17 percent of the audience you're doing well."
Brillstein, by the way, is a macher on a mission — to pass on the deal-making smarts he's learned in his half-century in show business. An example: "Because I'm fat, people believe I'm somehow vulnerable and easy to handle in a negotiation," he writes in his delightful new book The Little Stuff Matters Most: 50 Rules From 50 Years of Trying to Make a Living. "Ever try to negotiate with a fat guy? We can be mean: Marvin Davis, Harvey Weinstein, Hermann Goering. No one screws around with us for long."
He shrugged when I asked him what makes a successful TV show. "Most hits are pretty much a mystery," he said. "I didn't know that The Sopranos was going to be a hit. I thought the Tea Leoni show would be a hit."
Back to Gilligan's Island: Maybe it's worth remembering, in this year of the show's 40th anniversary, that few hit series have been so originally reviled. Gilligan got almost uniformly terrible reviews, and CBS hated the show and rejected it three times. Only the ecstatic response from test audiences persuaded them to grudgingly change their minds.
For his part, Schwartz named the Castaways' ship the S.S. Minnow as a jab at then FCC chairman Newton Minow, who'd famously characterized television as "a vast wasteland." CBS chief William S. Paley was horrified — "I thought it was supposed to be a comedy!" — at Schwartz's description of "Gilligan's Island" as a social microcosm.
Schwartz's response is a classic of let's-save-the-pitch quick-thinking: "It's a funny microcosm!"
The Real Gilligan's Island, along with most reality TV, will quickly vanish from the pop-culture radar — unremembered and unlamented. The real Gilligan's Island, on the other hand, remains a funny microcosm that will continue to make glad the hearts of rerun fans around the world.
Consider this: Some years ago, actress Dawn Wells visited one of the remotest islands in the already remote Solomon Islands; she was, in fact, the first non-native woman to set foot there. The chief's wife stared at Wells in surprise when she came out of her hut. "Mary Ann?" she asked in amazement.
— Catherine Seipp is a writer in California who publishes the weblog Cathy's World. She is an NRO contributor.
I tried to watch The Real Gilligan's Island, the new TBS reality series in which two Skippers, two Gilligans, etc. compete to see who can be rescued first, but gave up on the wretched enterprise after 15 minutes. And it's not because I'm too highbrow for Gilligan's Island either — far from it.
Shortly after Sept. 11, I began thinking that the wonderful thing about Gilligan's Island — which has been dubbed into 30 languages and has never, not once, been off the air since its CBS premiere 40 years ago — is how perpetually enraging it must be to anti-Americans around the globe. When the Castaways put on a show, it's always a festival of Dead White Males — a musical version of Hamlet, to the tune of Carmen.
And the characters! The Millionaire displays an unseemly Western uxoriousness toward to his one wife — insulting to societies where women are fourth-class citizens, after the children and the camels. Mary Ann, besides her fondness for short-shorts, is offensively spunky to anyone who thinks women belong in burkas.
Then there's Gilligan, the essence of the naïve, childish American — as Americans are so often described, ad nauseum, abroad. But bumbling, unsophisticated Gilligan has a way of ruining the plans of every Soviet cosmonaut or banana-republic dictator who drops by the island.
"Representing the average citizen at his most ordinary," literary critic Paul Cantor wrote in his 2001 book Gilligan Unbound: Pop Culture In the Age of Globalization, "Gilligan presides over a kind of democratic utopia on the island and is repeatedly called upon to act as its savior." What's more, he always prevails.
But that's fiction, which even in its schlocky pop culture form can expand to the larger-than-life dimensions of myth. The Real Gilligan's Island, on the other hand, is a tedious, sorry business in which one of the Mary Anns gives a Millionaire a suggestive backrub, and a Skipper turns blue and has to be airlifted off the island for medical reasons. (He later returns, to the maudlin tears of his fellow contestants.) And that's reality — or at least, the small, base, hot-tub-hopping world of reality TV.
Even when reality shows have at first a certain amount of charm — American Idol, The Simple Life, The Apprentice, for instance — they become unbearable fairly quickly, which doesn't stop networks from putting on endless new versions. Not that they're proud of it, of course.
"Reality shows are not the kind of thing that develops connectivity and emotional relationships with our viewers," former WB entertainment president Jordan Levin said at a news conference, adding that "I don't think the economics of reality programming, once you dig through the numbers, are all that advantageous."
This doesn't mean that Levin didn't enjoy the quick (if unemotional) fix of High School Reunion's boffo ratings, for instance, maybe just that he hated himself while doing so. In any case, the WB premiered a new version of the show this week.
Reality is the genre that everyone loves to hate. Dick Van Dyke poked his finger down his throat and made a gagging noise when reporters asked his opinion about it. Writer-producer Judd Apatow, bitter when his critically acclaimed but low-rated college comedy Undeclared was about to be cancelled by FOX a few years ago, sent an angry e-mail to fans when the producers of FOX's The Chamber and ABC's The Chair began fighting over who thought of which sadistic, gross-out game show first.
"So basically they've turned Clockwork Orange into a show," Apatow complained. "The people who control TV are scared and desperate right now. The only thing worse than a crappy TV show which Paddy Chayevsky couldn't have conceived in his worst nightmare is two megacorps fighting over who thought of the crappy show first."
"That's the television business, it's not show business," veteran manager and producer Bernie Brillstein shrugged about reality TV when I sat chatting with him after lunch one afternoon. Brillstein's many TV hits include The Sopranos, Politically Incorrect, and Saturday Night Live. Still, he's realistic about reality, even though he predicts dourly that one day some network is going to come with a reality show called simply Gross!
"I hate reality shows," Brillstein told me. "It goes against everything I believe in. But you've got to fill 21 hours of programming so what are you gonna do? I don't believe any of these network executives wake up in the morning and say, 'Oh, my God, I've gotta do Fear Factor.' They're intelligent, decent guys. But they have to come up with cheaper programming because there aren't a lot of stars left in the business. Milton Berle's show did 80 percent" — meaning that 80 percent of viewers watching TV at the time were watching Berle — "now if you get 17 percent of the audience you're doing well."
Brillstein, by the way, is a macher on a mission — to pass on the deal-making smarts he's learned in his half-century in show business. An example: "Because I'm fat, people believe I'm somehow vulnerable and easy to handle in a negotiation," he writes in his delightful new book The Little Stuff Matters Most: 50 Rules From 50 Years of Trying to Make a Living. "Ever try to negotiate with a fat guy? We can be mean: Marvin Davis, Harvey Weinstein, Hermann Goering. No one screws around with us for long."
He shrugged when I asked him what makes a successful TV show. "Most hits are pretty much a mystery," he said. "I didn't know that The Sopranos was going to be a hit. I thought the Tea Leoni show would be a hit."
Back to Gilligan's Island: Maybe it's worth remembering, in this year of the show's 40th anniversary, that few hit series have been so originally reviled. Gilligan got almost uniformly terrible reviews, and CBS hated the show and rejected it three times. Only the ecstatic response from test audiences persuaded them to grudgingly change their minds.
For his part, Schwartz named the Castaways' ship the S.S. Minnow as a jab at then FCC chairman Newton Minow, who'd famously characterized television as "a vast wasteland." CBS chief William S. Paley was horrified — "I thought it was supposed to be a comedy!" — at Schwartz's description of "Gilligan's Island" as a social microcosm.
Schwartz's response is a classic of let's-save-the-pitch quick-thinking: "It's a funny microcosm!"
The Real Gilligan's Island, along with most reality TV, will quickly vanish from the pop-culture radar — unremembered and unlamented. The real Gilligan's Island, on the other hand, remains a funny microcosm that will continue to make glad the hearts of rerun fans around the world.
Consider this: Some years ago, actress Dawn Wells visited one of the remotest islands in the already remote Solomon Islands; she was, in fact, the first non-native woman to set foot there. The chief's wife stared at Wells in surprise when she came out of her hut. "Mary Ann?" she asked in amazement.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Melchizedek and Christ
Panis:
I agree that the writer of Hebrews is trying to draw a contrast between the Levitical priesthood and Christ. Obviously, as you said, the focus of the writer is on Christ. Still, there seems to be some problems with your argument and Ralph's argument.
First, you assume that an overwhelming majority of people from pre-1963 to the present have seen Melchizedek as something other than a type of Christ. This may or may not be the case. Either way, as you insinuated, the majority of scholarly opinion today is that Melchizedek is a type. I believe this to be true, personally. From your post, I think you believe this as well.
Second, (switching to Ralph here) if Melchizedek was a priest of Baal, where is the Hebrew term for Baal in Genesis 14? It is completely absent. Furthermore, if this is indeed a reference to Baal in Genesis 14, can you find any other instances anywhere in the Old Testament where Baal is referred to as El Elyon?
The typeology in Hebrews 7 contrasted with Ralph's interpretation of Genesis 14 is what does him in. Let's say that Melchizedek is a high priest of Baal. That means that the writer of Hebrews is using a high priest of Baal as a type of Christ.
That, of course, is liberal theology through and through. Nowhere in the Bible is there an instance of anything overtly pagan being used as a type of Christ. Why would the writer of Hebrews draw similarities between a high priest of Baal and Christ? Just because of some supposed "legends?" That argument makes no sense.
The problem that the people in the SBC had with Ralph's commentary was that it was overwhelmingly liberal in its theology. The Genesis 14 interpretation is just one example.
Circenses:
First, you assume that an overwhelming majority of people from pre-1963 to the present have seen Melchizedek as something other than a type of Christ. This may or may not be the case.
I assume that most Christians who read Hebrews 7 will come away with the notion that Barnabas is trying to make a relationship between Christ and Melchizedek. I assume that the extent of what that relationship is in the minds of the belivers will be varied. I know that mass opinion has matured over the last forty years in varied areas. Whether or not the majority of believers believe Melchizedek to be something other than a type of Christ I do not know and did not assume. Even if the majority of believers do believe Melchizedek to be only a type of Christ we still must learn the different opinions on what the majority means by “type”.
Either way, as you insinuated, the majority of scholarly opinion today is that Melchizedek is a type. I believe this to be true, personally. From your post, I think you believe this as well.
Yes.
Second, (switching to Ralph here) if Melchizedek was a priest of Baal, where is the Hebrew term for Baal in Genesis 14? It is completely absent. Furthermore, if this is indeed a reference to Baal in Genesis 14, can you find any other instances anywhere in the Old Testament where Baal is referred to as El Elyon?
As you are aware of, the term Baal does not really denote one god but a pantheon of varied Baal gods worshipped by the Canaanites.
I could not find a Biblical passage where Baal is referred to as El Elyon. I did find extra biblical material. The concept of El Elyon as “most high god” and “possesser of all things” is of Canaanites origin. The Ras Shamra tablets found in Jerusalem circa the time of Abraham and Melchizedek show that the Canaanites at Salem worshipped a god call Al’iyan (highest god) who was the “possessor”. Many other Ugaritic texts refer to El Elyon as a Baal god after the time of Abraham and Melchizedek.
But I was only able to find one passage other than Genesis 14 in the Bible that refers to El Elyon as Lord (Psalm 78:35, 56). But even this passage does not necessarily refute Elliott’s argument when we note that he is saying that Abraham was noting that Yahweh is the true El Elyon (Most High god) and not Al’iyan. This would be akin to Paul in Athens (Acts 17:22-31) refering to the altar inscribed “To the Unknown God” as the one and only God. The Athenians were not worshipping Yahweh but just had a altar for any god they didn’t know. Paul took this as an opportunity to witness: “Let me tell you about the God that you don’t know ….” This is basically what Elliott’s argument is.
The typeology in Hebrews 7 contrasted with Ralph's interpretation of Genesis 14 is what does him in. Let's say that Melchizedek is a high priest of Baal. That means that the writer of Hebrews is using a high priest of Baal as a type of Christ.
