"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
I am not sure why, but I have enjoyed two of Pastor Cole’s recent blog posts. This is a real good one. He references Kierkegaard.
If I had to name the greatest theological influences on my Christian education they would be Soren Kierkegaard, E.Y. Mullins, Emil Brunner, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Dale Moody. I love to read their works.
But Kierkegaard is the most influential. He is such if anything for the fact that Brunner, Niebuhr and Moody are all theologically indebted to him. Let’s include with them Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Frank Stagg, etc. Kierkegaard was the theological father of neo-orthodoxy and, I would argue, the man who saved conservative Christian theology from intellectual extinction.
So I am so thrilled that Pastor Cole mentions him and a particular book.
Ah, Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard. What a wonderful compendium! One of my favourite books. Theology, devotion, philosophy, criticism, kerygma and doctrine joined in a harmonious, counter-point concert. I strongly recommend this book, particularly as an introduction to his theology. I think this books presents a fairly accurate summary of Kierkegaard’s primary points of view about the Christian Faith and his significant contributions to the Church.
Provocations was one of the books I read on the Oxford Study Program in 2004. I think I actually bought it at the Barnes & Noble in Oxford. Interestingly, that year’s program was led by Dr. Yarnell who has left comments on the passage.
This, from the book Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard.
Disclaimer: Reading a single syllable of Kierkegaard is certain to set your little boat adrift, either to the right side of the river in ecumenism, or down the middle in neo-orthodoxy, or to the left toward liberalism. As with Liberation Theology, thar be dragons aplenty. Enter ye, who must surely meet their fate:
Christ was not making a historical observation when he declared: The gospel is preached to the poor. The accent is on the gospel, that the gospel is for the poor. Here the word “poor” does not simply mean poverty but all who suffer, are unfortunate, wretched, wronged, oppressed, crippled, lame, leprous, demonic. The gospel is preached to them, that is, the gospel is for them. The gospel is good news for them. What good news? Not: money, health, status, and so on — no, this is not Christianity.
No, for the poor the gospel is the good news because to be unfortunate in this world (in such a way that one is abandoned by human sympathy, and the worldly zest for life even cruelly tries to make one’s misfortune into guilt) is a sign of God’s nearness. So it was originally; this is the gospel in the New Testament. It is preached for the poor, and it is preached by the poor who, if they in other respects were not suffering, would eventually suffer by proclaiming the gospel; since suffering is inseparable from following Christ, from telling the truth.
But soon there came a change. When preaching the gospel became a livelihood, even a lush livelihood, then the gospel became good news for the rich and for the mighty. For how else was the preacher to acquire and secure rank and dignity unless Christianity secured the best for all? Christianity thus ceased to be glad tidings for those who suffer, a message of hope that transfigures suffering into joy, but a guarantee for the enjoyment of life intensified and secured by by the hope of eternity.
The gospel no longer benefits the poor essentially. In fact, Christianity has now even become a downright injustice to those who suffer (although we are not always conscious of this, and certainly unwilling to admit to it). Today the gospel is preached to the rich, the powerful, who have discovered it to be advantageous. We are right back again to the very state original Christianity wanted to oppose. The rich and powerful not only get to keep everything, but their success becomes the mark of their piety, the sign of their relationship to God. And this prompts the old atrocity again — namely, the idea that the unfortunate, the poor are to blame for their condition; that it is because they are not pious enough, are not true Christians, that they are poor, whereas the rich have not only pleasure but piety as well. This is supposed to be Christianity. Compare it with the New Testament, and you will see that this is as far from that as possible.
Allow me to make a few concluding un-scientific commments, he says with a self-satisfied chuckle.
Kierkegaard was from an infant-baptism church and, to my knowledge, never spoke against it.
With regards to his scathingly attacks on those churches that consider everybody possible to be a Christian, his criticism applies to both infant-baptism churches and believers-baptism churches. Indeed, a proper reading of Kierkegaard’s attack on Christendom will show that it stems from his studies on the subjective aspect of faith in God (see Philosophic Fragments and Concluding Unscientific Postscript). Kierkegaard’s problem was with a Christianity that taught that mere assent to the objectives truths of the Faith made one a Christian. He saw that such an objective approach to Christianity had no transforming affect upon the individual believer. Instead, Kierkegaard argued for a subjective approach to the Faith which involved a personal commitment on the part of the believer; an approach beyond mere assent to that of a transforming, personal commitment. The reduction of Christianity to mere assent to objective facts and elementary truths aside from any real personal relationship with God is a problem that plagues all church traditions regardless of mode and meaning of Baptism.
Thus, Kierkegaard would have liked the Emergent Church. He would have approved of its focus on the personal, relational and subjective aspects of that part of the Church.
In fact, I could make a case that Kierkegaard would have been thrilled with the works of E.Y. Mullins.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
For prospective seminary students…
I like these suggestions. My own can be read here. Allow me to make commentary.
Please be advised of the following. Failure to observe and apply these helpful hints will deprive your seminary experience. We at Baptist Blogger would have enjoyed a more profitable seminary education if we had heard and observed all these rules. There are four or five or ten wherein we failed miserably and frequently.
1. There is no such thing as a tenant of Arminian theology.
2. There is no such thing as a tenet of Armenian theology.
3. When referencing the sixteenth century reformer, Martin Luther, it is not necessary to tell your professor that he “nailed the ninety-five theses to the church door at Wittenburg.” Your professor knows you are not referencing the 20th century Civil Rights leader. The same rule applies to all major figures in church history. Resist the temptation to explore obvious and overused facts in your writing. Write about something that few men know.
Well, that would be Christian and Baptist History, wouldn’t it?
4. John MacArthur’s commentaries are great for stealing sermons. They are unacceptable for exegetical research.
Shazaam!
5. Never, ever use an exclamation point for any reason whatsoever.
Never!
6. The unexpected death of a church member does not absolve you of weeks of procrastination.
But it does help to dilute it.
7. Learn Turabian early, and review her often. There is no excuse for submitting research papers with homespun formatting. Trust me, you cannot intuit Kate’s ways.
Of course, Turabian and SWBTS styles change with each semester and the with the temperament of the professor.
8. Footnotes serve nobler purposes than mere source citations. Use them to demonstrate that you have interacted substantively with a source by elaborating an explanation.
I agree. (1)
9. The Holy Bible is inerrant, infallible, and inspired. It is not, however, an occasion for bibliographic buttressing.
But it’s often an occasion for heretical buttressing.
10. Have someone other than your wife or roommate edit your major term papers. Ask your professor to recommend a student, and pay him for his labors. An excellent grade is worth a modest sum.
An excellent education is worth disproportionately large sum.
11. Learn to search for journal articles outside of JETS. If you don’t know what JETS is, do not try to find out.
She's got electric boots a mohair suit
You know I read it in a magazine
12. When choosing between professors, find one that has published at least one significant monograph within the past five years. Too many seminary professors are woefully incapable of rigorous academic research, and if your professor lists a Winter Bible Study or journal article from his own seminary journal on his curriculum vitae, pass on him.
And choose one quickly; such professors will not be allowed to hang around for too much longer.
13. Do not presuppose that you will learn what you need to learn from a seminary education. Seminary, if it serves its purpose, will equip you with some of the tools you will need, not all of them.
It will also equip you with some of the tools you don’t need.
14. Find a spot in the library away from high traffic areas and live there between classes. Stay away from the coffee shops. Do not waste your energies rutting with the spring bucks.
At SWBTS, I myself prefer a spot near the neo-orthodox theologians and the journal articles. However, at non-Christian educational institutions, I can always be found near PR 6019.
15. Purchase a copy of Hans Frei’s The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative and read the first 100 pages every semester.
But remember not to look directly at the words (joke).
I have read Frei (for German) but not this book. Having read the two blurbs below, I am now quite interested. My own studies have led me in the direction of handling the Bible as narrative rather than as symbolic or historical.
“Hans Frei argues that questioning the historicity of the biblical documents in the modern era has led to the loss of the integrity of the narrative structure. This has shifted meaning from the patterns and structure of the narrative itself to external reference. Frei argues that this takes two forms. Those who argued for the historicity of the documents found meaning in the historical events themselves, while those who denied the historicity found meaning in the symbolic ideas or concepts that supposedly lie behind the myths. Both locate meaning outside the text. In response, Frei contends that Scripture is a realistic narrative (i.e., history-like). A realistic narrative firmly sets its characters and actions within the context of their historical and social context. Even the miraculous episodes are realistic if they help render a particular character or story. The history-like realism draws us into the story with the result that the story shapes our lives. The power of narrative is lost when meaning is located outside the narrative: in ideals, doctrines, or historical facts. This is a must read for anyone interested in narrative theology. It is the classic text in the field, from which all other works owe their inspiration.”
“Frei's influence on fellow theologians is significant, particularly in postliberal and narrative theological schools of thought. (Narrative theology is a the theological movement with which I am most intrigued at present.) Frei doesn't see the authority of scripture as consisting either in its historical accuracy or in its role as 'life's little guidebook' as some would make it out to be. The stories, the narratives, are key to Frei. However, these must be treated with care, not simply as historical 'chunks' or as mere fables or fairy tales with a moral. Jewish rabbinical tradition has remained more true to the narrative aspect than the Christian tradition has, Frei argues.