Again, I do not think that Barnabas in Hebrews is referring to Melchizedek’s faith when he uses him as a type. The genealogy is what is most important. Another interpretation I read is that Melchizedek is a type of Him who was to come in the fact that he ministers to both a Jew (Abraham) and a Gentile (the King of Sodom). Christ is like Melchizedek in that He serves Jew and Gentile without distinction. In this latter interpretation, the substance of the religion is not stressed but the fact that the religious priest ministers to both Jew and Gentile. I think this interpretation is stretched but it does give an example that Barnabas’ purpose is not to compare the faith of Christ with the faith of Melchizedek.
Let’s take another typological example. In Romans 5:14, Paul compares Christ and Adam. He says that Adam is a type of Him who was to come. How can this be? Adam was the one who caused the fall of man. Adam is the the one in which all who are in him shall die (1 Cor 15:22). How could Paul say that Adam who caused the curse to come upon man is like Christ? Yet, Paul does. Perhaps, Paul is not emphasizing a comparison of Adam and Christ in all aspects but only in specific ones.
Heck, Jesus compared Himself to Jonah, the anti-prophet, the prophet who did almost everything against God’s plan and, even when he did what God told him to do, he did it with a bad attitude. In fact, the reason he disobeyed God was because he did want the Ninevites destroyed. How could Jesus compare Himself to Jonah? Well, his analogy went only as far as Jonah was in the belly of a fish for three days and He would be in the belly of the earth for three days. For the most part, that was as far as his analogy went and that is as far as we should take it.
I do not think that the comparison of Christ and priest-king of Baal would be inappropriate as long as the comparisons are accurate and fulfill the function of the author. As long as Paul does not say that Christ like Adam cursed the ground or God IS unknown Athenian god, then I have no problem with the analogy.
That, of course, is liberal theology through and through. Nowhere in the Bible is there an instance of anything overtly pagan being used as a type of Christ. Why would the writer of Hebrews draw similarities between a high priest of Baal and Christ? Just because of some supposed "legends?" That argument makes no sense.
Okay, how is Elliott’s interpretation liberal theology? I am forever hearing and reading people accuse interpretations they disagree with as liberal.
Well, Christ is compared with the "morning star" in a few places. "Morning star" is Venus, or Aphrodite in the Greco-Roman world. Again, Paul makes a comparsion between God and “the unknown god”. But see above. The comparison is about genealogy and not about Baal. You say you do not understand why Barnabas would draw similarities between a king-priest of Baal and Christ? Well, let me ask you this: why did Barnabas draw a comparison between Melchizedek and Christ in the first place? What is the purpose of the comparison? There is the answer to your question.
Again, I am not saying that I hold to Elliott’s interpretation. I am just saying that the Biblical evidence is either ambiguous or leaning in his direction. I really do not think that defining Melchizedek’s faith is essential to Genesis 14 and certainly not to Hebrews 7.
The problem that the people in the SBC had with Ralph's commentary was that it was overwhelmingly liberal in its theology. The Genesis 14 interpretation is just one example.
Again, explain how Elliott’s commentary is liberal. Do we as as conservative Christians actually know what liberalism is? He believes in God, he believes in Christ, he believes in the Bible as authorative, infallible and the inspired truth of God. What makes his commentary liberal? Is it because it differs with other people on peripheral matters? Because it challenges are expectations of what the Bible ought to be? Because it differs from what we were taught in Sunday School? People use the slanderous tag “ liberal” a whole lot but no one seems to be willing to explain what they mean by it or how it applies to those they refer to.
I agree that the writer of Hebrews is trying to draw a contrast between the Levitical priesthood and Christ. Obviously, as you said, the focus of the writer is on Christ. Still, there seems to be some problems with your argument and Ralph's argument.
First, you assume that an overwhelming majority of people from pre-1963 to the present have seen Melchizedek as something other than a type of Christ. This may or may not be the case. Either way, as you insinuated, the majority of scholarly opinion today is that Melchizedek is a type. I believe this to be true, personally. From your post, I think you believe this as well.
Second, (switching to Ralph here) if Melchizedek was a priest of Baal, where is the Hebrew term for Baal in Genesis 14? It is completely absent. Furthermore, if this is indeed a reference to Baal in Genesis 14, can you find any other instances anywhere in the Old Testament where Baal is referred to as El Elyon?
The typeology in Hebrews 7 contrasted with Ralph's interpretation of Genesis 14 is what does him in. Let's say that Melchizedek is a high priest of Baal. That means that the writer of Hebrews is using a high priest of Baal as a type of Christ.
That, of course, is liberal theology through and through. Nowhere in the Bible is there an instance of anything overtly pagan being used as a type of Christ. Why would the writer of Hebrews draw similarities between a high priest of Baal and Christ? Just because of some supposed "legends?" That argument makes no sense.
The problem that the people in the SBC had with Ralph's commentary was that it was overwhelmingly liberal in its theology. The Genesis 14 interpretation is just one example.
Circenses:
First, you assume that an overwhelming majority of people from pre-1963 to the present have seen Melchizedek as something other than a type of Christ. This may or may not be the case.
I assume that most Christians who read Hebrews 7 will come away with the notion that Barnabas is trying to make a relationship between Christ and Melchizedek. I assume that the extent of what that relationship is in the minds of the belivers will be varied. I know that mass opinion has matured over the last forty years in varied areas. Whether or not the majority of believers believe Melchizedek to be something other than a type of Christ I do not know and did not assume. Even if the majority of believers do believe Melchizedek to be only a type of Christ we still must learn the different opinions on what the majority means by “type”.
Either way, as you insinuated, the majority of scholarly opinion today is that Melchizedek is a type. I believe this to be true, personally. From your post, I think you believe this as well.
Yes.
Second, (switching to Ralph here) if Melchizedek was a priest of Baal, where is the Hebrew term for Baal in Genesis 14? It is completely absent. Furthermore, if this is indeed a reference to Baal in Genesis 14, can you find any other instances anywhere in the Old Testament where Baal is referred to as El Elyon?
As you are aware of, the term Baal does not really denote one god but a pantheon of varied Baal gods worshipped by the Canaanites.
I could not find a Biblical passage where Baal is referred to as El Elyon. I did find extra biblical material. The concept of El Elyon as “most high god” and “possesser of all things” is of Canaanites origin. The Ras Shamra tablets found in Jerusalem circa the time of Abraham and Melchizedek show that the Canaanites at Salem worshipped a god call Al’iyan (highest god) who was the “possessor”. Many other Ugaritic texts refer to El Elyon as a Baal god after the time of Abraham and Melchizedek.
But I was only able to find one passage other than Genesis 14 in the Bible that refers to El Elyon as Lord (Psalm 78:35, 56). But even this passage does not necessarily refute Elliott’s argument when we note that he is saying that Abraham was noting that Yahweh is the true El Elyon (Most High god) and not Al’iyan. This would be akin to Paul in Athens (Acts 17:22-31) refering to the altar inscribed “To the Unknown God” as the one and only God. The Athenians were not worshipping Yahweh but just had a altar for any god they didn’t know. Paul took this as an opportunity to witness: “Let me tell you about the God that you don’t know ….” This is basically what Elliott’s argument is.
The typeology in Hebrews 7 contrasted with Ralph's interpretation of Genesis 14 is what does him in. Let's say that Melchizedek is a high priest of Baal. That means that the writer of Hebrews is using a high priest of Baal as a type of Christ.
Again, I do not think that Barnabas in Hebrews is referring to Melchizedek’s faith when he uses him as a type. The genealogy is what is most important. Another interpretation I read is that Melchizedek is a type of Him who was to come in the fact that he ministers to both a Jew (Abraham) and a Gentile (the King of Sodom). Christ is like Melchizedek in that He serves Jew and Gentile without distinction. In this latter interpretation, the substance of the religion is not stressed but the fact that the religious priest ministers to both Jew and Gentile. I think this interpretation is stretched but it does give an example that Barnabas’ purpose is not to compare the faith of Christ with the faith of Melchizedek.
Let’s take another typological example. In Romans 5:14, Paul compares Christ and Adam. He says that Adam is a type of Him who was to come. How can this be? Adam was the one who caused the fall of man. Adam is the the one in which all who are in him shall die (1 Cor 15:22). How could Paul say that Adam who caused the curse to come upon man is like Christ? Yet, Paul does. Perhaps, Paul is not emphasizing a comparison of Adam and Christ in all aspects but only in specific ones.
Heck, Jesus compared Himself to Jonah, the anti-prophet, the prophet who did almost everything against God’s plan and, even when he did what God told him to do, he did it with a bad attitude. In fact, the reason he disobeyed God was because he did want the Ninevites destroyed. How could Jesus compare Himself to Jonah? Well, his analogy went only as far as Jonah was in the belly of a fish for three days and He would be in the belly of the earth for three days. For the most part, that was as far as his analogy went and that is as far as we should take it.
I do not think that the comparison of Christ and priest-king of Baal would be inappropriate as long as the comparisons are accurate and fulfill the function of the author. As long as Paul does not say that Christ like Adam cursed the ground or God IS unknown Athenian god, then I have no problem with the analogy.
That, of course, is liberal theology through and through. Nowhere in the Bible is there an instance of anything overtly pagan being used as a type of Christ. Why would the writer of Hebrews draw similarities between a high priest of Baal and Christ? Just because of some supposed "legends?" That argument makes no sense.
Okay, how is Elliott’s interpretation liberal theology? I am forever hearing and reading people accuse interpretations they disagree with as liberal.
Well, Christ is compared with the "morning star" in a few places. "Morning star" is Venus, or Aphrodite in the Greco-Roman world. Again, Paul makes a comparsion between God and “the unknown god”. But see above. The comparison is about genealogy and not about Baal. You say you do not understand why Barnabas would draw similarities between a king-priest of Baal and Christ? Well, let me ask you this: why did Barnabas draw a comparison between Melchizedek and Christ in the first place? What is the purpose of the comparison? There is the answer to your question.
Again, I am not saying that I hold to Elliott’s interpretation. I am just saying that the Biblical evidence is either ambiguous or leaning in his direction. I really do not think that defining Melchizedek’s faith is essential to Genesis 14 and certainly not to Hebrews 7.
The problem that the people in the SBC had with Ralph's commentary was that it was overwhelmingly liberal in its theology. The Genesis 14 interpretation is just one example.
Again, explain how Elliott’s commentary is liberal. Do we as as conservative Christians actually know what liberalism is? He believes in God, he believes in Christ, he believes in the Bible as authorative, infallible and the inspired truth of God. What makes his commentary liberal? Is it because it differs with other people on peripheral matters? Because it challenges are expectations of what the Bible ought to be? Because it differs from what we were taught in Sunday School? People use the slanderous tag “ liberal” a whole lot but no one seems to be willing to explain what they mean by it or how it applies to those they refer to.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
According to the Order of Melchizedek
With regards to Ralph Elliott's The Message of Genesis and the controversy it generated.
Panis:
Doesn't make me wonder.
Just one example of many from the book:
"It would appear, then, that in verse 19, Melchizedek was blessing Abram by the Baal, whom Melchizedek considered to be the highest god of the city state at Salem. Thus, Melchizedek was extending blessings for, and receiving, tithes in behalf of his El Elyon, to be equated with Baal."--p. 116
Perhaps Ralph forgot to look at Hebrews 7:1-4
Circenses:
One thing that must be understood about what the author of Hebrews (I think it’s Barnabas) is doing by evoking the figure of Melchizedek is that he is explaining the Levitical priesthood system of the OT and its relation to Christ. Three points: First, Barnabas’ intention is not to explain Melchizedek but to explain Christ. Second, he is using typology as a comparison. Third, by the time of the 1st century, the character of Melchizedek had developed far beyond the literal information given in Genesis 14.
Melchizedek is a king-priest much in the same way that Christ is a king-priest. This fits in with the purpose of Hebrews. Also, Melchizedek is not mentioned as having parents. It was a cultural tendency among the Jews to create legends about those who did not have a history. Hebrews 7:3 speaks of Melchizedek as having neither father, mother, genealogy, beginning nor end. Genesis 14 says nothing about Melchizedek not having parents, but because it doesn’t say he did have parents, and because he was viewed by the Jews as a strange and odd figure, legends grew up about who he was. We can see this in the important (Psalm 110). There used to be a time that many conservative Christians believed that Melchizedek of Genesis 14 was REALLY Christ incarnate. I remember hearing such an interpretation from Christians as a child. One of the real sources of the Elliott controversy regarding his interpretation of Genesis 14 stems from believers who had been taught as children that Melchizedek was Christ. If a child, like myself, doubted that Melchizedek was Christ Incarnate in Genesis 14 then the teacher would turn to Hebrew 7: 3. “That is what the literal truth of the Bible says.” Now very few today actually believe that Melchizedek did not have parents and is eternal. Even fewer believe that Melchizedek was Christ. It is amazing how far we have come in just the last twenty years of the SBC.
Barnabas is trying to say that the priesthood of Christ is like that of Melchizedek in the fact that it is outside of the Levitical line (genealogical inheritance of priesthood) and is eternal and unchanging having no parents. If you read Hebrew 7, Barnabas is emphasizing genealogy. Jesus himself points to the genealogical emphasis of Melchizedek when he quotes Ps. 110 to the Pharisees in Mark 12:35-37. Barnabas did not believe that Melchizedek was Christ or that he never had parents and was eternal. He is simply using the legends of Melchizedek to explain the Christ’s relation to the Levitical priesthood.
Much of the controversy today surrounding Elliott’s interpretation of Melchizedek is that most conservatives interpret Melchizedek to be a Canaanite priest-king of faith who worshipped Yahweh while Elliott interpreted him to be a Canaanite priest-king who worshipped the Baal god El Elyon (Most High god) and who blessed Abraham by El Elyon (Genesis 14:19-20) but Abraham in return acknowledged that he swears by Lord El Elyon (Yahweh the Most High God) (Genesis 14:22). Elliott interprets Abraham as making a statement about his God Yahweh and not the Baal god El Elyon of Melchizedek (Message, 116-117).
Three points: First, it is true that Barnabas in Hebrews is not interested in the faith of Melchizedek. He is interested in the genealogical legend of Melchizedek. Second, he calls Melchizedek a priest of the Most High god (hupsistos theos), a literal Greek translation of El Elyon. He does not refer to him as priest of the Lord the Most High God. Barnabas is not making a direct connection between Melchizedek and Yahweh. Third, El Elyon was a name of one of the Canaanite Baal gods.
Whether or not Elliott was right in his interpretation is really unknown to me. I know of very well respected conservative scholars who go either way on this issue. Even those who disagree with Elliott on the issue understand, like myself, how he can make such an interpretation in good faith and scholarship. The Biblical evidence is ambiguous if not leaning towards Elliott’s view and Elliott makes a good case.
But regardless of this point, Christians were “persecuting” Elliott for an interpretation of a select passage of Scripture that had no significant bearing upon the faith. Again, if many believers forty years ago had not thought that Melchizedek was Christ I doubt that this would have been an issue. Instead, they would have just focused on other parts of his book they thought would tar him. I have never found a single person, let alone a single scholar, who I agree with on every aspect of the Bible. Even the great SBC scholars that I frequently read (Mullins, Moody, Stagg) have at least one or two interpretations with which I disagree. All of my favourite professors have had interpretations with which I disagree. None of these interpretations that I deem spurious has ever made me not like them or made me find there theology liberal or made be question their faith. I just disagree with them.
But regardless of all this, the amazing thing today is that SBC seminaries that are now all controlled by those who were for the conservative resurgence populate their faculty with Old Testament profs who agree with Elliott on a lot if not most of the controversial interpretations that caused such a stir in the early sixties.
I think the controversy and all the subsequent major controversies that have developed to this day with regards to the theology taught in SBC schools are all about controlling others. Don’t you think it is interesting that anytime such a theological controversy comes up the answer is always more control? Today the control is always through the 2000 BFM.
First, SBC employees, then seminary professors, then missionaries, and now its becoming state conventions and state college professors and local associations and its churches. I have even heard some pastors state that we need to not allow students into seminary unless they agree with the 2000 BFM. Why? Because they receive money from the SBC. Why should we fund seminary students who are going to preach or teach doctrines contrary to the majority of Southern Baptists. This has been the logic used since 1962. This has been the method of gaining control. I had joked in the past about seminary students having to sign the 2000 BFM as a ludicrous extension of the contemporary logic, but now I have heard some agree that it is the only way of protecting sound doctrine. Now I am afraid of making other jokes in fear that they will come true. Here’s one: Next local associations will only associate with churches whose pastors have signed the 2000 BFM. There I said it.
I hope the idea of making seminary students sign the 2000 BFM is just the wishes of a small minority of SBC members and not an idea that will come to fruition.
I think if we had more SBC leaders "according to the order of Melchizedek" and less self-perpetuating Levites then we might church-goers who did not want to fire every person who disagreed with them on minor issues.
What do you think?
Panis:
Doesn't make me wonder.
Just one example of many from the book:
"It would appear, then, that in verse 19, Melchizedek was blessing Abram by the Baal, whom Melchizedek considered to be the highest god of the city state at Salem. Thus, Melchizedek was extending blessings for, and receiving, tithes in behalf of his El Elyon, to be equated with Baal."--p. 116
Perhaps Ralph forgot to look at Hebrews 7:1-4
Circenses:
One thing that must be understood about what the author of Hebrews (I think it’s Barnabas) is doing by evoking the figure of Melchizedek is that he is explaining the Levitical priesthood system of the OT and its relation to Christ. Three points: First, Barnabas’ intention is not to explain Melchizedek but to explain Christ. Second, he is using typology as a comparison. Third, by the time of the 1st century, the character of Melchizedek had developed far beyond the literal information given in Genesis 14.
Melchizedek is a king-priest much in the same way that Christ is a king-priest. This fits in with the purpose of Hebrews. Also, Melchizedek is not mentioned as having parents. It was a cultural tendency among the Jews to create legends about those who did not have a history. Hebrews 7:3 speaks of Melchizedek as having neither father, mother, genealogy, beginning nor end. Genesis 14 says nothing about Melchizedek not having parents, but because it doesn’t say he did have parents, and because he was viewed by the Jews as a strange and odd figure, legends grew up about who he was. We can see this in the important (Psalm 110). There used to be a time that many conservative Christians believed that Melchizedek of Genesis 14 was REALLY Christ incarnate. I remember hearing such an interpretation from Christians as a child. One of the real sources of the Elliott controversy regarding his interpretation of Genesis 14 stems from believers who had been taught as children that Melchizedek was Christ. If a child, like myself, doubted that Melchizedek was Christ Incarnate in Genesis 14 then the teacher would turn to Hebrew 7: 3. “That is what the literal truth of the Bible says.” Now very few today actually believe that Melchizedek did not have parents and is eternal. Even fewer believe that Melchizedek was Christ. It is amazing how far we have come in just the last twenty years of the SBC.
Barnabas is trying to say that the priesthood of Christ is like that of Melchizedek in the fact that it is outside of the Levitical line (genealogical inheritance of priesthood) and is eternal and unchanging having no parents. If you read Hebrew 7, Barnabas is emphasizing genealogy. Jesus himself points to the genealogical emphasis of Melchizedek when he quotes Ps. 110 to the Pharisees in Mark 12:35-37. Barnabas did not believe that Melchizedek was Christ or that he never had parents and was eternal. He is simply using the legends of Melchizedek to explain the Christ’s relation to the Levitical priesthood.
Much of the controversy today surrounding Elliott’s interpretation of Melchizedek is that most conservatives interpret Melchizedek to be a Canaanite priest-king of faith who worshipped Yahweh while Elliott interpreted him to be a Canaanite priest-king who worshipped the Baal god El Elyon (Most High god) and who blessed Abraham by El Elyon (Genesis 14:19-20) but Abraham in return acknowledged that he swears by Lord El Elyon (Yahweh the Most High God) (Genesis 14:22). Elliott interprets Abraham as making a statement about his God Yahweh and not the Baal god El Elyon of Melchizedek (Message, 116-117).
Three points: First, it is true that Barnabas in Hebrews is not interested in the faith of Melchizedek. He is interested in the genealogical legend of Melchizedek. Second, he calls Melchizedek a priest of the Most High god (hupsistos theos), a literal Greek translation of El Elyon. He does not refer to him as priest of the Lord the Most High God. Barnabas is not making a direct connection between Melchizedek and Yahweh. Third, El Elyon was a name of one of the Canaanite Baal gods.
Whether or not Elliott was right in his interpretation is really unknown to me. I know of very well respected conservative scholars who go either way on this issue. Even those who disagree with Elliott on the issue understand, like myself, how he can make such an interpretation in good faith and scholarship. The Biblical evidence is ambiguous if not leaning towards Elliott’s view and Elliott makes a good case.
But regardless of this point, Christians were “persecuting” Elliott for an interpretation of a select passage of Scripture that had no significant bearing upon the faith. Again, if many believers forty years ago had not thought that Melchizedek was Christ I doubt that this would have been an issue. Instead, they would have just focused on other parts of his book they thought would tar him. I have never found a single person, let alone a single scholar, who I agree with on every aspect of the Bible. Even the great SBC scholars that I frequently read (Mullins, Moody, Stagg) have at least one or two interpretations with which I disagree. All of my favourite professors have had interpretations with which I disagree. None of these interpretations that I deem spurious has ever made me not like them or made me find there theology liberal or made be question their faith. I just disagree with them.
But regardless of all this, the amazing thing today is that SBC seminaries that are now all controlled by those who were for the conservative resurgence populate their faculty with Old Testament profs who agree with Elliott on a lot if not most of the controversial interpretations that caused such a stir in the early sixties.
I think the controversy and all the subsequent major controversies that have developed to this day with regards to the theology taught in SBC schools are all about controlling others. Don’t you think it is interesting that anytime such a theological controversy comes up the answer is always more control? Today the control is always through the 2000 BFM.
First, SBC employees, then seminary professors, then missionaries, and now its becoming state conventions and state college professors and local associations and its churches. I have even heard some pastors state that we need to not allow students into seminary unless they agree with the 2000 BFM. Why? Because they receive money from the SBC. Why should we fund seminary students who are going to preach or teach doctrines contrary to the majority of Southern Baptists. This has been the logic used since 1962. This has been the method of gaining control. I had joked in the past about seminary students having to sign the 2000 BFM as a ludicrous extension of the contemporary logic, but now I have heard some agree that it is the only way of protecting sound doctrine. Now I am afraid of making other jokes in fear that they will come true. Here’s one: Next local associations will only associate with churches whose pastors have signed the 2000 BFM. There I said it.
I hope the idea of making seminary students sign the 2000 BFM is just the wishes of a small minority of SBC members and not an idea that will come to fruition.
I think if we had more SBC leaders "according to the order of Melchizedek" and less self-perpetuating Levites then we might church-goers who did not want to fire every person who disagreed with them on minor issues.
What do you think?
Sunday, November 21, 2004
I Write The Posts That Make The Whole Web Read
I must confess. Last night I took the wife and a friend to see Barry Manilow. I know, I know, you don't have to say it. Not exactly my kind of musich. I had to run home and put on some David Bowie quickly. It's almost impossible to get "Copacabana" out of your head.
Yes, I heard every song from "Mandy" to "I Write the Songs". God help me!
But Manilow did fill up a stadium and put on a decent show. Not great or good but not bad.
Anyway, at least now I have built up enough capital with my wife to see Beck the next time he comes to Fort Worth.
I did hear a great joke. Manilow has a good sense of humor.
He said, pointing to himself, "This is what Clay Aiken will look like in thirty years."
Here is my joke. This is what Barry Manilow will look like in thirty years.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Plow Shears and Swords
Part II of a wonderful Discussion
Panis:
"Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics."
Actually, your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is bad hermeneutics. Hermeneutical principles state that one should interpret what is written as literal narrative unless given a substantial reason not to (except for Revelation, of course, which is the other way around). There is no substantial reason to interpret Genesis 1-3 as figurative, allegorical, or "apocalyptic" (to use your own terminology) unless one holds to the JEDP theory of Genesis' authorship. Because there is not enough convincing evidence to support the JEDP theory (ask some OT profs in the seminary about this), Mosaic authorship should always be assumed.