Too much of Christian theology starts from the wrong basis, Frei contends. They start with overarching principles or grounded-in-the-present guidelines that try to relate the text either to the present day in artificial ways or to an historical situation of which we have very little knowledge and even less direct experiential access. Perhaps Shakespeare's pronouncement that 'the play's the thing' serves as a good encapsulation -- one must begin with the stories, the narratives, the play, and be led from those, rather than trying to fit them into preconceived notions of existential or philosophic paradigms.”
16. Expand your knowledge base of art, literature, and music. Visit at least one museum a year, and spend the day. Attend a symphony. Read Shakespeare.
Art, literature, music, film and history.
17. Serve one year as a professor’s grader. There’s nothing like reading stacks of horrible research papers to teach you how not to write.
“Nobody knows de trouble I seen ...”
18. Refuse to purchase every book your professor requires. Many professors think that their academic respectability among their peers is contingent on large reading lists.
That’s why God gave us libraries. But you gotta be quick!
19. Every semester, look over the doctoral reading lists. Spend the time you would have spent reading the frivolous assignments in your Master’s level courses to read the stuff of which Ph.D.’s are made.
Very good advice. I received mine this past Friday.
20. Listen attentively to the names of theologians — Evangelical or otherwise — most often criticized and ridiculed by your professors with flippant, unsophisticated one-liners. Choose these men as the subject of your major research paper for their classes.
Karl Barth
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
David Bosch
Emil Brunner
Martin Buber
Stanley Grenz
Stanley Hauerwas
Soren Kierkegaard
Hans Kung
Dale Moody
E.Y. Mullins
Reinhold Niebuhr
Origen
Clark Pinnock
Friedrich Schleiermacher
Albert Schweitzer
Frank Stagg
William Estep
Leon McBeth
W. F. Albright
Walter Brueggeman
Alexander A. Di Lella
Ralph Elliott
Nahum Sarna
Phyliss Tribble
Rudolph Bultmann
Oscar Cullmann
James D. G. Dunn
Kenneth Gentry
Michael Goulder
E.P. Sanders
N. T. Wright
21. Find a well-worn copy of Helmut Thielicke’s sermons on the parables. Devour it.
Ezekiel 3:1-3.
I have actually read a number of these. We had to translate a few of them for German.
I’d also recommend David Wenham’s book and that of Kenneth Bailey.
22. Befriend an international student. Listen to him.
Hopefully one that speaks English or one that speaks a language you know.
23. Skip chapel most of the time for early lunches off campus with friends. Hooky is liberating.
In truth, only go to those chapels which feature a speaker you want to hear. Those will be the best two chapels of your semester.
24. Search for nursing homes and retirement communities that will let you preach or teach Bible studies. The single greatest deficiency in most young pastors is the inability to interact with senior adults. Eat their cookies and pies. Take them flowers. Ask them to pray for you.
Very good.
25. Write at least one unassigned paper during your time at seminary.
Also, attempt to write one essay or sermon per week.
26. Tithe.
Unless you think that it is unbiblical. I do, but I tithe none the less.
27. If you are not pastoring, do not attend the church most frequented by seminary students. Find a church 20 miles out of town and join it.
Hmm, that would be Travis Avenue, Wedgewood and that other one off of 20. What is that one? Can’t think of it.
28. Do not huddle near your seminary president at the end of class or chapel. If you can manage to get through seminary without his knowing your name, you have truly accomplished something.
Dang.
29. Attend associational pastor’s conferences as often as possible. Drink coffee with older pastors. Ask lots of questions.
Always ask questions.
30. Date your wife. If you’re not married, date as many girls as will go out with you.
Date liberals, but marry conservatives.
31. Offer to babysit for a seminary couple so they can comply with #30 above.
Also, former seminary students; someone needs to date daddy’s little synthesis while we go see Harry Potter V.
32. Pay close attention in your church administration class. Keep copies of every handout. Compile a notebook of church policy and procedure manuals.
These can be used to fill the spaces left in the church office from all the paper that needs to be shredded prior to the church’s audit of your staff credit card.
33. Have a little wine for thy stomach’s sake.
Also consider martinis, Grey Goose or Absolut vodka, straight up, dirty and with a few olives.
And also beer, dark enough that light cannot go through it.
34. Smoke a cigar, preferably this one.
Nah! Not for me. No thanks.
35. Peruse every issue of National Geographic, Time Magazine, and Psychology Today. Cull them for sermon illustrations.
36. Ask no more than three questions in class per semester.
And only ask questions that you know will be beneficial to the rest of the class. All other questions should be asked either at the end of the class or in another venue.
37. Completely fill out all professor reviews at the semester’s end. Write substantive comments and honest appraisals of the professor’s performance.
Yes, please do so. All professors should want to read these (unless their close to retirement). Those professors who do not like student feedback should not be teaching.
38. Sneak into chapel alone at odd times and preach a sermon to no one.
This will prepare for ministry in the Church.
39. Wear shorts, flipflops, tshirts, and ballcaps to class. There’s plenty of time in ministry to wear suits, ties, and dress shoes.
Yes, but we must appear Christ-like and that means suits and ties. We want to dress our best for God. We do not want anyone questioning our witness. We do not want our Christian liberty cause a brother to stumble. You may think that I am simply stating my own opinion and personal tastes about what I think is best to wear and then finding various verses in the Bible to support my personal preference so that any one who disagrees with my personal tastes are actually disagreeing with God ... but you're way off.
40. Cultivate the closest relationships with students headed for the mission field.
Yes.
41. Avoid “accountability groups” of fellow seminarians at all cost.
Oh, God, yes! Find an “accountability friend” who either thinks relatively like you do on particular theological issues or one who is secure enough in his own beliefs not to be angry when someone has a belief different than his.
42. Contact the chaplain’s office of a local hospital. Offer to visit people who have no minister.
Very good actually.
43. Sit in a different spot every week.
In class or in church?
44. Invert the seminary course plan. Save classes like evangelism, the scripture introductory courses, pastoral care and counseling for the end of your degree.
See here.
45. Join the seminary choir for one semester. Learn to read music.
We have a choir?
46. Join a protest — at least once — in front of an abortion clinic.
No, I disagree.
47. Write anonymous notes of encouragement to fellow students. Slip a ten dollar bill in the envelope.
Is he soliciting?
48. Burn at least one textbook in a ceremony of private dissent. Most books on leadership make for good kindling.
If your Baptist History textbook is not by McBeth, then treat it like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.
49. Dye your hair or shave your head or both. Do something counter-cultural.
I have a beard.
50. Pay all your bills on time.
Except bills designated for the government, educational institutions, and all other not-for-profit organizations.
Therefore, seminary housing is due at the very first of the month!
(1) I agree very much.
Please be advised of the following. Failure to observe and apply these helpful hints will deprive your seminary experience. We at Baptist Blogger would have enjoyed a more profitable seminary education if we had heard and observed all these rules. There are four or five or ten wherein we failed miserably and frequently.
1. There is no such thing as a tenant of Arminian theology.
2. There is no such thing as a tenet of Armenian theology.
3. When referencing the sixteenth century reformer, Martin Luther, it is not necessary to tell your professor that he “nailed the ninety-five theses to the church door at Wittenburg.” Your professor knows you are not referencing the 20th century Civil Rights leader. The same rule applies to all major figures in church history. Resist the temptation to explore obvious and overused facts in your writing. Write about something that few men know.
Well, that would be Christian and Baptist History, wouldn’t it?
4. John MacArthur’s commentaries are great for stealing sermons. They are unacceptable for exegetical research.
Shazaam!
5. Never, ever use an exclamation point for any reason whatsoever.
Never!
6. The unexpected death of a church member does not absolve you of weeks of procrastination.
But it does help to dilute it.
7. Learn Turabian early, and review her often. There is no excuse for submitting research papers with homespun formatting. Trust me, you cannot intuit Kate’s ways.
Of course, Turabian and SWBTS styles change with each semester and the with the temperament of the professor.
8. Footnotes serve nobler purposes than mere source citations. Use them to demonstrate that you have interacted substantively with a source by elaborating an explanation.
I agree. (1)
9. The Holy Bible is inerrant, infallible, and inspired. It is not, however, an occasion for bibliographic buttressing.
But it’s often an occasion for heretical buttressing.
10. Have someone other than your wife or roommate edit your major term papers. Ask your professor to recommend a student, and pay him for his labors. An excellent grade is worth a modest sum.
An excellent education is worth disproportionately large sum.
11. Learn to search for journal articles outside of JETS. If you don’t know what JETS is, do not try to find out.
She's got electric boots a mohair suit
You know I read it in a magazine
12. When choosing between professors, find one that has published at least one significant monograph within the past five years. Too many seminary professors are woefully incapable of rigorous academic research, and if your professor lists a Winter Bible Study or journal article from his own seminary journal on his curriculum vitae, pass on him.
And choose one quickly; such professors will not be allowed to hang around for too much longer.
13. Do not presuppose that you will learn what you need to learn from a seminary education. Seminary, if it serves its purpose, will equip you with some of the tools you will need, not all of them.
It will also equip you with some of the tools you don’t need.
14. Find a spot in the library away from high traffic areas and live there between classes. Stay away from the coffee shops. Do not waste your energies rutting with the spring bucks.
At SWBTS, I myself prefer a spot near the neo-orthodox theologians and the journal articles. However, at non-Christian educational institutions, I can always be found near PR 6019.
15. Purchase a copy of Hans Frei’s The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative and read the first 100 pages every semester.
But remember not to look directly at the words (joke).
I have read Frei (for German) but not this book. Having read the two blurbs below, I am now quite interested. My own studies have led me in the direction of handling the Bible as narrative rather than as symbolic or historical.
“Hans Frei argues that questioning the historicity of the biblical documents in the modern era has led to the loss of the integrity of the narrative structure. This has shifted meaning from the patterns and structure of the narrative itself to external reference. Frei argues that this takes two forms. Those who argued for the historicity of the documents found meaning in the historical events themselves, while those who denied the historicity found meaning in the symbolic ideas or concepts that supposedly lie behind the myths. Both locate meaning outside the text. In response, Frei contends that Scripture is a realistic narrative (i.e., history-like). A realistic narrative firmly sets its characters and actions within the context of their historical and social context. Even the miraculous episodes are realistic if they help render a particular character or story. The history-like realism draws us into the story with the result that the story shapes our lives. The power of narrative is lost when meaning is located outside the narrative: in ideals, doctrines, or historical facts. This is a must read for anyone interested in narrative theology. It is the classic text in the field, from which all other works owe their inspiration.”
“Frei's influence on fellow theologians is significant, particularly in postliberal and narrative theological schools of thought. (Narrative theology is a the theological movement with which I am most intrigued at present.) Frei doesn't see the authority of scripture as consisting either in its historical accuracy or in its role as 'life's little guidebook' as some would make it out to be. The stories, the narratives, are key to Frei. However, these must be treated with care, not simply as historical 'chunks' or as mere fables or fairy tales with a moral. Jewish rabbinical tradition has remained more true to the narrative aspect than the Christian tradition has, Frei argues.
Too much of Christian theology starts from the wrong basis, Frei contends. They start with overarching principles or grounded-in-the-present guidelines that try to relate the text either to the present day in artificial ways or to an historical situation of which we have very little knowledge and even less direct experiential access. Perhaps Shakespeare's pronouncement that 'the play's the thing' serves as a good encapsulation -- one must begin with the stories, the narratives, the play, and be led from those, rather than trying to fit them into preconceived notions of existential or philosophic paradigms.”
16. Expand your knowledge base of art, literature, and music. Visit at least one museum a year, and spend the day. Attend a symphony. Read Shakespeare.
Art, literature, music, film and history.
17. Serve one year as a professor’s grader. There’s nothing like reading stacks of horrible research papers to teach you how not to write.
“Nobody knows de trouble I seen ...”
18. Refuse to purchase every book your professor requires. Many professors think that their academic respectability among their peers is contingent on large reading lists.
That’s why God gave us libraries. But you gotta be quick!
19. Every semester, look over the doctoral reading lists. Spend the time you would have spent reading the frivolous assignments in your Master’s level courses to read the stuff of which Ph.D.’s are made.
Very good advice. I received mine this past Friday.
20. Listen attentively to the names of theologians — Evangelical or otherwise — most often criticized and ridiculed by your professors with flippant, unsophisticated one-liners. Choose these men as the subject of your major research paper for their classes.
Karl Barth
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
David Bosch
Emil Brunner
Martin Buber
Stanley Grenz
Stanley Hauerwas
Soren Kierkegaard
Hans Kung
Dale Moody
E.Y. Mullins
Reinhold Niebuhr
Origen
Clark Pinnock
Friedrich Schleiermacher
Albert Schweitzer
Frank Stagg
William Estep
Leon McBeth
W. F. Albright
Walter Brueggeman
Alexander A. Di Lella
Ralph Elliott
Nahum Sarna
Phyliss Tribble
Rudolph Bultmann
Oscar Cullmann
James D. G. Dunn
Kenneth Gentry
Michael Goulder
E.P. Sanders
N. T. Wright
21. Find a well-worn copy of Helmut Thielicke’s sermons on the parables. Devour it.
Ezekiel 3:1-3.
I have actually read a number of these. We had to translate a few of them for German.
I’d also recommend David Wenham’s book and that of Kenneth Bailey.
22. Befriend an international student. Listen to him.
Hopefully one that speaks English or one that speaks a language you know.
23. Skip chapel most of the time for early lunches off campus with friends. Hooky is liberating.
In truth, only go to those chapels which feature a speaker you want to hear. Those will be the best two chapels of your semester.
24. Search for nursing homes and retirement communities that will let you preach or teach Bible studies. The single greatest deficiency in most young pastors is the inability to interact with senior adults. Eat their cookies and pies. Take them flowers. Ask them to pray for you.
Very good.
25. Write at least one unassigned paper during your time at seminary.
Also, attempt to write one essay or sermon per week.
26. Tithe.
Unless you think that it is unbiblical. I do, but I tithe none the less.
27. If you are not pastoring, do not attend the church most frequented by seminary students. Find a church 20 miles out of town and join it.
Hmm, that would be Travis Avenue, Wedgewood and that other one off of 20. What is that one? Can’t think of it.
28. Do not huddle near your seminary president at the end of class or chapel. If you can manage to get through seminary without his knowing your name, you have truly accomplished something.
Dang.
29. Attend associational pastor’s conferences as often as possible. Drink coffee with older pastors. Ask lots of questions.
Always ask questions.
30. Date your wife. If you’re not married, date as many girls as will go out with you.
Date liberals, but marry conservatives.
31. Offer to babysit for a seminary couple so they can comply with #30 above.
Also, former seminary students; someone needs to date daddy’s little synthesis while we go see Harry Potter V.
32. Pay close attention in your church administration class. Keep copies of every handout. Compile a notebook of church policy and procedure manuals.
These can be used to fill the spaces left in the church office from all the paper that needs to be shredded prior to the church’s audit of your staff credit card.
33. Have a little wine for thy stomach’s sake.
Also consider martinis, Grey Goose or Absolut vodka, straight up, dirty and with a few olives.
And also beer, dark enough that light cannot go through it.
34. Smoke a cigar, preferably this one.
Nah! Not for me. No thanks.
35. Peruse every issue of National Geographic, Time Magazine, and Psychology Today. Cull them for sermon illustrations.
36. Ask no more than three questions in class per semester.
And only ask questions that you know will be beneficial to the rest of the class. All other questions should be asked either at the end of the class or in another venue.
37. Completely fill out all professor reviews at the semester’s end. Write substantive comments and honest appraisals of the professor’s performance.
Yes, please do so. All professors should want to read these (unless their close to retirement). Those professors who do not like student feedback should not be teaching.
38. Sneak into chapel alone at odd times and preach a sermon to no one.
This will prepare for ministry in the Church.
39. Wear shorts, flipflops, tshirts, and ballcaps to class. There’s plenty of time in ministry to wear suits, ties, and dress shoes.
Yes, but we must appear Christ-like and that means suits and ties. We want to dress our best for God. We do not want anyone questioning our witness. We do not want our Christian liberty cause a brother to stumble. You may think that I am simply stating my own opinion and personal tastes about what I think is best to wear and then finding various verses in the Bible to support my personal preference so that any one who disagrees with my personal tastes are actually disagreeing with God ... but you're way off.
40. Cultivate the closest relationships with students headed for the mission field.
Yes.
41. Avoid “accountability groups” of fellow seminarians at all cost.
Oh, God, yes! Find an “accountability friend” who either thinks relatively like you do on particular theological issues or one who is secure enough in his own beliefs not to be angry when someone has a belief different than his.
42. Contact the chaplain’s office of a local hospital. Offer to visit people who have no minister.
Very good actually.
43. Sit in a different spot every week.
In class or in church?
44. Invert the seminary course plan. Save classes like evangelism, the scripture introductory courses, pastoral care and counseling for the end of your degree.
See here.
45. Join the seminary choir for one semester. Learn to read music.
We have a choir?
46. Join a protest — at least once — in front of an abortion clinic.
No, I disagree.
47. Write anonymous notes of encouragement to fellow students. Slip a ten dollar bill in the envelope.
Is he soliciting?
48. Burn at least one textbook in a ceremony of private dissent. Most books on leadership make for good kindling.
If your Baptist History textbook is not by McBeth, then treat it like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.
49. Dye your hair or shave your head or both. Do something counter-cultural.
I have a beard.
50. Pay all your bills on time.
Except bills designated for the government, educational institutions, and all other not-for-profit organizations.
Therefore, seminary housing is due at the very first of the month!
(1) I agree very much.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
I Confess
My name is Nic. I am a believer and follower of Jesus of Nazareth, also known as the Christ. I am also referred to as a Christian.