If Moses is the author of Genesis (which he indeed is, as well as the entire Torah), then why would he write three chapters of "apocalyptic" writings that are meant to be taken any other way than literal and then conclude the rest of the entire Torah with literal narrative?
What is Genesis? It is history. Anyone who reads it from beginning to end can clearly see that. Why should Genesis 1-3 then be any different than a literal history narrative like the rest of the book?
Further evidence of your bad hermeneutics is provided by your cutoff of chapter 3. Chapter divisions in the Bible are not in the original manuscripts, as I'm sure you know. Clearly from a reading of chapter 3, one can see that the story in chapter 3 extends all the way into chapter 4 (after all, we are talking same characters with the same names here). Therefore, using your own hermeneutical principles, chapter 4 must be "apocalyptic" as well, for you have no substantial reason to make a cutoff from "apocalyptic" to narrative between chapters 3 and 4.
If you say chapter 4 is "apocalyptic," you're more than welcome to. However, as careful hermeneutics show, chapter 4 can be nothing but literal narrative, especially with chapter 5 being an entire genealogical chapter based upon chapter 4.
As for the Moses' use of wordplay substantiating your argument, it really doesn't. One can easily find wordplay in literal narrative portions of the Bible as well (take a look at the Tower of Babel narrative in Hebrew, for example).
And speaking of Hebrew, I find it particularly interesting that you neglected to indicate the Hebrew in Genesis 2:4 where the word, toledoth, is used, indicating a literal translation of: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created...," the same way the term is used later in the Old Testament in passages like “these are the generations of Terah…,†etc. It describes actual time, actual people, and actual events. It is clearly a history term. If you would like to devote some study to finding anywhere in the Old Testament where it is used to describe “apocalyptic†events, Circenses, be my guest, as I would be interested to know where such usages occur.
Lastly, you neglect the fact that the statements you alluded to in chapter 2 of Genesis can easily be taken as a more detailed account of day 6 in God's creation. This obviously makes much sense, because the creation of man is obviously the emphasis of chapter 2, not the fact that God "formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air..."
No offense, Circenses, but I don't think your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is correct (which is fine, as I'm sure you don't see mine as correct, either). You say you held to such a position concerning the chapters before you came to believe in evolution. That's fine. The fact cannot be ignored, however, that your interpretation of those chapters certainly corroborates your evolutionary beliefs.
Circenses:
"Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics."
Actually, your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is bad hermeneutics. Hermeneutical principles state that one should interpret what is written as literal narrative unless given a substantial reason not to (except for Revelation, of course, which is the other way around). There is no substantial reason to interpret Genesis 1-3 as figurative, allegorical, or "apocalyptic" (to use your own terminology) unless one holds to the JEDP theory of Genesis' authorship. Because there is not enough convincing evidence to support the JEDP theory (ask some OT profs in the seminary about this), Mosaic authorship should always be assumed.
I gave quite a bit of good reasons why Genesis 1-3 should be taken as “non-literally.” Whether or not someone thinks the reasons to be substantial is relative.
And, hey, whether JEDP or not, whether Mosaic our not, Genesis 1-3 can not be taken “literally.” Parts of Daniel are narrative and parts are Apocalyptic; whether or not the book was written all by Daniel or by more than one author does not change the fact that more than one genre is present in the book as we now have.
I have asked OT professors. Those who no longer teach at certain seminaries will tell me that Moses did not right all of the Pentateuch. Those who still teach at the seminary will avoid the question. Only one prof will say, “here is the evidence, what do you think.”
Genesis mentions people groups that were not around when Moses was alive. Philistines (10:14; 12:32, 35; 26:1-18) and Chaldeans (11:31).
Genesis 14:14 mentions the geographic location of the tribe of Dan which had not located there until well after Moses death.
What about the Genesis anachronisms? 12:6 says that “at that time there were still Canaanties in the land,” which indicates that at the time of writing Canaanites were no longer in the land, thus after the death of Moses. 36:31 speaks about “before any Israelite king reigned” which means that at the time of writing, Israelite kings did reign, thus after Moses and Joshua and the Judges.
Numbers 12:3 states, “Moses was the most humble man on the face of the earth.” Obviously Moses did not write this or he would not be the most humble man on the face of the earth.
Numbers 21:14 refers to the Book of Wars, suggesting that sources have been used.
Deuteronomy 34 deals with the Death of Moses.
That is just the intra-biblical evidence.
The Talmud writes, “Moses wrote his book AND the passage dealing with Balaam and Job.”
2 Esdras makes it clear that Ezra wrote and arranged much of the Pentateuch.
Nowhere does the Pentateuch claim that Moses is the author. His authorship is a purely traditional view. It usually comes from the desire of believers to know who wrote a certain book. If the author is not known then the main character is assumed to be the author (see Jonah).
Also, here is an excellent essay on JEDP. This theory has gotten much bad wrap from the really conservative, though most conservative scholars hold to it. The theory was not devised to discredit the Pentateuch but to defend what seemed to be apparent contradictions in the text. The scholars who devised the JEDP theory were trying to defend the Scriptures. And they did.
Regardless, inspiration and accuracy does not rest upon Mosaic authorship. The Holy Spirit spoke through the authors regardless of whether they were Moses or not. I happen to believe that Moses wrote a good deal of the material with immediate help from others. Other material was written later at different times by different people. At some point the material was brought together into what we have today. This whole process was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It’s just like evolution and the creation of man. It’s not the clean process we wish it was but the Holy Spirit is doing it none the less and the end result is wonderful.
If Moses is the author of Genesis (which he indeed is, as well as the entire Torah), then why would he write three chapters of "apocalyptic" writings that are meant to be taken any other way than literal and then conclude the rest of the entire Torah with literal narrative?
See my above comment on Daniel.
And how about Revelation? Apocalypse, Epistle, and Prophecy all rolled into one.
What is Genesis? It is history. Anyone who reads it from beginning to end can clearly see that. Why should Genesis 1-3 then be any different than a literal history narrative like the rest of the book?
History is it? It’s not a “date book”, it’s not a “science book”, but it is a “history book”? Why do you believe that? Where does it call itself a history? Do you believe that because it refers to historical events? Okay, so do many prophetic books, but we do not call them history. The book of Daniel refers to history and it’s apocalyptic. Revelation is historical in nature, albeit it’s a history that many believe has not yet occurred. It’s not “literal.”
Look at the Gospel of John. It is a gospel, right. It is a “history of Jesus”? It begins by talking about Jesus as a “word” and a “light” that “‘tabernacles’ among us” (1:14). John uses these same terms for Jesus in Revelation. Is Jesus a “literal” “word”? Is He a “literal” “light”. Is the Lord a whole bunch of electrons that can be warped by gravity? Or is it a figurative term to describe a truth of Jesus? John begins his gospel in pre-history, in eternity. No one was around to witness this event and so we have this incomprehensible relationship and event in a manner in which we can understand it.
Heck, look at chapter 2 of John’s gospel. He has Jesus cleansing the temple at the beginning of his ministry. All the other gospels have it at the end. John has reshaped the chronology of the event to suit his theological purposes.
But let us say that Genesis is history. What type of history is it? Why does it mention what it mentions? Why does it not mention other things? I believe that if we call it “salvation history” then we have a better grasp of what is going on. Heck, I think the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is “salvation history.” Even the apocalyptic passages of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah and Revelation are apart of “salvation history.” It is interesting that the Bible begins and ends with an apocalyptic format. Pre-history and post-history are given in apocalyptic forms because no one was there or is there to see it. The events have to be theologically symbolized for the audience.
I have been in discussion with believers who object to my preterism. They do not believe that my apocalyptic interpretation of Revelation is correct. They wish me to take it “literally” at face value. I tell them that I am. I say that the genre is apocalypse, epistle, and prophecy and I interpret it in like manner. I ask them to interpret the 7-headed beast “literally” and they say “it symbolizes this.”
I actually do interpret Genesis 1-3 literally (notice the absence of quotes). The literature is apocalyptic history and I interpret is as such.
Further evidence of your bad hermeneutics is provided by your cutoff of chapter 3. Chapter divisions in the Bible are not in the original manuscripts, as I'm sure you know. Clearly from a reading of chapter 3, one can see that the story in chapter 3 extends all the way into chapter 4 (after all, we are talking same characters with the same names here). Therefore, using your own hermeneutical principles, chapter 4 must be "apocalyptic" as well, for you have no substantial reason to make a cutoff from "apocalyptic" to narrative between chapters 3 and 4.
That’s right. I take the entire 1-11 of Genesis to be apocalyptic. The only reason that I didn’t mention any other chapters but 1-3 was because we were speaking of evolution as it relates to creation, which means 1-3.
If you say chapter 4 is "apocalyptic," you're more than welcome to. However, as careful hermeneutics show, chapter 4 can be nothing but literal narrative, especially with chapter 5 being an entire genealogical chapter based upon chapter 4.
Well, if we do take these genealogies as literal then the creation of Adam was just 6,000 years ago. That is going to come as quite a shock to the Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese.
As for the Moses' use of wordplay substantiating your argument, it really doesn't. One can easily find wordplay in literal narrative portions of the Bible as well (take a look at the Tower of Babel narrative in Hebrew, for example).
See above. Yep, Tower of Babel is apocalyptic.
And speaking of Hebrew, I find it particularly interesting that you neglected to indicate the Hebrew in Genesis 2:4 where the word, toledoth, is used, indicating a literal translation of: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created...," the same way the term is used later in the Old Testament in passages like "these are the generations of Terah" etc. It describes actual time, actual people, and actual events. It is clearly a history term. If you would like to devote some study to finding anywhere in the Old Testament where it is used to describe "apocalyptic" events, Circenses, be my guest, as I would be interested to know where such usages occur.
I neglected many things out of space and time. My objective was to show how plausible is my interpretation that chapters 1-3 are not “literal.”
Toledoth does not indicate a literal translation. It’s a book or chapter title. If we take the term “literally” then it designates that this book (5:1) is about the descendants of Adam, or it designates these particular people are the descendants of whomever (6:9, 10:1, 10:32, 11:10; etc.).
But what about the verse you, Panis, referred to? "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." (2:4) Wow, who are the descendents there? How can the heavens and the earth have descendents? I guess we can’t take that to “literally” mean that the heavens and the earth have “literal” descendents. My NASB translates this verse “this is the account.” My NIV does the same. The NRSV and KJV translates the verse “literally” as you have.
Genesis 1:1 says the book is about beginnings. Notice toledoth does not appear at the beginning of chapter one. Toledoth can mean “descendants, results, proceedings, account of, generations, genealogies. It appears to depend on context whether it refers to actual “descendents” or “an account of” something.
Let’s look at Revelation. 1:1 clearly states that this book is an Apocalypse. Therefore, we must assume the whole book to be an apocalypse. But in 1:3 it is said to be a prophecy. In 1:11 it is suggested to be a letter.
It’s quite dubious to claim that toledoth designates “actual time, actual people, and actual events”.
But let us say that toledoth is a history term. That the historical event has been given in an apocalyptic manner does not negate its historic truthfulness. Look at Revelation. It is an apocalypse and is historically true (see above). That Revelation has been given as an apocalypse does not negate that it is true in a historical sense.
Lastly, you neglect the fact that the statements you alluded to in chapter 2 of Genesis can easily be taken as a more detailed account of day 6 in God's creation. This obviously makes much sense, because the creation of man is obviously the emphasis of chapter 2, not the fact that God "formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air..."
Even if we accept your view that chapter 2 is more detailed account, the details are not in “literal”, chronological order. So what you must say is that chapter one is the correct chronological order but chapter two is for emphasis not in the correct chronological order. So Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, rearranged the material in chapter two to make a theological point rather than a literal point. Because, according to chapter one, man was not literally created first but, for theological emphasis, he was created first in chapter two. Regardless, the author is not being “literal.”
Some professors have told me that chapter 2 is the correct chronological order but chapter one has been theologically structured and not “literal”. So there is a variety of opinions on the matter on all sides.
No offense, Circenses, but I don't think your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is correct (which is fine, as I'm sure you don't see mine as correct, either). You say you held to such a position concerning the chapters before you came to believe in evolution. That's fine. The fact cannot be ignored, however, that your interpretation of those chapters certainly corroborates your evolutionary beliefs.