I am an orthodox Christian, meaning that I take the Christian Scriptures (Old Testament and New Testament, though not the Apocrypha and a few passages in the Gospels of John and Mark) as authoritative. I am a conservative Christian, meaning that I take the Christian Scriptures as divinely inspired (“God-breathed” if you will). Because I am a conservative orthodox Christian who is not a part of the Roman Catholic Church, I am an evangelical. However, I am ecumenical in spirit, Baptist by conviction and Southern Baptist by tradition. I make my home in the evangelical Christian community and predominately fellowship with and minister with and for the evangelicals. However, because I am a member of the body of Christ which includes all believers in every tradition and culture from the first believer to the last, I will fellowship and minister with and for all Christian believers regardless of tradition, ecclesiology, and theology. The Church belongs to God in Christ and I believe that I have no authority to exclude others or myself from fellowship on account of tradition, ecclesiology, and theology.
I am a Baptist and thus hold to the traditional and Scriptural Baptist distinctives formulated under the greater doctrine of Soul Competency.
1) I believe in the freedom of religion.
2) I believe in the separation of church and state.
3) I believe in the autonomy of the local church.
4) I believe in believer’s baptism.
5) I believe in the priesthood of all believers.
I am an orthodox Christian, meaning that I take the Christian Scriptures (Old Testament and New Testament, though not the Apocrypha and a few passages in the Gospels of John and Mark) as authoritative. I am a conservative Christian, meaning that I take the Christian Scriptures as divinely inspired (“God-breathed” if you will). Because I am a conservative orthodox Christian who is not a part of the Roman Catholic Church, I am an evangelical. However, I am ecumenical in spirit, Baptist by conviction and Southern Baptist by tradition. I make my home in the evangelical Christian community and predominately fellowship with and minister with and for the evangelicals. However, because I am a member of the body of Christ which includes all believers in every tradition and culture from the first believer to the last, I will fellowship and minister with and for all Christian believers regardless of tradition, ecclesiology, and theology. The Church belongs to God in Christ and I believe that I have no authority to exclude others or myself from fellowship on account of tradition, ecclesiology, and theology.
I am a Baptist and thus hold to the traditional and Scriptural Baptist distinctives formulated under the greater doctrine of Soul Competency.
1) I believe in the freedom of religion.
2) I believe in the separation of church and state.
3) I believe in the autonomy of the local church.
4) I believe in believer’s baptism.
5) I believe in the priesthood of all believers.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Soul Competency Amongst 19th Century American Baptists
A friend of mine recently procured a first edition copy of Thomas Armitage’s, A history of the Baptists : traced by their vital principles and practices : from the time of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the year 1886 (BX6231 .A7 1887).
Apparently, the vital principle is “Soul-liberty” which neatly summarizes all the Baptist practices and distinctives. Granted, he does not use the word “Soul-competency”, but the idea is still here. But how could it be here? E.Y. Mullins was not around to invent this doctrine out of the ether.
Yes, despite the current academic atmosphere of Baptist Revisionism, the evidence continues to “suggest” otherwise. Indeed, Soul-competency continues to be the overriding Baptist principle and distinctive.
Dr. So-and-so, it doesn’t matter how much you want it or how much you repeat it, Soul-competency will continue to be the historical and over-arching theme of being a Baptist.
Now the Conservative Resurgence has done a very good job of revising Baptist History and denominational knowledge away from those particular doctrines that did not conform to the goals and principles of the Resurgence.
Freedom of Religion
Separation of Church and State
Believer’s Baptism
Priesthood of the Believer
Local Church Autonomy
Sorry to burst your bubble guys. That goes for you Calvinists as well.
Sorry, Dr. Mohler. Keep studying.
Soul Competency, Baptist Revisionism, and Inerrancy
Apparently, the vital principle is “Soul-liberty” which neatly summarizes all the Baptist practices and distinctives. Granted, he does not use the word “Soul-competency”, but the idea is still here. But how could it be here? E.Y. Mullins was not around to invent this doctrine out of the ether.
Yes, despite the current academic atmosphere of Baptist Revisionism, the evidence continues to “suggest” otherwise. Indeed, Soul-competency continues to be the overriding Baptist principle and distinctive.
Dr. So-and-so, it doesn’t matter how much you want it or how much you repeat it, Soul-competency will continue to be the historical and over-arching theme of being a Baptist.
Now the Conservative Resurgence has done a very good job of revising Baptist History and denominational knowledge away from those particular doctrines that did not conform to the goals and principles of the Resurgence.
Freedom of Religion
Separation of Church and State
Believer’s Baptism
Priesthood of the Believer
Local Church Autonomy
Sorry to burst your bubble guys. That goes for you Calvinists as well.
Sorry, Dr. Mohler. Keep studying.
Soul Competency, Baptist Revisionism, and Inerrancy
Friday, June 15, 2007
"Born-Again" Part Three: Subjective and Objective Truth
Points well stated. I would add one thing however to my previous post since it was elaborated on in reply.
In regards to truth and the nature of it: The bible is largely objective truth. Our experiences with it are subjective, but our beliefs and way of thinking must be brought in line with the objective standards of God's Word.
I agree to a certain extent, but let me add that the movement from “not being in line” with the objective standards of God’s Word towards “being in line” with the objective standards of God’s Word is a subjective experience. It is a subjective experience by definition.
Also, remember how I am using the word subjective (I know that you, Athosxc, know my use of the term, but for those who may not ...)
In our postmodern society, subjectivity is often understood to mean that “truth consists of the perceptions, arguments, and language of an individual point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias.” In other words, subjective truth is “the ways things seem to one or another”. This is not how I use the term subjective. My use of the term is drawn from its more philosophical usage, particularly as it is expressed by Soren Kierkegaard. One can see such an understanding also in the works of Brunner, R. Niebuhr, Moody and Buber.
Kierkegaard argued in Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments that "subjectivity is truth" and "truth is subjectivity." This has to do with a distinction between what is objectively true and an individual's subjective relation (such as indifference or commitment) to that truth. People who in some sense believe the same things may relate to those beliefs quite differently.
Two people may both agree to the objective truth or fact that “salvation is by grace through faith”, but this agreement of the fact may lead only one of them to choose to actually accept this gift of salvation through faith. For the one who chooses not to accept this gift, the objective truth that “salvation is by grace through faith” is of little to no value.
A very simplified example would be John 14:6. When Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes unto the father but through me", that is an objective truth. It doesn't matter my examples of how I feel "closer to god" when I'm burning incense at the Buddhist temple, or praying towards Mecca 5 times daily as a Muslim, or anything else. If I don't come to God through Christ, I'm never going to get to God. My subjective experiences don't change the objective nature of the truth of God's word.
And this follows what I was saying above. Subjective truth in the Christian sense of the term involves a change in the individual through a personal relationship with God in Christ.
It is not merely about agreeing that the Christian Faith is true. Even the Satan may believe as much! And, as you said, it’s not about feeling close to God but by being close to God in a very personal and relational way.
Remember that the Hebrew word for “know” (yada) is a relational knowledge aside from the idea of c
John 14:6 itself emphasizes the personal relationship necessary. Jesus is a personal being in a personal relationship with God the Father (of whom Jesus frequently refers to by the intimate name, Abba) who is a personal being in relationship with the Son. All who desire to come into a personal relationship with God the Father must do so through the Son. Indeed, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the one in a personal relationship with God the Father. Believers are brought into the corporate Christ and it is in the corporate Christ that we come into a personal relationship with God.
But agreeing to this objective faith that Christ is THE way is pointless unless it causes the individual subject to act. There are plenty of people who unfortunately agree that Christ is THE way but who never make a personal decision to engage in a saving relationship in him. Even worse, many come into a saving relationship and then fall away by rejecting that relationship. These people agree with the fact that Christ is THE way but they nevertheless reject acting upon that knowledge.
I will agree with you that mental assent to intellectual points and arguments does not come close to being a proper definition of faith. However, without that same mental assent to those intellectual points and arguments, our subjective experiences are groundless and hollow, and ultimately lead not to salvation, but to death. I I claim to follow Christ, but don't believe the truth of scripture, then my claim is false. Why? Because the Bible is God's Word. You can't claim to follow someone, yet deny what they say and deny what they hold dear. It is a mental and logical inconsistency to try and is ultimately false.
Agreed, but we must also realize that even under the influence of the Holy Spirit there are going to be believers who reject certain teachings for selfish reasons. Other believers will stick to their traditions no matter the Scriptural evidence because it brings them mental comfort. They may use a “bad” set of NT texts. They may reject the epistle of James or accept the Apocrypha writings. Other people will just make hermeneutical errors and be honestly wrong. We all do such things at times: we’ve all done it, we all are doing it now, and we will all do it again. This in no way should keep use from either teaching the correct interpretation of the Scriptures or learning from them. Rather it should encourage us be merciful to those who are making the same mistakes as we. It should also encourage us to constantly review our theology and bring our thoughts to God in fear and trembling.
I wish I could remember the exact phrase, because it stated both our points excellently, but it was close to this:
"Truth without love is legalism, and love with truth is hypocrisy"...it's close to that. Anyway, the point is that if all we have is a mental understanding, we are, as Jesus said, no better than the demons who have a much better mental understanding of things than we do....they've seen God, they've fought him, they've lost, they're still fighting....and still losing.
But if we don't subvert our own will enough to accept the objective truth of God's Word, regardless of our own subjective experience, then our subjective experience will lead us falsely....or as the Scriptures say, "There is a way which seems right to a man (insert subjectivity), but in the end it leads to death (Lack of objective truth guiding their subjective experience)"....(Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25)
I agree. Of course, as you know, among orthodox Christians, the problem is not about believing the Word of God. We all want to do that. Rather the problem is about what the Word of God is.
We have the meaning of the Scriptures, but we also have the interpretation of the meaning of the Scriptures. Those are not always the same thing. We can all say that we believe the truth of the Scriptures but we may not all agree what the Scriptures are saying.
The problems associated with this are legion: sin, cultural bias, individual bias, bad translations, textual problems, cultural ignorance, peer pressure, doubt, human finiteness, etc.
And God (by grace!) sees fit to allow us to make both guilty and innocent errors of interpretation. Thankfully, he gives us all enough knowledge to be saved.
In regards to truth and the nature of it: The bible is largely objective truth. Our experiences with it are subjective, but our beliefs and way of thinking must be brought in line with the objective standards of God's Word.
I agree to a certain extent, but let me add that the movement from “not being in line” with the objective standards of God’s Word towards “being in line” with the objective standards of God’s Word is a subjective experience. It is a subjective experience by definition.
Also, remember how I am using the word subjective (I know that you, Athosxc, know my use of the term, but for those who may not ...)
In our postmodern society, subjectivity is often understood to mean that “truth consists of the perceptions, arguments, and language of an individual point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias.” In other words, subjective truth is “the ways things seem to one or another”. This is not how I use the term subjective. My use of the term is drawn from its more philosophical usage, particularly as it is expressed by Soren Kierkegaard. One can see such an understanding also in the works of Brunner, R. Niebuhr, Moody and Buber.
Kierkegaard argued in Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments that "subjectivity is truth" and "truth is subjectivity." This has to do with a distinction between what is objectively true and an individual's subjective relation (such as indifference or commitment) to that truth. People who in some sense believe the same things may relate to those beliefs quite differently.
Two people may both agree to the objective truth or fact that “salvation is by grace through faith”, but this agreement of the fact may lead only one of them to choose to actually accept this gift of salvation through faith. For the one who chooses not to accept this gift, the objective truth that “salvation is by grace through faith” is of little to no value.
A very simplified example would be John 14:6. When Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes unto the father but through me", that is an objective truth. It doesn't matter my examples of how I feel "closer to god" when I'm burning incense at the Buddhist temple, or praying towards Mecca 5 times daily as a Muslim, or anything else. If I don't come to God through Christ, I'm never going to get to God. My subjective experiences don't change the objective nature of the truth of God's word.
And this follows what I was saying above. Subjective truth in the Christian sense of the term involves a change in the individual through a personal relationship with God in Christ.
It is not merely about agreeing that the Christian Faith is true. Even the Satan may believe as much! And, as you said, it’s not about feeling close to God but by being close to God in a very personal and relational way.
Remember that the Hebrew word for “know” (yada) is a relational knowledge aside from the idea of c
John 14:6 itself emphasizes the personal relationship necessary. Jesus is a personal being in a personal relationship with God the Father (of whom Jesus frequently refers to by the intimate name, Abba) who is a personal being in relationship with the Son. All who desire to come into a personal relationship with God the Father must do so through the Son. Indeed, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the one in a personal relationship with God the Father. Believers are brought into the corporate Christ and it is in the corporate Christ that we come into a personal relationship with God.
But agreeing to this objective faith that Christ is THE way is pointless unless it causes the individual subject to act. There are plenty of people who unfortunately agree that Christ is THE way but who never make a personal decision to engage in a saving relationship in him. Even worse, many come into a saving relationship and then fall away by rejecting that relationship. These people agree with the fact that Christ is THE way but they nevertheless reject acting upon that knowledge.
I will agree with you that mental assent to intellectual points and arguments does not come close to being a proper definition of faith. However, without that same mental assent to those intellectual points and arguments, our subjective experiences are groundless and hollow, and ultimately lead not to salvation, but to death. I I claim to follow Christ, but don't believe the truth of scripture, then my claim is false. Why? Because the Bible is God's Word. You can't claim to follow someone, yet deny what they say and deny what they hold dear. It is a mental and logical inconsistency to try and is ultimately false.
Agreed, but we must also realize that even under the influence of the Holy Spirit there are going to be believers who reject certain teachings for selfish reasons. Other believers will stick to their traditions no matter the Scriptural evidence because it brings them mental comfort. They may use a “bad” set of NT texts. They may reject the epistle of James or accept the Apocrypha writings. Other people will just make hermeneutical errors and be honestly wrong. We all do such things at times: we’ve all done it, we all are doing it now, and we will all do it again. This in no way should keep use from either teaching the correct interpretation of the Scriptures or learning from them. Rather it should encourage us be merciful to those who are making the same mistakes as we. It should also encourage us to constantly review our theology and bring our thoughts to God in fear and trembling.
I wish I could remember the exact phrase, because it stated both our points excellently, but it was close to this:
"Truth without love is legalism, and love with truth is hypocrisy"...it's close to that. Anyway, the point is that if all we have is a mental understanding, we are, as Jesus said, no better than the demons who have a much better mental understanding of things than we do....they've seen God, they've fought him, they've lost, they're still fighting....and still losing.
But if we don't subvert our own will enough to accept the objective truth of God's Word, regardless of our own subjective experience, then our subjective experience will lead us falsely....or as the Scriptures say, "There is a way which seems right to a man (insert subjectivity), but in the end it leads to death (Lack of objective truth guiding their subjective experience)"....(Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25)
I agree. Of course, as you know, among orthodox Christians, the problem is not about believing the Word of God. We all want to do that. Rather the problem is about what the Word of God is.
We have the meaning of the Scriptures, but we also have the interpretation of the meaning of the Scriptures. Those are not always the same thing. We can all say that we believe the truth of the Scriptures but we may not all agree what the Scriptures are saying.
The problems associated with this are legion: sin, cultural bias, individual bias, bad translations, textual problems, cultural ignorance, peer pressure, doubt, human finiteness, etc.
And God (by grace!) sees fit to allow us to make both guilty and innocent errors of interpretation. Thankfully, he gives us all enough knowledge to be saved.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
"Born-Again" Part Two: Connotations and Apathy
As for the 75% claiming to be "Christian", but not "born again" Christians, I believe this is a much more serious problem than is being given credence. If I asked you if you are a "born-again-Christian", you may not go by that term by your own descriptions, but you would immediately understand what I am asking, and your mind would surely be thinking "born above" instead, and you would answer in the affirmative yet with an explanation of why you don't use the term "born again".
I would immediately understand what you are saying because I am from a conservative evangelical background as are you. The term does not carry with it the kind of baggage as it would outside conservative evangelicalism. However, if I believed you were a moderate or liberal or I simply did not know I would answer quite differently.
Really, it is a term used predominately by Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Pentecostal branches of Protestant Christianity. Those outside these more conservative Christian traditions of Protestantism do not use the term. Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians – not to mention the largest Christian group in the country, the Roman Catholics do not use the term.
Remember: while most American Presidents have identified themselves as Christians, Jimmy Carter was the first to publicly identify himself as such. In 1976, this was a big deal. Even now, no other President has done so. Even George W. Bush does not use to the term “born-again”. Indeed, while President Bush is well-known for publicly affirming himself as a believer, various members of his staff have said that the President considers the phrase “born-again” a big, “no-no”. Basically, he and his staff do not identify him as such. Why? Probably because of the connotation that it brings. Of course, President Bush comes from the Episcopal tradition and was married into the Methodist tradition.
For the majority of Christians in America, the designator “born-again” refers not to having received faith in Christ from God, but is a label that refers to non-Catholic conservative Christians (often regarded as fundamentalistic and or Pentecostals, i.e., “whoopee-churches”) greatly associated with or identical with the Religious Right.
An example would be the following:
“Do you take the Bible literally?” That depends. I take some passages literally and others figuratively depending on the passage, its characteristics and its context. Too often saying you take the Bible “literally” equates one with fundamentalism and other groups which damage the texts of the Bible.
Here is a better example: “Are you a Fundamentalist?” Well, I would never in a million years identify myself as fundamentalist, but I do believe in fundamentals to the Faith. There are many Christians (moderates and even liberals!) who also believe in fundamentals to the Christian Faith but would rather be shot than identify themselves as fundamentalists. Why? The term “fundamental” took on a negative connotation during the 20th century.
The term “Evangelical” is another such term. In America it means different things to different groups. For most non-Christians it can mean either “fundamentalist” or “conservative non-Catholic”. In Europe, the term is used among Lutherans who are overwhelmingly LIBERAL.
A secular example would be the question, “Are you an environmentalist?” Well, I believe in the preservation and proper use of nature but I would not use that label because it can associate me with groups that are environmentally intolerant and believe in apocalyptic global-warming scenarios. I’d rather call myself a conservationist and be done with it.