Don’t worry, Panis; no offense taken. Like I said, as long as people understand the theological truths of the story, I do not care whether they believe it to be "literal" or not. It’s like that OT verse that talks about the Day of the Lord when soldiers will beat there swords into plow shears. The passage speaks about a time when peace will be upon the land. Many, many have taken this verse to be about the millennial kingdom where all the promises made to racial and political Israel will be fulfilled. This verse specifically refers to the ancient practice of those preparing for war to beat their plow shears into swords. When the Day of the Lord comes, the reverse will be true. Now many, many people take this verse "literally" and say that “yes, by that time we will be using swords and plow shears. And if anyone thinks that we won’t be using swords for war then they don’t believe the Bible to be true.” It’s a poetical principle, that’s it! Is it truth? Yes, when the Day of the Lord comes war will cease. That’s all it means. And whether one interprets the verse "literally" or figuratively, that is the meaning that comes through to all. But we quibble over swords and plow shears. And people lose their jobs.
My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view of man as pinnacle of God’s creation. My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view that male and female are equal by creation and that only the fall of man has changed this. It is Chris that redeems this creation (yes, women can be pastors). My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view of man as a holistic being of body, soul, and spirit. My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view that there is no intermediate state in heaven for believers after they die and until the resurrection. We just lay in the ground and turn to dust. My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view that evolution, gravity, strong force, weak force, light, electro-magnetism, atoms and strings, are so wonderful that there existence only make sense if there is a God who ordained them.
Panis:
"Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics."
Actually, your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is bad hermeneutics. Hermeneutical principles state that one should interpret what is written as literal narrative unless given a substantial reason not to (except for Revelation, of course, which is the other way around). There is no substantial reason to interpret Genesis 1-3 as figurative, allegorical, or "apocalyptic" (to use your own terminology) unless one holds to the JEDP theory of Genesis' authorship. Because there is not enough convincing evidence to support the JEDP theory (ask some OT profs in the seminary about this), Mosaic authorship should always be assumed.
If Moses is the author of Genesis (which he indeed is, as well as the entire Torah), then why would he write three chapters of "apocalyptic" writings that are meant to be taken any other way than literal and then conclude the rest of the entire Torah with literal narrative?
What is Genesis? It is history. Anyone who reads it from beginning to end can clearly see that. Why should Genesis 1-3 then be any different than a literal history narrative like the rest of the book?
Further evidence of your bad hermeneutics is provided by your cutoff of chapter 3. Chapter divisions in the Bible are not in the original manuscripts, as I'm sure you know. Clearly from a reading of chapter 3, one can see that the story in chapter 3 extends all the way into chapter 4 (after all, we are talking same characters with the same names here). Therefore, using your own hermeneutical principles, chapter 4 must be "apocalyptic" as well, for you have no substantial reason to make a cutoff from "apocalyptic" to narrative between chapters 3 and 4.
If you say chapter 4 is "apocalyptic," you're more than welcome to. However, as careful hermeneutics show, chapter 4 can be nothing but literal narrative, especially with chapter 5 being an entire genealogical chapter based upon chapter 4.
As for the Moses' use of wordplay substantiating your argument, it really doesn't. One can easily find wordplay in literal narrative portions of the Bible as well (take a look at the Tower of Babel narrative in Hebrew, for example).
And speaking of Hebrew, I find it particularly interesting that you neglected to indicate the Hebrew in Genesis 2:4 where the word, toledoth, is used, indicating a literal translation of: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created...," the same way the term is used later in the Old Testament in passages like “these are the generations of Terah…,†etc. It describes actual time, actual people, and actual events. It is clearly a history term. If you would like to devote some study to finding anywhere in the Old Testament where it is used to describe “apocalyptic†events, Circenses, be my guest, as I would be interested to know where such usages occur.
Lastly, you neglect the fact that the statements you alluded to in chapter 2 of Genesis can easily be taken as a more detailed account of day 6 in God's creation. This obviously makes much sense, because the creation of man is obviously the emphasis of chapter 2, not the fact that God "formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air..."
No offense, Circenses, but I don't think your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is correct (which is fine, as I'm sure you don't see mine as correct, either). You say you held to such a position concerning the chapters before you came to believe in evolution. That's fine. The fact cannot be ignored, however, that your interpretation of those chapters certainly corroborates your evolutionary beliefs.
Circenses:
"Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics."
Actually, your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is bad hermeneutics. Hermeneutical principles state that one should interpret what is written as literal narrative unless given a substantial reason not to (except for Revelation, of course, which is the other way around). There is no substantial reason to interpret Genesis 1-3 as figurative, allegorical, or "apocalyptic" (to use your own terminology) unless one holds to the JEDP theory of Genesis' authorship. Because there is not enough convincing evidence to support the JEDP theory (ask some OT profs in the seminary about this), Mosaic authorship should always be assumed.
I gave quite a bit of good reasons why Genesis 1-3 should be taken as “non-literally.” Whether or not someone thinks the reasons to be substantial is relative.
And, hey, whether JEDP or not, whether Mosaic our not, Genesis 1-3 can not be taken “literally.” Parts of Daniel are narrative and parts are Apocalyptic; whether or not the book was written all by Daniel or by more than one author does not change the fact that more than one genre is present in the book as we now have.
I have asked OT professors. Those who no longer teach at certain seminaries will tell me that Moses did not right all of the Pentateuch. Those who still teach at the seminary will avoid the question. Only one prof will say, “here is the evidence, what do you think.”
Genesis mentions people groups that were not around when Moses was alive. Philistines (10:14; 12:32, 35; 26:1-18) and Chaldeans (11:31).
Genesis 14:14 mentions the geographic location of the tribe of Dan which had not located there until well after Moses death.
What about the Genesis anachronisms? 12:6 says that “at that time there were still Canaanties in the land,” which indicates that at the time of writing Canaanites were no longer in the land, thus after the death of Moses. 36:31 speaks about “before any Israelite king reigned” which means that at the time of writing, Israelite kings did reign, thus after Moses and Joshua and the Judges.
Numbers 12:3 states, “Moses was the most humble man on the face of the earth.” Obviously Moses did not write this or he would not be the most humble man on the face of the earth.
Numbers 21:14 refers to the Book of Wars, suggesting that sources have been used.
Deuteronomy 34 deals with the Death of Moses.
That is just the intra-biblical evidence.
The Talmud writes, “Moses wrote his book AND the passage dealing with Balaam and Job.”
2 Esdras makes it clear that Ezra wrote and arranged much of the Pentateuch.
Nowhere does the Pentateuch claim that Moses is the author. His authorship is a purely traditional view. It usually comes from the desire of believers to know who wrote a certain book. If the author is not known then the main character is assumed to be the author (see Jonah).
Also, here is an excellent essay on JEDP. This theory has gotten much bad wrap from the really conservative, though most conservative scholars hold to it. The theory was not devised to discredit the Pentateuch but to defend what seemed to be apparent contradictions in the text. The scholars who devised the JEDP theory were trying to defend the Scriptures. And they did.
Regardless, inspiration and accuracy does not rest upon Mosaic authorship. The Holy Spirit spoke through the authors regardless of whether they were Moses or not. I happen to believe that Moses wrote a good deal of the material with immediate help from others. Other material was written later at different times by different people. At some point the material was brought together into what we have today. This whole process was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It’s just like evolution and the creation of man. It’s not the clean process we wish it was but the Holy Spirit is doing it none the less and the end result is wonderful.
If Moses is the author of Genesis (which he indeed is, as well as the entire Torah), then why would he write three chapters of "apocalyptic" writings that are meant to be taken any other way than literal and then conclude the rest of the entire Torah with literal narrative?
See my above comment on Daniel.
And how about Revelation? Apocalypse, Epistle, and Prophecy all rolled into one.
What is Genesis? It is history. Anyone who reads it from beginning to end can clearly see that. Why should Genesis 1-3 then be any different than a literal history narrative like the rest of the book?
History is it? It’s not a “date book”, it’s not a “science book”, but it is a “history book”? Why do you believe that? Where does it call itself a history? Do you believe that because it refers to historical events? Okay, so do many prophetic books, but we do not call them history. The book of Daniel refers to history and it’s apocalyptic. Revelation is historical in nature, albeit it’s a history that many believe has not yet occurred. It’s not “literal.”
Look at the Gospel of John. It is a gospel, right. It is a “history of Jesus”? It begins by talking about Jesus as a “word” and a “light” that “‘tabernacles’ among us” (1:14). John uses these same terms for Jesus in Revelation. Is Jesus a “literal” “word”? Is He a “literal” “light”. Is the Lord a whole bunch of electrons that can be warped by gravity? Or is it a figurative term to describe a truth of Jesus? John begins his gospel in pre-history, in eternity. No one was around to witness this event and so we have this incomprehensible relationship and event in a manner in which we can understand it.
Heck, look at chapter 2 of John’s gospel. He has Jesus cleansing the temple at the beginning of his ministry. All the other gospels have it at the end. John has reshaped the chronology of the event to suit his theological purposes.
But let us say that Genesis is history. What type of history is it? Why does it mention what it mentions? Why does it not mention other things? I believe that if we call it “salvation history” then we have a better grasp of what is going on. Heck, I think the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is “salvation history.” Even the apocalyptic passages of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah and Revelation are apart of “salvation history.” It is interesting that the Bible begins and ends with an apocalyptic format. Pre-history and post-history are given in apocalyptic forms because no one was there or is there to see it. The events have to be theologically symbolized for the audience.
I have been in discussion with believers who object to my preterism. They do not believe that my apocalyptic interpretation of Revelation is correct. They wish me to take it “literally” at face value. I tell them that I am. I say that the genre is apocalypse, epistle, and prophecy and I interpret it in like manner. I ask them to interpret the 7-headed beast “literally” and they say “it symbolizes this.”
I actually do interpret Genesis 1-3 literally (notice the absence of quotes). The literature is apocalyptic history and I interpret is as such.
Further evidence of your bad hermeneutics is provided by your cutoff of chapter 3. Chapter divisions in the Bible are not in the original manuscripts, as I'm sure you know. Clearly from a reading of chapter 3, one can see that the story in chapter 3 extends all the way into chapter 4 (after all, we are talking same characters with the same names here). Therefore, using your own hermeneutical principles, chapter 4 must be "apocalyptic" as well, for you have no substantial reason to make a cutoff from "apocalyptic" to narrative between chapters 3 and 4.
That’s right. I take the entire 1-11 of Genesis to be apocalyptic. The only reason that I didn’t mention any other chapters but 1-3 was because we were speaking of evolution as it relates to creation, which means 1-3.
If you say chapter 4 is "apocalyptic," you're more than welcome to. However, as careful hermeneutics show, chapter 4 can be nothing but literal narrative, especially with chapter 5 being an entire genealogical chapter based upon chapter 4.
Well, if we do take these genealogies as literal then the creation of Adam was just 6,000 years ago. That is going to come as quite a shock to the Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese.
As for the Moses' use of wordplay substantiating your argument, it really doesn't. One can easily find wordplay in literal narrative portions of the Bible as well (take a look at the Tower of Babel narrative in Hebrew, for example).
See above. Yep, Tower of Babel is apocalyptic.
And speaking of Hebrew, I find it particularly interesting that you neglected to indicate the Hebrew in Genesis 2:4 where the word, toledoth, is used, indicating a literal translation of: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created...," the same way the term is used later in the Old Testament in passages like "these are the generations of Terah" etc. It describes actual time, actual people, and actual events. It is clearly a history term. If you would like to devote some study to finding anywhere in the Old Testament where it is used to describe "apocalyptic" events, Circenses, be my guest, as I would be interested to know where such usages occur.
I neglected many things out of space and time. My objective was to show how plausible is my interpretation that chapters 1-3 are not “literal.”
Toledoth does not indicate a literal translation. It’s a book or chapter title. If we take the term “literally” then it designates that this book (5:1) is about the descendants of Adam, or it designates these particular people are the descendants of whomever (6:9, 10:1, 10:32, 11:10; etc.).