Here is one more Christian example: “Are you a ‘Creationist?’” For me this is a loaded and choppy term. While I certainly believe that God created everything and everything that came into being because of him and that the design of the universe shows the intelligence of a Creator, I nevertheless have absolutely no problem with the theory of biological evolution as it is popularly known. This agreement with evolutionary theory has never conflicted with my faith or my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. However, my answer to this question would depend on who is asking. One answer or another might be considered dishonest or deceitful by some.
Ultimately, an answer plus and explanation is preferable, but one seldom has that luxury in a poll. Polls are often like giving testimony in court: “Answer the question: yes or no.” “Yes, but let me explain.” “Nope.”
So Christians not calling themselves “born-again” is not an indication of spiritual apathy anymore than not calling one’s self a fundamentalist means that one does not believe in fundamentals of the faith or that one claiming to not take the Bible literally means that they do not believe that the Bible contains historical events and true miracles.
However, I think the point of the article is that most people are claiming to be Christians WITHOUT understanding of what being a Christian means. They aren't thinking "no I'm not born again, I'm born above" or anything similar to it. They are thinking, "I'm a pretty decent person", or "I'm not as bad as the guy down the street", or "I go to church", or "my parents were Christains and took me to church", or "I believe in God", etc, etc, etc, ....ad nauseum. The problem is, most people have no idea what it means to be a Christian, yet they understand that being a Christian SUPPOSEDLY means you're a good person, so they equate the two. But it's their own standard of goodness that they judge by, not God's. THAT is the issue I believe the article is pointing out. The church as a whole has dropped the ball on telling folks what the bible actually says about being a Christian, and being considered "good" in God's eyes, and so people think they're ok in God's sight because of any of the above reasons, and they'll die and go to hell because the church didn't do its job. "Christian" has become a watered-down term for "halfway-decent-and somewhat religious-human being", instead of someone who claims Christ as their Savior and Lord.
I think you might be reading more into the statement than is actually there. It’s always important not to allow our understanding of a term and another’s misunderstanding of a term askew our interpretation of reality. Like you, I am always quite careful of the terminology I use both for myself and for others. I do so because I know how precarious language can be. For example (and this might be helpful to anyone else who might read my other articles):
I use the term “Christian” to refer to anyone who identifies his or herself as a follower of Jesus whether they are truly “saved” or not. For me it is a general term which applies to the Christian religion and all those who are in Christendom.
I use the term “Believer” to refer to anyone who is an actual believer of God in Christ who follows him as Lord and Savior. While all Believers are Christians, not all Christians are Believers.
My reason for making such a distinction is based on what you yourself have said. “Christian” has been “watered-down term” and it has been since at least the time of Soren Kierkegaard (though, as we might all admit, probably from much earlier). Kierkegaard noted that people in Denmark (and elsewhere in Christendom) went to church and called themselves Christians simply because they were born into the “Christian tradition”. These people did not know what it meant to be truly Christian. They did not know how impossible it is to live like a Christian. It was Kierkegaard who articulated the position about the subjective nature of the Christian Faith. Subjective in that the Faith is something that is a personal experience that affects the person directly as a subject. This contrasted with what Kierkegaard saw as the objective nature of the 19th century Protestant church which neither preferred nor encouraged such a personal experience. For many, the practice of the Faith was an objective experience that occurred apart from the personal encounter of the individual believer. Such a believer could go to church each week, listen to a sermon, assent to the facts of the Faith and then go about his business without any affect upon his being. This was faith as intellectual assent to objective facts and not faith as personal experience and relationship with subjective truths.
So I do agree with you about the failings of the Western Church in this area. However, I see the problem not with the specific notion that a person who says, "I'm a pretty decent person", and goes along his or her merry way, though I think this might be a result of the greater problem.
I argue that the reason for “watered-down” Christianity is the Protestant and particularly the evangelical tendency to equate “faith” or “belief” with the mental assent to intellectual facts. This tendency causes two results: 1) the individual Christian thinks that all he has to do is agree to the facts taught by the Church and, as you stated, be a good person, and 2) the individual Christian equates genuineness of faith with accuracy of belief. With regards to the latter, this is not always the case. A person can have some messed up theology but still be a person of deep personal faith in his or her relationship with God in Christ. The reverse is also true: a person can have very accurate theology but be spiritually bankrupt.
Remember also that many Christian groups, particularly those amongst Fundamentalist and Pentecostal traditions claim that those who have not had such an intense conversion experience are not true Christian believers. There is a version of this tendency among moderate and liberal Christians as well. Yet even Kierkegaard who was vicious in his attack upon apathetic Christendom did not believe that such apathy kept one from being in a saving relationship with God. I agree with him on this point. Such spiritual apathy keeps one a “baby Christian” without the sort of fruit that is expected but still a believing Christian. At most, this sort of apathy can cause one to fall away from faith in God but this is not necessarily the case.
This must be corrected. That's our job as preachers of the Word of God.
And that’s what we shall do.
Thanks for the great comments.
I would immediately understand what you are saying because I am from a conservative evangelical background as are you. The term does not carry with it the kind of baggage as it would outside conservative evangelicalism. However, if I believed you were a moderate or liberal or I simply did not know I would answer quite differently.
Really, it is a term used predominately by Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Pentecostal branches of Protestant Christianity. Those outside these more conservative Christian traditions of Protestantism do not use the term. Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians – not to mention the largest Christian group in the country, the Roman Catholics do not use the term.
Remember: while most American Presidents have identified themselves as Christians, Jimmy Carter was the first to publicly identify himself as such. In 1976, this was a big deal. Even now, no other President has done so. Even George W. Bush does not use to the term “born-again”. Indeed, while President Bush is well-known for publicly affirming himself as a believer, various members of his staff have said that the President considers the phrase “born-again” a big, “no-no”. Basically, he and his staff do not identify him as such. Why? Probably because of the connotation that it brings. Of course, President Bush comes from the Episcopal tradition and was married into the Methodist tradition.
For the majority of Christians in America, the designator “born-again” refers not to having received faith in Christ from God, but is a label that refers to non-Catholic conservative Christians (often regarded as fundamentalistic and or Pentecostals, i.e., “whoopee-churches”) greatly associated with or identical with the Religious Right.
An example would be the following:
“Do you take the Bible literally?” That depends. I take some passages literally and others figuratively depending on the passage, its characteristics and its context. Too often saying you take the Bible “literally” equates one with fundamentalism and other groups which damage the texts of the Bible.
Here is a better example: “Are you a Fundamentalist?” Well, I would never in a million years identify myself as fundamentalist, but I do believe in fundamentals to the Faith. There are many Christians (moderates and even liberals!) who also believe in fundamentals to the Christian Faith but would rather be shot than identify themselves as fundamentalists. Why? The term “fundamental” took on a negative connotation during the 20th century.
The term “Evangelical” is another such term. In America it means different things to different groups. For most non-Christians it can mean either “fundamentalist” or “conservative non-Catholic”. In Europe, the term is used among Lutherans who are overwhelmingly LIBERAL.
A secular example would be the question, “Are you an environmentalist?” Well, I believe in the preservation and proper use of nature but I would not use that label because it can associate me with groups that are environmentally intolerant and believe in apocalyptic global-warming scenarios. I’d rather call myself a conservationist and be done with it.
Here is one more Christian example: “Are you a ‘Creationist?’” For me this is a loaded and choppy term. While I certainly believe that God created everything and everything that came into being because of him and that the design of the universe shows the intelligence of a Creator, I nevertheless have absolutely no problem with the theory of biological evolution as it is popularly known. This agreement with evolutionary theory has never conflicted with my faith or my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. However, my answer to this question would depend on who is asking. One answer or another might be considered dishonest or deceitful by some.
Ultimately, an answer plus and explanation is preferable, but one seldom has that luxury in a poll. Polls are often like giving testimony in court: “Answer the question: yes or no.” “Yes, but let me explain.” “Nope.”
So Christians not calling themselves “born-again” is not an indication of spiritual apathy anymore than not calling one’s self a fundamentalist means that one does not believe in fundamentals of the faith or that one claiming to not take the Bible literally means that they do not believe that the Bible contains historical events and true miracles.
However, I think the point of the article is that most people are claiming to be Christians WITHOUT understanding of what being a Christian means. They aren't thinking "no I'm not born again, I'm born above" or anything similar to it. They are thinking, "I'm a pretty decent person", or "I'm not as bad as the guy down the street", or "I go to church", or "my parents were Christains and took me to church", or "I believe in God", etc, etc, etc, ....ad nauseum. The problem is, most people have no idea what it means to be a Christian, yet they understand that being a Christian SUPPOSEDLY means you're a good person, so they equate the two. But it's their own standard of goodness that they judge by, not God's. THAT is the issue I believe the article is pointing out. The church as a whole has dropped the ball on telling folks what the bible actually says about being a Christian, and being considered "good" in God's eyes, and so people think they're ok in God's sight because of any of the above reasons, and they'll die and go to hell because the church didn't do its job. "Christian" has become a watered-down term for "halfway-decent-and somewhat religious-human being", instead of someone who claims Christ as their Savior and Lord.
I think you might be reading more into the statement than is actually there. It’s always important not to allow our understanding of a term and another’s misunderstanding of a term askew our interpretation of reality. Like you, I am always quite careful of the terminology I use both for myself and for others. I do so because I know how precarious language can be. For example (and this might be helpful to anyone else who might read my other articles):
I use the term “Christian” to refer to anyone who identifies his or herself as a follower of Jesus whether they are truly “saved” or not. For me it is a general term which applies to the Christian religion and all those who are in Christendom.
I use the term “Believer” to refer to anyone who is an actual believer of God in Christ who follows him as Lord and Savior. While all Believers are Christians, not all Christians are Believers.
My reason for making such a distinction is based on what you yourself have said. “Christian” has been “watered-down term” and it has been since at least the time of Soren Kierkegaard (though, as we might all admit, probably from much earlier). Kierkegaard noted that people in Denmark (and elsewhere in Christendom) went to church and called themselves Christians simply because they were born into the “Christian tradition”. These people did not know what it meant to be truly Christian. They did not know how impossible it is to live like a Christian. It was Kierkegaard who articulated the position about the subjective nature of the Christian Faith. Subjective in that the Faith is something that is a personal experience that affects the person directly as a subject. This contrasted with what Kierkegaard saw as the objective nature of the 19th century Protestant church which neither preferred nor encouraged such a personal experience. For many, the practice of the Faith was an objective experience that occurred apart from the personal encounter of the individual believer. Such a believer could go to church each week, listen to a sermon, assent to the facts of the Faith and then go about his business without any affect upon his being. This was faith as intellectual assent to objective facts and not faith as personal experience and relationship with subjective truths.
So I do agree with you about the failings of the Western Church in this area. However, I see the problem not with the specific notion that a person who says, "I'm a pretty decent person", and goes along his or her merry way, though I think this might be a result of the greater problem.
I argue that the reason for “watered-down” Christianity is the Protestant and particularly the evangelical tendency to equate “faith” or “belief” with the mental assent to intellectual facts. This tendency causes two results: 1) the individual Christian thinks that all he has to do is agree to the facts taught by the Church and, as you stated, be a good person, and 2) the individual Christian equates genuineness of faith with accuracy of belief. With regards to the latter, this is not always the case. A person can have some messed up theology but still be a person of deep personal faith in his or her relationship with God in Christ. The reverse is also true: a person can have very accurate theology but be spiritually bankrupt.
Remember also that many Christian groups, particularly those amongst Fundamentalist and Pentecostal traditions claim that those who have not had such an intense conversion experience are not true Christian believers. There is a version of this tendency among moderate and liberal Christians as well. Yet even Kierkegaard who was vicious in his attack upon apathetic Christendom did not believe that such apathy kept one from being in a saving relationship with God. I agree with him on this point. Such spiritual apathy keeps one a “baby Christian” without the sort of fruit that is expected but still a believing Christian. At most, this sort of apathy can cause one to fall away from faith in God but this is not necessarily the case.
This must be corrected. That's our job as preachers of the Word of God.
And that’s what we shall do.
Thanks for the great comments.
Friday, June 08, 2007
"Born-Again" Part One: Replies on Translating anothen
I do like your arguments. I think there are two parts to your response to my article. If I may, I would like to address the first one now but the latter half next week.
I don't know man, I think you're being a just a wee bit overly critical in saying that the translators who used "born-again" misunderstood the very point Jesus was making just as Nicodemus did. I don't think misunderstanding had anything to do with it. In fact, I think the translators specifically used the term again, instead of above, to illustrate the point Jesus was making. By using that word, they conveyed Nicodemus' misunderstanding, but also allowed Jesus' later statements to be that much more effective when He explains the difference to Nicodemus. Being born above, or of the Spirit, is crystal clear because of the forced explanation.
That might be true; a good alternative to my argument. Allow me to consider it.
They could have considered both options and settled on “again” instead of “above”. I am certain this is what has occurred in the modern area. In English, there are too many chapters and verses that are too well known from the King James Version to be more properly translated.
The King James Version of 1611 uses “borne againe” (John 3:3, 7).
John Wyclif (14th century) also translates it as “borun ayen” (John 3:3, 7). Also, the Geneva Bible (1560) and the Bishop’s Bible (1568).
Martin Luther translated it as “new birth”: “Ihr müßt von neuem geboren werden” (John 3:3, 7). John Wesley also referred to it as a “New Birth”.
William Tendale (16th century) preferred “boren a newe” (John 3:3, 7). This is interesting because much of Tyndale’s translation was used in the KJV of 1611. However, while many used to think that Tyndale used both the Vulgate and Luther, it is now generally agreed that he used Erasmus’ Greek version (1522).
In the Latin Vulgate, Jerome translated the relevant phrase as nasci denuo. Denuo can be translated as “anew, again, a second time, afresh.” Therefore, it is from the Vulgate that we get Christian traditions meaning either “anew” or “again”. So we get from the Latin two traditional translation errors, “born anew” and “born again”.
So Jerome is the culprit (Augustine joke). In John 3:3, 7 he translates the Greek anothen as the Latin denuo but in verse 31 as the Latin supra (“above”) or in 19:11, 23 as desuper. Of course, though Jerome, like Luther and Tyndale, translated their Bibles from the Greek, they were already familiar with the Latin versions from birth. Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382 to revise the Old Latin text of the four Gospels (the Vetus Latina) from the best Greek texts. So even he was familiar with a Latin version of the Gospel of John prior to his own translation from the Greek. I’m not sure how the Vetus Latina translates anothen.
Interestingly, Jerome translated 2 Cor 5:17 as “si qua ergo in Christo nova creatura vetera transierunt ecce facta sunt nova”.
I think “new” is a better or closer translation than “again”, though I still think they are both missing the point of Jesus’ illustration. In fact, the use of “again” may be more a misinterpretation of the Latin than one of the Greek. While anothen can mean “anew” but rarely ever means “again”, denuo can mean “anew” but quite often means “again”.
So you may very well be right that the original translators of the Greek (Jerome?) did not misunderstand the point Jesus was making in the Greek as much as they were interested in attempting to convey the idea more affectively into Latin for their readers. That would explain why they choose to translate anothen as denuo in John 3:3, 7 but as supra in John 3:31.
Yes, I think you are right. It’s far more likely that Jerome et al would have knowingly chosen to translate anothen two different ways than to do so unknowingly.
Nevertheless, I also think that using “again” instead of “above” doesn’t convey Nicodemus’s misunderstanding as much as it leads the reader into the same misunderstanding.
You have persuaded me that Jerome et al were not “mistaken” in their mistranslation.
I’ll address the second part next week. Thanks.
I don't know man, I think you're being a just a wee bit overly critical in saying that the translators who used "born-again" misunderstood the very point Jesus was making just as Nicodemus did. I don't think misunderstanding had anything to do with it. In fact, I think the translators specifically used the term again, instead of above, to illustrate the point Jesus was making. By using that word, they conveyed Nicodemus' misunderstanding, but also allowed Jesus' later statements to be that much more effective when He explains the difference to Nicodemus. Being born above, or of the Spirit, is crystal clear because of the forced explanation.
That might be true; a good alternative to my argument. Allow me to consider it.
They could have considered both options and settled on “again” instead of “above”. I am certain this is what has occurred in the modern area. In English, there are too many chapters and verses that are too well known from the King James Version to be more properly translated.
The King James Version of 1611 uses “borne againe” (John 3:3, 7).
John Wyclif (14th century) also translates it as “borun ayen” (John 3:3, 7). Also, the Geneva Bible (1560) and the Bishop’s Bible (1568).
Martin Luther translated it as “new birth”: “Ihr müßt von neuem geboren werden” (John 3:3, 7). John Wesley also referred to it as a “New Birth”.
William Tendale (16th century) preferred “boren a newe” (John 3:3, 7). This is interesting because much of Tyndale’s translation was used in the KJV of 1611. However, while many used to think that Tyndale used both the Vulgate and Luther, it is now generally agreed that he used Erasmus’ Greek version (1522).
In the Latin Vulgate, Jerome translated the relevant phrase as nasci denuo. Denuo can be translated as “anew, again, a second time, afresh.” Therefore, it is from the Vulgate that we get Christian traditions meaning either “anew” or “again”. So we get from the Latin two traditional translation errors, “born anew” and “born again”.
So Jerome is the culprit (Augustine joke). In John 3:3, 7 he translates the Greek anothen as the Latin denuo but in verse 31 as the Latin supra (“above”) or in 19:11, 23 as desuper. Of course, though Jerome, like Luther and Tyndale, translated their Bibles from the Greek, they were already familiar with the Latin versions from birth. Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382 to revise the Old Latin text of the four Gospels (the Vetus Latina) from the best Greek texts. So even he was familiar with a Latin version of the Gospel of John prior to his own translation from the Greek. I’m not sure how the Vetus Latina translates anothen.
Interestingly, Jerome translated 2 Cor 5:17 as “si qua ergo in Christo nova creatura vetera transierunt ecce facta sunt nova”.
I think “new” is a better or closer translation than “again”, though I still think they are both missing the point of Jesus’ illustration. In fact, the use of “again” may be more a misinterpretation of the Latin than one of the Greek. While anothen can mean “anew” but rarely ever means “again”, denuo can mean “anew” but quite often means “again”.