But what about the verse you, Panis, referred to? "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." (2:4) Wow, who are the descendents there? How can the heavens and the earth have descendents? I guess we can’t take that to “literally” mean that the heavens and the earth have “literal” descendents. My NASB translates this verse “this is the account.” My NIV does the same. The NRSV and KJV translates the verse “literally” as you have.
Genesis 1:1 says the book is about beginnings. Notice toledoth does not appear at the beginning of chapter one. Toledoth can mean “descendants, results, proceedings, account of, generations, genealogies. It appears to depend on context whether it refers to actual “descendents” or “an account of” something.
Let’s look at Revelation. 1:1 clearly states that this book is an Apocalypse. Therefore, we must assume the whole book to be an apocalypse. But in 1:3 it is said to be a prophecy. In 1:11 it is suggested to be a letter.
It’s quite dubious to claim that toledoth designates “actual time, actual people, and actual events”.
But let us say that toledoth is a history term. That the historical event has been given in an apocalyptic manner does not negate its historic truthfulness. Look at Revelation. It is an apocalypse and is historically true (see above). That Revelation has been given as an apocalypse does not negate that it is true in a historical sense.
Lastly, you neglect the fact that the statements you alluded to in chapter 2 of Genesis can easily be taken as a more detailed account of day 6 in God's creation. This obviously makes much sense, because the creation of man is obviously the emphasis of chapter 2, not the fact that God "formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air..."
Even if we accept your view that chapter 2 is more detailed account, the details are not in “literal”, chronological order. So what you must say is that chapter one is the correct chronological order but chapter two is for emphasis not in the correct chronological order. So Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, rearranged the material in chapter two to make a theological point rather than a literal point. Because, according to chapter one, man was not literally created first but, for theological emphasis, he was created first in chapter two. Regardless, the author is not being “literal.”
Some professors have told me that chapter 2 is the correct chronological order but chapter one has been theologically structured and not “literal”. So there is a variety of opinions on the matter on all sides.
No offense, Circenses, but I don't think your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is correct (which is fine, as I'm sure you don't see mine as correct, either). You say you held to such a position concerning the chapters before you came to believe in evolution. That's fine. The fact cannot be ignored, however, that your interpretation of those chapters certainly corroborates your evolutionary beliefs.
Don’t worry, Panis; no offense taken. Like I said, as long as people understand the theological truths of the story, I do not care whether they believe it to be "literal" or not. It’s like that OT verse that talks about the Day of the Lord when soldiers will beat there swords into plow shears. The passage speaks about a time when peace will be upon the land. Many, many have taken this verse to be about the millennial kingdom where all the promises made to racial and political Israel will be fulfilled. This verse specifically refers to the ancient practice of those preparing for war to beat their plow shears into swords. When the Day of the Lord comes, the reverse will be true. Now many, many people take this verse "literally" and say that “yes, by that time we will be using swords and plow shears. And if anyone thinks that we won’t be using swords for war then they don’t believe the Bible to be true.” It’s a poetical principle, that’s it! Is it truth? Yes, when the Day of the Lord comes war will cease. That’s all it means. And whether one interprets the verse "literally" or figuratively, that is the meaning that comes through to all. But we quibble over swords and plow shears. And people lose their jobs.
My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view of man as pinnacle of God’s creation. My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view that male and female are equal by creation and that only the fall of man has changed this. It is Chris that redeems this creation (yes, women can be pastors). My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view of man as a holistic being of body, soul, and spirit. My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view that there is no intermediate state in heaven for believers after they die and until the resurrection. We just lay in the ground and turn to dust. My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view that evolution, gravity, strong force, weak force, light, electro-magnetism, atoms and strings, are so wonderful that there existence only make sense if there is a God who ordained them.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
A Good and Timely Discussion
Panis Question:
Yes, it is clear that the student was a little confused. As you pointed out, if he truly wanted "balance" as he stated, he would not have had a problem with errancy views being taught alongside inerrancy views. I think that he was trying to sound accommodating in his letter, but ended up inadvertently saying that what he really wanted was for certain viewpoints to be taught. I'll make a few comments about each.
Inerrancy: When it comes to the inerrancy of Scripture, any academic institution which receives money from the SBC has no business undermining the basic doctrine of inerrancy. If the issue at the college is one of whether or not certain professors hold to inerrancy, then it is a viable issue. If there are professors there who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, they need to be terminated, simply by the virtue that the college is funded with SBC money. This was the crux of the conservative resurgence argument. The money of the SBC constituency was going to pay the salaries of those who did not believe the same way as the majority of Southern Baptists.
Evolution: 1. When talking about the age of the Earth, the truth of the matter is that it does not matter. The Bible was never intended to be a "date book" by which we should try to ascertain the exact age of the Earth. Who cares how old the Earth is, anyway? The bottom-line is that it was created by God. The only reason the 6,000 year-old and 10,000 year-old theories came about was to try to combat an aspect of evolutionist teachings that taught the Earth is millions of years old. Nevertheless, the Bible dating people as well as evolutionist scientists both forget one key thing: both views are nothing more than theories and each are improvable.
2. In terms of micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution, the answer is cut and dry with regards to man. One simply cannot reconcile a belief in macro-evolution with regards to man with Genesis. In Genesis, the fact that man is made in God's image after animals and that man is made with the breath of God clearly are distinguishing marks of man from the animals of the Earth. Saying that man evolved from life forms which God created earlier than man cannot be substantiated with the Genesis account. Clearly in Genesis, man is in a special position in God's hierarchy. Saying that he was formed using already created lower life forms undermines God's purpose of specifically designating him at such a high position of having dominion over the animals as well as the ability to have personal fellowship with God.
Some would argue that the Genesis creation account is not literally what happened, but is rather just symbolic or allegorical in nature, thereby trying to find a way to reconcile scientific theories of man's origins with the Bible. This argument has to simply be rejected, however, for the days of creation in Genesis are clearly numbered. "This was created after this was created after this," etc. With such precision noted, taking the Genesis account as figurative or allegorical is simply bad hermeneutics. Furthermore, the view of the creation account being figurative or allegorical necessitates a rendering of the events in the Garden of Eden as figurative or allegorical as well. As is attested in the New Testament (by Paul), that is simply false.
Can one hold to evolutionist teachings and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Absolutely. Can one hold to macro-evolution with regard to man's origins and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Yes, but it seems to create quite a conundrum; for if Genesis says what it says, the macro-evolution of man cannot be true. Yet, if one believes science in regards to man's macro-evolution, then Genesis has to be wrong (unless you try to "fudge" and say that the creation account in Genesis is figurative or allegorical). Most inerrantists who believe in macro-evolution are in such a category.
Thus, Circensis, since you are an inerrantist, do you believe in man's macro-evolution, and if so, do you hold that Genesis is figurative or allegorical?
Circensis Answer:
Inerrancy: When it comes to the inerrancy of Scripture, any academic institution which receives money from the SBC has no business undermining the basic doctrine of inerrancy. If the issue at the college is one of whether or not certain professors hold to inerrancy, then it is a viable issue.
First, we do not yet know that the 25-30 yr old doctrine of inerrancy has been undermined. All we have is a college student making weak allegations. Four sub-points.
A) As we have previously learned, a believer can be faithful, fruitful, Bible-believing, believing the Bible to be true, infallible, inspired, the Word of God, but if he does not hold to inerrancy then he can be dismissed.
B) There are four or five different versions of inerrancy. Very few SBC believers are inerrantists so in the strictest sense. The term has never been sufficiently explained by the SBC. Therefore, anyone can be called an inerrantist at anytime if you probe their beliefs long enough. All you then do is flash the “errantist” label and someone is dismissed.
C) Because inerrancy is such a misunderstood term we then have to distinguish it from the notion that textual variations appear in the Bible. For all we know professors at Carson-Newman simply disputed the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 or John 7:53-8:11. This kid may have heard that and thought it inerrancy. I am hoping that someone set down with him and asked him exactly what he deems to be the errantist teachings at C-N. But 1) since I think this Tennessee Baptist actions are political in nature and 2) the student has not yet demonstrated any evidence to support his claims other than the quickly refuted evolution claim, I, therefore, do not yet believe that such errancy views exist.
D) And this is an important point. None of the Baptist Faith and Messages including the big 2000 BFM says anything about inerrancy. If the Bible Battles of the resurgence was all about the issue of inerrancy then why did they not put inerrancy in the 2000 BFM? All they did was remove a few words that said that Jesus was to be criterion for which the Bible is to be interpreted. They took Jesus out! The only other major thing they did was to codify that women could not be pastors, a completely unbiblical law. That is the reason so many people left in 2000-2001. But inerrancy, not in there.
If there are professors there who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, they need to be terminated, simply by the virtue that the college is funded with SBC money. This was the crux of the conservative resurgence argument. The money of the SBC constituency was going to pay the salaries of those who did not believe the same way as the majority of Southern Baptists.
Again, we would be firing people for holding a position on inerrancy that the 2000 BFM does not address. But let us trace the history of this issue about SBC money.
1) SBC agency employees were told they had to sign the 2000 BFM.
2) Then seminary employees were told they had to sign the 2000 BFM.
3) Then missionaries were told they had to sign the 2000 BFM.
Now all of these events did not happen at once but over a period of a short time. Now an association in Georgia is requiring its churches to sign the 2000 BFM. Other state conventions are considering the same thing. And, now, we have a state convention considering having its college profs sign the 2000 BFM.
Questions:
1) Are the all of the above events and considerations a good thing? If so, why?
2) Should the SBC require all churches to sign the 2000 BFM? If so, why?
3) And here is a big one. Should the SBC require all seminary students who receive SBC money to sign the 2000 BFM?
a. Why should a seminary student receive SBC money for his education if he will then go out and preach what is contrary to the majority of Southern Baptists and undermine the doctrine of inerrancy? They are the future pastors of America.
b. Should students be allowed to opt out of the SBC money we each automatically receive? Every SBC seminary student receives SBC money.
c. If a seminary student who receives SBC money and signs the 2000 BFM but subsequently comes to believe women can be pastors then can that student be forced to repay the money he has taken or should he be dismissed from his seminary? Perhaps he should be put on some form of probation until he agrees to drop his heresy.
4) Where will this all end? Should all members of a SBC church be required to sign the 2000 BFM?
Evolution: 1. When talking about the age of the Earth, the truth of the matter is that it does not matter. The Bible was never intended to be a "date book" by which we should try to ascertain the exact age of the Earth. Who cares how old the Earth is, anyway? The bottom-line is that it was created by God. The only reason the 6,000 year-old and 10,000 year-old theories came about was to try to combat an aspect of evolutionist teachings that taught the Earth is millions of years old. Nevertheless, the Bible dating people as well as evolutionist scientists both forget one key thing: both views are nothing more than theories and each are improvable.
The age of the earth does not matter? The bottom line is that it was created by God? Okay, then evolution or “creationism” does not matter; the bottom line is that man was created by God.
2. In terms of micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution, the answer is cut and dry with regards to man. One simply cannot reconcile a belief in macro-evolution with regards to man with Genesis. In Genesis, the fact that man is made in God's image after animals and that man is made with the breath of God clearly are distinguishing marks of man from the animals of the Earth. Saying that man evolved from life forms which God created earlier than man cannot be substantiated with the Genesis account. Clearly in Genesis, man is in a special position in God's hierarchy. Saying that he was formed using already created lower life forms undermines God's purpose of specifically designating him at such a high position of having dominion over the animals as well as the ability to have personal fellowship with God.
Some would argue that the Genesis creation account is not literally what happened, but is rather just symbolic or allegorical in nature, thereby trying to find a way to reconcile scientific theories of man's origins with the Bible. This argument has to simply be rejected, however, for the days of creation in Genesis are clearly numbered. "This was created after this was created after this," etc. With such precision noted, taking the Genesis account as figurative or allegorical is simply bad hermeneutics. Furthermore, the view of the creation account being figurative or allegorical necessitates a rendering of the events in the Garden of Eden as figurative or allegorical as well. As is attested in the New Testament (by Paul), that is simply false.
Can one hold to evolutionist teachings and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Absolutely. Can one hold to macro-evolution with regard to man's origins and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Yes, but it seems to create quite a conundrum; for if Genesis says what it says, the macro-evolution of man cannot be true. Yet, if one believes science in regards to man's macro-evolution, then Genesis has to be wrong (unless you try to "fudge" and say that the creation account in Genesis is figurative or allegorical). Most inerrantists who believe in macro-evolution are in such a category.
Thus, Circenses, since you are an inerrantist, do you believe in man's macro-evolution, and if so, do you hold that Genesis is figurative or allegorical?
Yes, I do believe in macro-evolution. Do I hold that the first three chapters are figurative or allegorical? Hmmm.
I have heard the term described as figurative, allegorical, or mythical. All of these are loaded words that are good in some cultures and not-so-good in others. “Mythical” is acceptable in German but not so in English. Ask Ralph Elliott. But let us use a term that carries the same function as the above but not the same cultural baggage. I choose to call the first three chapters of Genesis “apocalyptic.” Yes, the term “apocalyptic” is more appropriate.
Look at other parts of the Bible where apocalyptic literature is used. Parts of Daniel, parts of Zechariah and Ezekiel, and most of Revelation. All of these are apocalyptic. Why? Well, look at Revelation. No one is around to see beginning of Glory, the end of the old creation and the start of the new. These events had to be “revealed” to John. The same is true with the beginning of Genesis. Moses (or JE) was not there to see these events and these events had to be “revealed” to the author. In both cases, figurative language is used. Neither are strictly “literal” as we conceive it today, or do we actually believe the anti-Christ is a REAL beast with ten heads and seven heads? Is Satan ACTUALLY a dragon? Or are these simply images and figurative language to express what would be incomprehensible to first century people. No one takes Revelation “literally.” No one.
Now let’s turn to Genesis 1-3. “Apocalyptic” is an acceptable term. God had to “reveal” these events to the author and communicate the theological truths in a way that both people 4,000 years ago and today could understand. Incidentally, however we interpret Genesis 1-3, literal or apocalyptic, the theological truths still come through. This makes the issue a mute point in my estimation, but it shows the power and wisdom of God.
So what evidence do I have that makes me think that Genesis 1-3 are apocalyptic in nature?
First, it is interesting that chapters 1 and 2-3 are separate pieces. Whether you believe they were written by the same person is immaterial. We know these are separate pieces because the creation events in either chapter are in different chronological orders.
1:11 – God creates trees and plants and vegetation (3rd day).
1:20 – God creates fish and birds (5th day).
1:24 – God creates beasts and then God creates man in His own image, male and female He created them (6th day).
2:2-3 – God rested from his creating (7th day).
2:7 – Lord God forms man (adam) from ground (adamah).
2:9 – Lord God creates trees out of ground; no shrubs or plants on earth before man (2:5)
2:19 – Lord God creates beasts and birds from the ground (adamah).
2:22 – Lord God creates woman from man’s rib.
Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics.
Notice how in 1:24 beasts and man were created on the same day. Notice in 2:7 and 2:19 that both man and beasts were created out of the same stuff (adamah). Both are called “living creatures or souls or beings.” The exact same Hebrew words are used nephesh hayiyah. What is the difference between man and beast? Man is called adam because he came from adamah, the animals were not so named. Man was created in the image of God, animals were not. Whether you interpret this passage literally or apocalyptically, whether you interpret this passage as instantaneous or a process of millions of years of evolution (directed by God) the result is the same. Man is created in God’s image. Man is not degraded in either interpretation, the exact opposite is true.
I have asked my professors to explain the different chronological orders of these two chapters. They soon admit that the first chapter is probably meant to be taken more figuratively than the second chapter. I ask, why can’t the reverse be true? I do not get an answer.
Notice in verse 2:9 that God “caused to grow every tree.” The trees did not instantaneously appear. There was a process for the trees “to grow”. Nevertheless, God caused the process. Notice in 2:19 that God “forms every beast”. “Form” like “grow” can involve a process. Notice in 2:7 that God “forms man”. In Isaiah 44:2, the same word is used for “form” (yatsar). Notice the Isaiah 44:2 passage: “The Lord formed you from the womb.” Now wait a second. A person is formed in the womb by male sperm and female egg and forms over a nine-month period. Just ask my friend, Travis. Why is God saying he formed someone in one’s womb? Perhaps because he created the process by which all people are formed in the womb. We all say that we are God’s creation despite the fact that we admit that we were created differently than Adam.
We are not quibbling over whether or not God created man and the animals, rather, we are quibbling over processes of that creation. We are quibbling over whether God created man over a long period of time or over a day.
Now, look at the Hebrew words used in chapters two and three. Poetic and figurative language is used. Man (adam) from ground (adamah). Female (ishah) came out of male (ish). Eve (chavvah) is mother of all the living (chay) (i.e. men come from women). The serpent was crafty (arum) and the man and woman are naked (erum). The puns are flying left and right. The author is using this pun language to make theological points about man and his predicament. None of this would make any since if it was written in any language other than Hebrew.
Look at chapter one. In 1:7-8 God is separating waters (mayim) from waters (mayim) and making one the heavens (shamayim).
The deep, the firmament, these are ancient middle eastern cosmogony terms that describe a world that no one believes exists. Are these terms found in the narratives of the Bible? No. They are found in the poetic and apocalyptic sections of the Bible, where they can be figuratively understood.
These three chapters are full of the language that we find in poetic and apocalyptic literature. None of the straight forward language that we find in the Abraham narrative is there.
And let us ask the tough questions: Where did Cain’s wife come from? Where did Seth’s children come from? He must’ve had a wife, where did she come from?
These are reason why I think the first chapters of Genesis are best interpreted as apocalyptic. Nevertheless, a literal interpretation does not necessarily hurt. The same theological truths come forth just the same. You state that “the Bible was never intended to be a ‘date book’ by which we should try to ascertain the exact age of the Earth.” I am maintaining that the Bible was never intended to be a science book by which we should try to ascertain the exact processes by which God created. The bottom-line is that man was created by God in His image.
Now, what about Paul? Nowhere does Paul say that the Genesis 3 story should be taken “literally”. Nowhere does he directly say that this story should be taken “figuratively”, except in Romans 5:14 where he says that Adam was a “type” of Him who was to come. Paul is fond of typology; he uses it extensively in Galatians 4. Paul has no problem using typology to figuratively speak of Adam. Regardless, whether or not we take Paul to speak of Adam figuratively or literally, the same spiritual truth comes forth. If anywhere in Paul’s writings, he speaks of Adam and events surrounding man, the literal or figurative nature of the story is unimportant. What is important is the theological truth that Paul is preaching. A pastor preaches upon the apocalyptic truth of the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel. A pastor preaches upon the apocalyptic truths in the beast and whore in Revelation.
I believed in the figurative or apocalyptic view of Genesis 1-3 a long time before I believed in evolution. I came to the conclusion that these chapters were apocalyptic and not “literal” from reading the Bible itself and not from science. Only some time later after I came to realize what the author of Genesis 1-3 was doing did I subsequently read Christian authors and scholars (many who were/are SBC leaders) who approached evolution in a manner that appealed to me and coalesced with my understanding of Scripture.
Actually, I do not care at all whether someone believes or disbelieves in evolution. I have never attempted other believers to see it my way. Whether someone believes in evolution or not is as relevant as someone believing in Einstein’s general relativity. My only beef comes when people like this student and others attempt to get others in trouble for their beliefs. Only then do I step up. My interest is not that others believe my way on this issue but that others allow others to have differences of opinion on evolution.
This student and those who are backing him have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. I am afraid they are going to use evolution (1925 BFM), Genesis (1963 BFM), and inerrancy (2000 BFM) to force professors to adopt the 2000 BFM. I think all of this is about power and control. Why? Because neither the 1925, 1963, or the 2000 BFM address evolution, Genesis, or inerrancy. These are just hot-button issues in the SBC that people use to get more control over others. Not me.
Yes, it is clear that the student was a little confused. As you pointed out, if he truly wanted "balance" as he stated, he would not have had a problem with errancy views being taught alongside inerrancy views. I think that he was trying to sound accommodating in his letter, but ended up inadvertently saying that what he really wanted was for certain viewpoints to be taught. I'll make a few comments about each.
Inerrancy: When it comes to the inerrancy of Scripture, any academic institution which receives money from the SBC has no business undermining the basic doctrine of inerrancy. If the issue at the college is one of whether or not certain professors hold to inerrancy, then it is a viable issue. If there are professors there who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, they need to be terminated, simply by the virtue that the college is funded with SBC money. This was the crux of the conservative resurgence argument. The money of the SBC constituency was going to pay the salaries of those who did not believe the same way as the majority of Southern Baptists.
Evolution: 1. When talking about the age of the Earth, the truth of the matter is that it does not matter. The Bible was never intended to be a "date book" by which we should try to ascertain the exact age of the Earth. Who cares how old the Earth is, anyway? The bottom-line is that it was created by God. The only reason the 6,000 year-old and 10,000 year-old theories came about was to try to combat an aspect of evolutionist teachings that taught the Earth is millions of years old. Nevertheless, the Bible dating people as well as evolutionist scientists both forget one key thing: both views are nothing more than theories and each are improvable.
2. In terms of micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution, the answer is cut and dry with regards to man. One simply cannot reconcile a belief in macro-evolution with regards to man with Genesis. In Genesis, the fact that man is made in God's image after animals and that man is made with the breath of God clearly are distinguishing marks of man from the animals of the Earth. Saying that man evolved from life forms which God created earlier than man cannot be substantiated with the Genesis account. Clearly in Genesis, man is in a special position in God's hierarchy. Saying that he was formed using already created lower life forms undermines God's purpose of specifically designating him at such a high position of having dominion over the animals as well as the ability to have personal fellowship with God.
Some would argue that the Genesis creation account is not literally what happened, but is rather just symbolic or allegorical in nature, thereby trying to find a way to reconcile scientific theories of man's origins with the Bible. This argument has to simply be rejected, however, for the days of creation in Genesis are clearly numbered. "This was created after this was created after this," etc. With such precision noted, taking the Genesis account as figurative or allegorical is simply bad hermeneutics. Furthermore, the view of the creation account being figurative or allegorical necessitates a rendering of the events in the Garden of Eden as figurative or allegorical as well. As is attested in the New Testament (by Paul), that is simply false.
Can one hold to evolutionist teachings and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Absolutely. Can one hold to macro-evolution with regard to man's origins and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Yes, but it seems to create quite a conundrum; for if Genesis says what it says, the macro-evolution of man cannot be true. Yet, if one believes science in regards to man's macro-evolution, then Genesis has to be wrong (unless you try to "fudge" and say that the creation account in Genesis is figurative or allegorical). Most inerrantists who believe in macro-evolution are in such a category.
Thus, Circensis, since you are an inerrantist, do you believe in man's macro-evolution, and if so, do you hold that Genesis is figurative or allegorical?
Circensis Answer:
Inerrancy: When it comes to the inerrancy of Scripture, any academic institution which receives money from the SBC has no business undermining the basic doctrine of inerrancy. If the issue at the college is one of whether or not certain professors hold to inerrancy, then it is a viable issue.
First, we do not yet know that the 25-30 yr old doctrine of inerrancy has been undermined. All we have is a college student making weak allegations. Four sub-points.
A) As we have previously learned, a believer can be faithful, fruitful, Bible-believing, believing the Bible to be true, infallible, inspired, the Word of God, but if he does not hold to inerrancy then he can be dismissed.
B) There are four or five different versions of inerrancy. Very few SBC believers are inerrantists so in the strictest sense. The term has never been sufficiently explained by the SBC. Therefore, anyone can be called an inerrantist at anytime if you probe their beliefs long enough. All you then do is flash the “errantist” label and someone is dismissed.
C) Because inerrancy is such a misunderstood term we then have to distinguish it from the notion that textual variations appear in the Bible. For all we know professors at Carson-Newman simply disputed the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 or John 7:53-8:11. This kid may have heard that and thought it inerrancy. I am hoping that someone set down with him and asked him exactly what he deems to be the errantist teachings at C-N. But 1) since I think this Tennessee Baptist actions are political in nature and 2) the student has not yet demonstrated any evidence to support his claims other than the quickly refuted evolution claim, I, therefore, do not yet believe that such errancy views exist.