So you may very well be right that the original translators of the Greek (Jerome?) did not misunderstand the point Jesus was making in the Greek as much as they were interested in attempting to convey the idea more affectively into Latin for their readers. That would explain why they choose to translate anothen as denuo in John 3:3, 7 but as supra in John 3:31.
Yes, I think you are right. It’s far more likely that Jerome et al would have knowingly chosen to translate anothen two different ways than to do so unknowingly.
Nevertheless, I also think that using “again” instead of “above” doesn’t convey Nicodemus’s misunderstanding as much as it leads the reader into the same misunderstanding.
You have persuaded me that Jerome et al were not “mistaken” in their mistranslation.
I’ll address the second part next week. Thanks.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
"Born-Again" Christians? A Short Article on Misinterpeting and Missing the Point
75 % of Americans claiming not to be born-again still believe in the resurrection according to the Center for Missional Research
When this report was made public this past Easter, I observed a friend wondering how it was possible for people who are not “born-again” to still believe in the resurrection and at the startling rate of 75%. My friend’s question stemmed from a misconception regarding the use of the term and label “born-again” as it is used by the majority of Christians. “Born again” is cultural-religious designation that is used by a certain segment of Evangelical Christianity to describe what God has done in their lives. Other Christians around the country and world may not use the term “born again” but God has done a similar thing in their lives. I myself do not use the term “born again”, mainly because I do not see the term in Scripture.
This is the focus of this post: the term “born-again” as used by Evangelicals, particularly those within the Southern States of America is a mistranslation or misinterpretation of the actual Greek.
Though many Evangelical Christians refer to themselves as “born-again Christians”, the actual term as it is found in many Bible translations appears only in two verses, both in John chapter 3.
“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)
“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)
This is the extent of the Scriptural basis for the Evangelical self-designation, “born-again Christian”.
The Greek word usually translated as “again” is anothen.
True, this word can be translated as “again”, but is more often interpreted as meaning “above.” Indeed, other than these two places, most Bible versions translate the use of anothen in John as “above”.
“He that cometh from above (anothen) is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all” (John 3:31)
“Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above (anothen): therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin” (John 19:11)
“Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top (anothen) throughout.” (John 19:23)
The Greek word most commonly translated into English as “again” (and the Greek word which most carries the Evangelical meaning of “born-again” as “renewal” and “anew”) is palin (John 1:35; 4:3, 13, 46, 54; 6:15; 8:2; 9:15; 17, 26f.; 10:7, 17ff., 31, 39f.; 11:7f., 38; 12:22, 28, 39; 13:12; 14:3; 16:16f., 19, 22, 28; 18:7, 27, 33, 38, 40; 19:4, 9, 37; 20:10, 21, 26; 21:1, 16).
There is nothing necessarily wrong with the term “born-again” in so much as it is implied in the text that one must be “born-again from above” to see the Kingdom of God. But while there is the implication of being “born-again”, such an idea misses the point of Jesus’ words. The primary importance of his use of anothen in his teaching to Nicodemus is that one must be born from above. It is the place of the birth that is of importance here and not primarily the fact that one is being birthed again. Those who originally erred in translating anothen as “again” missed the point of Jesus’ teaching and drew their interpretation from the response of Nicodemus:
“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” (John 3:4).
Ironically, the (mis-)translators of John 3:3 were under the same confusion as Nicodemus.
[I’ve found that Christians will often misinterpret a passage in Scripture and assume the very meaning that the Scripture writers are attempting to refute.]
Of course, the miscommunication and the inability of the people to understand the teachings of Jesus is a theme which runs throughout the Gospel of John.
Thus we get the people’s bewilderment at the teaching that people must “eat the flesh” of Jesus to receive eternal life (John 6).
[Thus we get Roman Catholicism which similarly misinterprets Jesus’ teachings.]
To receive eternal life one must be born from above (anothen). Again, it is the place from which the birth occurs that is important for Jesus’ point and not the implication that we are born a second time. Note John the Baptist’s statement regarding Jesus in verse 31:
“He that cometh from above (anothen) is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all” (John 3:31)
So while the designation “born-again” is not necessarily inaccurate, it is not complete. Certainly, it is not the point of the passage from which it is derived. Evangelicals would be more authentic to the witness of the Scriptures by referring to themselves as “born-above Christians”. I myself prefer the term “believer”.
Therefore, the fact most Christians believe in the resurrection but do not use the term, “born again” should not be surprising.
When this report was made public this past Easter, I observed a friend wondering how it was possible for people who are not “born-again” to still believe in the resurrection and at the startling rate of 75%. My friend’s question stemmed from a misconception regarding the use of the term and label “born-again” as it is used by the majority of Christians. “Born again” is cultural-religious designation that is used by a certain segment of Evangelical Christianity to describe what God has done in their lives. Other Christians around the country and world may not use the term “born again” but God has done a similar thing in their lives. I myself do not use the term “born again”, mainly because I do not see the term in Scripture.
This is the focus of this post: the term “born-again” as used by Evangelicals, particularly those within the Southern States of America is a mistranslation or misinterpretation of the actual Greek.
Though many Evangelical Christians refer to themselves as “born-again Christians”, the actual term as it is found in many Bible translations appears only in two verses, both in John chapter 3.
“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)
“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)
This is the extent of the Scriptural basis for the Evangelical self-designation, “born-again Christian”.
The Greek word usually translated as “again” is anothen.
True, this word can be translated as “again”, but is more often interpreted as meaning “above.” Indeed, other than these two places, most Bible versions translate the use of anothen in John as “above”.
“He that cometh from above (anothen) is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all” (John 3:31)
“Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above (anothen): therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin” (John 19:11)
“Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top (anothen) throughout.” (John 19:23)
The Greek word most commonly translated into English as “again” (and the Greek word which most carries the Evangelical meaning of “born-again” as “renewal” and “anew”) is palin (John 1:35; 4:3, 13, 46, 54; 6:15; 8:2; 9:15; 17, 26f.; 10:7, 17ff., 31, 39f.; 11:7f., 38; 12:22, 28, 39; 13:12; 14:3; 16:16f., 19, 22, 28; 18:7, 27, 33, 38, 40; 19:4, 9, 37; 20:10, 21, 26; 21:1, 16).
There is nothing necessarily wrong with the term “born-again” in so much as it is implied in the text that one must be “born-again from above” to see the Kingdom of God. But while there is the implication of being “born-again”, such an idea misses the point of Jesus’ words. The primary importance of his use of anothen in his teaching to Nicodemus is that one must be born from above. It is the place of the birth that is of importance here and not primarily the fact that one is being birthed again. Those who originally erred in translating anothen as “again” missed the point of Jesus’ teaching and drew their interpretation from the response of Nicodemus:
“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” (John 3:4).
Ironically, the (mis-)translators of John 3:3 were under the same confusion as Nicodemus.
[I’ve found that Christians will often misinterpret a passage in Scripture and assume the very meaning that the Scripture writers are attempting to refute.]
Of course, the miscommunication and the inability of the people to understand the teachings of Jesus is a theme which runs throughout the Gospel of John.
Thus we get the people’s bewilderment at the teaching that people must “eat the flesh” of Jesus to receive eternal life (John 6).
[Thus we get Roman Catholicism which similarly misinterprets Jesus’ teachings.]
To receive eternal life one must be born from above (anothen). Again, it is the place from which the birth occurs that is important for Jesus’ point and not the implication that we are born a second time. Note John the Baptist’s statement regarding Jesus in verse 31:
“He that cometh from above (anothen) is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all” (John 3:31)
So while the designation “born-again” is not necessarily inaccurate, it is not complete. Certainly, it is not the point of the passage from which it is derived. Evangelicals would be more authentic to the witness of the Scriptures by referring to themselves as “born-above Christians”. I myself prefer the term “believer”.
Therefore, the fact most Christians believe in the resurrection but do not use the term, “born again” should not be surprising.
Friday, June 01, 2007
The Demythologization of Private Prayer Languages…
From the subtle mind of Ben Cole ...
Southwestern Seminary, the International Mission Board trustees, and a host of pastors have been lying. Private tongues, they say, is the limited practice and belief of the marginal periphery of Southern Baptists, who really aren’t Southern Baptists at all. Rather, they are Pentecostals. So dangerous is the practice of private tongues, in fact, that the practice warrants the exclusion of missionaries and professors from service in Southern Baptist life, they argue.
Well, with this latest report from Lifeway Research, we must ask our narrow cessationist and exclusionary brethren one question:
What half of their bodies are they willing to amputate?
Let the spin begin ...
Southwestern Seminary, the International Mission Board trustees, and a host of pastors have been lying. Private tongues, they say, is the limited practice and belief of the marginal periphery of Southern Baptists, who really aren’t Southern Baptists at all. Rather, they are Pentecostals. So dangerous is the practice of private tongues, in fact, that the practice warrants the exclusion of missionaries and professors from service in Southern Baptist life, they argue.
Well, with this latest report from Lifeway Research, we must ask our narrow cessationist and exclusionary brethren one question:
What half of their bodies are they willing to amputate?
Let the spin begin ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)