D) And this is an important point. None of the Baptist Faith and Messages including the big 2000 BFM says anything about inerrancy. If the Bible Battles of the resurgence was all about the issue of inerrancy then why did they not put inerrancy in the 2000 BFM? All they did was remove a few words that said that Jesus was to be criterion for which the Bible is to be interpreted. They took Jesus out! The only other major thing they did was to codify that women could not be pastors, a completely unbiblical law. That is the reason so many people left in 2000-2001. But inerrancy, not in there.
If there are professors there who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, they need to be terminated, simply by the virtue that the college is funded with SBC money. This was the crux of the conservative resurgence argument. The money of the SBC constituency was going to pay the salaries of those who did not believe the same way as the majority of Southern Baptists.
Again, we would be firing people for holding a position on inerrancy that the 2000 BFM does not address. But let us trace the history of this issue about SBC money.
1) SBC agency employees were told they had to sign the 2000 BFM.
2) Then seminary employees were told they had to sign the 2000 BFM.
3) Then missionaries were told they had to sign the 2000 BFM.
Now all of these events did not happen at once but over a period of a short time. Now an association in Georgia is requiring its churches to sign the 2000 BFM. Other state conventions are considering the same thing. And, now, we have a state convention considering having its college profs sign the 2000 BFM.
Questions:
1) Are the all of the above events and considerations a good thing? If so, why?
2) Should the SBC require all churches to sign the 2000 BFM? If so, why?
3) And here is a big one. Should the SBC require all seminary students who receive SBC money to sign the 2000 BFM?
a. Why should a seminary student receive SBC money for his education if he will then go out and preach what is contrary to the majority of Southern Baptists and undermine the doctrine of inerrancy? They are the future pastors of America.
b. Should students be allowed to opt out of the SBC money we each automatically receive? Every SBC seminary student receives SBC money.
c. If a seminary student who receives SBC money and signs the 2000 BFM but subsequently comes to believe women can be pastors then can that student be forced to repay the money he has taken or should he be dismissed from his seminary? Perhaps he should be put on some form of probation until he agrees to drop his heresy.
4) Where will this all end? Should all members of a SBC church be required to sign the 2000 BFM?
Evolution: 1. When talking about the age of the Earth, the truth of the matter is that it does not matter. The Bible was never intended to be a "date book" by which we should try to ascertain the exact age of the Earth. Who cares how old the Earth is, anyway? The bottom-line is that it was created by God. The only reason the 6,000 year-old and 10,000 year-old theories came about was to try to combat an aspect of evolutionist teachings that taught the Earth is millions of years old. Nevertheless, the Bible dating people as well as evolutionist scientists both forget one key thing: both views are nothing more than theories and each are improvable.
The age of the earth does not matter? The bottom line is that it was created by God? Okay, then evolution or “creationism” does not matter; the bottom line is that man was created by God.
2. In terms of micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution, the answer is cut and dry with regards to man. One simply cannot reconcile a belief in macro-evolution with regards to man with Genesis. In Genesis, the fact that man is made in God's image after animals and that man is made with the breath of God clearly are distinguishing marks of man from the animals of the Earth. Saying that man evolved from life forms which God created earlier than man cannot be substantiated with the Genesis account. Clearly in Genesis, man is in a special position in God's hierarchy. Saying that he was formed using already created lower life forms undermines God's purpose of specifically designating him at such a high position of having dominion over the animals as well as the ability to have personal fellowship with God.
Some would argue that the Genesis creation account is not literally what happened, but is rather just symbolic or allegorical in nature, thereby trying to find a way to reconcile scientific theories of man's origins with the Bible. This argument has to simply be rejected, however, for the days of creation in Genesis are clearly numbered. "This was created after this was created after this," etc. With such precision noted, taking the Genesis account as figurative or allegorical is simply bad hermeneutics. Furthermore, the view of the creation account being figurative or allegorical necessitates a rendering of the events in the Garden of Eden as figurative or allegorical as well. As is attested in the New Testament (by Paul), that is simply false.
Can one hold to evolutionist teachings and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Absolutely. Can one hold to macro-evolution with regard to man's origins and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Yes, but it seems to create quite a conundrum; for if Genesis says what it says, the macro-evolution of man cannot be true. Yet, if one believes science in regards to man's macro-evolution, then Genesis has to be wrong (unless you try to "fudge" and say that the creation account in Genesis is figurative or allegorical). Most inerrantists who believe in macro-evolution are in such a category.
Thus, Circenses, since you are an inerrantist, do you believe in man's macro-evolution, and if so, do you hold that Genesis is figurative or allegorical?
Yes, I do believe in macro-evolution. Do I hold that the first three chapters are figurative or allegorical? Hmmm.
I have heard the term described as figurative, allegorical, or mythical. All of these are loaded words that are good in some cultures and not-so-good in others. “Mythical” is acceptable in German but not so in English. Ask Ralph Elliott. But let us use a term that carries the same function as the above but not the same cultural baggage. I choose to call the first three chapters of Genesis “apocalyptic.” Yes, the term “apocalyptic” is more appropriate.
Look at other parts of the Bible where apocalyptic literature is used. Parts of Daniel, parts of Zechariah and Ezekiel, and most of Revelation. All of these are apocalyptic. Why? Well, look at Revelation. No one is around to see beginning of Glory, the end of the old creation and the start of the new. These events had to be “revealed” to John. The same is true with the beginning of Genesis. Moses (or JE) was not there to see these events and these events had to be “revealed” to the author. In both cases, figurative language is used. Neither are strictly “literal” as we conceive it today, or do we actually believe the anti-Christ is a REAL beast with ten heads and seven heads? Is Satan ACTUALLY a dragon? Or are these simply images and figurative language to express what would be incomprehensible to first century people. No one takes Revelation “literally.” No one.
Now let’s turn to Genesis 1-3. “Apocalyptic” is an acceptable term. God had to “reveal” these events to the author and communicate the theological truths in a way that both people 4,000 years ago and today could understand. Incidentally, however we interpret Genesis 1-3, literal or apocalyptic, the theological truths still come through. This makes the issue a mute point in my estimation, but it shows the power and wisdom of God.
So what evidence do I have that makes me think that Genesis 1-3 are apocalyptic in nature?
First, it is interesting that chapters 1 and 2-3 are separate pieces. Whether you believe they were written by the same person is immaterial. We know these are separate pieces because the creation events in either chapter are in different chronological orders.
1:11 – God creates trees and plants and vegetation (3rd day).
1:20 – God creates fish and birds (5th day).
1:24 – God creates beasts and then God creates man in His own image, male and female He created them (6th day).
2:2-3 – God rested from his creating (7th day).
2:7 – Lord God forms man (adam) from ground (adamah).
2:9 – Lord God creates trees out of ground; no shrubs or plants on earth before man (2:5)
2:19 – Lord God creates beasts and birds from the ground (adamah).
2:22 – Lord God creates woman from man’s rib.
Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics.
Notice how in 1:24 beasts and man were created on the same day. Notice in 2:7 and 2:19 that both man and beasts were created out of the same stuff (adamah). Both are called “living creatures or souls or beings.” The exact same Hebrew words are used nephesh hayiyah. What is the difference between man and beast? Man is called adam because he came from adamah, the animals were not so named. Man was created in the image of God, animals were not. Whether you interpret this passage literally or apocalyptically, whether you interpret this passage as instantaneous or a process of millions of years of evolution (directed by God) the result is the same. Man is created in God’s image. Man is not degraded in either interpretation, the exact opposite is true.
I have asked my professors to explain the different chronological orders of these two chapters. They soon admit that the first chapter is probably meant to be taken more figuratively than the second chapter. I ask, why can’t the reverse be true? I do not get an answer.
Notice in verse 2:9 that God “caused to grow every tree.” The trees did not instantaneously appear. There was a process for the trees “to grow”. Nevertheless, God caused the process. Notice in 2:19 that God “forms every beast”. “Form” like “grow” can involve a process. Notice in 2:7 that God “forms man”. In Isaiah 44:2, the same word is used for “form” (yatsar). Notice the Isaiah 44:2 passage: “The Lord formed you from the womb.” Now wait a second. A person is formed in the womb by male sperm and female egg and forms over a nine-month period. Just ask my friend, Travis. Why is God saying he formed someone in one’s womb? Perhaps because he created the process by which all people are formed in the womb. We all say that we are God’s creation despite the fact that we admit that we were created differently than Adam.
We are not quibbling over whether or not God created man and the animals, rather, we are quibbling over processes of that creation. We are quibbling over whether God created man over a long period of time or over a day.
Now, look at the Hebrew words used in chapters two and three. Poetic and figurative language is used. Man (adam) from ground (adamah). Female (ishah) came out of male (ish). Eve (chavvah) is mother of all the living (chay) (i.e. men come from women). The serpent was crafty (arum) and the man and woman are naked (erum). The puns are flying left and right. The author is using this pun language to make theological points about man and his predicament. None of this would make any since if it was written in any language other than Hebrew.
Look at chapter one. In 1:7-8 God is separating waters (mayim) from waters (mayim) and making one the heavens (shamayim).
The deep, the firmament, these are ancient middle eastern cosmogony terms that describe a world that no one believes exists. Are these terms found in the narratives of the Bible? No. They are found in the poetic and apocalyptic sections of the Bible, where they can be figuratively understood.
These three chapters are full of the language that we find in poetic and apocalyptic literature. None of the straight forward language that we find in the Abraham narrative is there.
And let us ask the tough questions: Where did Cain’s wife come from? Where did Seth’s children come from? He must’ve had a wife, where did she come from?
These are reason why I think the first chapters of Genesis are best interpreted as apocalyptic. Nevertheless, a literal interpretation does not necessarily hurt. The same theological truths come forth just the same. You state that “the Bible was never intended to be a ‘date book’ by which we should try to ascertain the exact age of the Earth.” I am maintaining that the Bible was never intended to be a science book by which we should try to ascertain the exact processes by which God created. The bottom-line is that man was created by God in His image.
Now, what about Paul? Nowhere does Paul say that the Genesis 3 story should be taken “literally”. Nowhere does he directly say that this story should be taken “figuratively”, except in Romans 5:14 where he says that Adam was a “type” of Him who was to come. Paul is fond of typology; he uses it extensively in Galatians 4. Paul has no problem using typology to figuratively speak of Adam. Regardless, whether or not we take Paul to speak of Adam figuratively or literally, the same spiritual truth comes forth. If anywhere in Paul’s writings, he speaks of Adam and events surrounding man, the literal or figurative nature of the story is unimportant. What is important is the theological truth that Paul is preaching. A pastor preaches upon the apocalyptic truth of the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel. A pastor preaches upon the apocalyptic truths in the beast and whore in Revelation.
I believed in the figurative or apocalyptic view of Genesis 1-3 a long time before I believed in evolution. I came to the conclusion that these chapters were apocalyptic and not “literal” from reading the Bible itself and not from science. Only some time later after I came to realize what the author of Genesis 1-3 was doing did I subsequently read Christian authors and scholars (many who were/are SBC leaders) who approached evolution in a manner that appealed to me and coalesced with my understanding of Scripture.
Actually, I do not care at all whether someone believes or disbelieves in evolution. I have never attempted other believers to see it my way. Whether someone believes in evolution or not is as relevant as someone believing in Einstein’s general relativity. My only beef comes when people like this student and others attempt to get others in trouble for their beliefs. Only then do I step up. My interest is not that others believe my way on this issue but that others allow others to have differences of opinion on evolution.
This student and those who are backing him have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. I am afraid they are going to use evolution (1925 BFM), Genesis (1963 BFM), and inerrancy (2000 BFM) to force professors to adopt the 2000 BFM. I think all of this is about power and control. Why? Because neither the 1925, 1963, or the 2000 BFM address evolution, Genesis, or inerrancy. These are just hot-button issues in the SBC that people use to get more control over others. Not me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)