By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute
You could shake all of the contents of the entire series of books into its corners with room to spare: children, fauns, dwarfs, friendly giants, the White Witch, even the great lion. I’m telling you, it is huge!
I refinish furniture for relaxation when I’m not working at the seminary. One of my previous projects was an old walnut wardrobe that could accommodate all of Narnia…literally. One week the wardrobe almost got the best of me. Alone for hours, up to my elbows in skin-blistering stripper, filthy dirty, the thought actually crossed my mind: Why am I doing this? I could be upstairs reading Narnia rather than down here finding it a new home.
I won’t bore you with the results of such ruminations (brought on by stripper fumes no doubt), except to say that, like perhaps many of you with your methods of relaxation, part of my satisfaction in restoring furniture I attribute to my tendency toward distraction.
To restore furniture—to be a really good furniture refinisher—you have to be a really good daydreamer. You have to let your mind wander back to see the piece of furniture for what it was at one time, the glory days of the piece when it wore its newness so naturally. I wonder about the original creator of the wardrobe. What tools did he use; what obstacles did he have to overcome; what purposes drove him to make such a fine piece?
To see the piece for what it was at one time is key in seeing the piece of furniture for what it could be again. What potential is there in an old beat up wardrobe? Look at it again. Scrape off the blistered old finish, glue back the free edges of veneer, replace the broken hardware and you will see its past, and in seeing its past, you will give it a whole new life.
What I am speaking about, of course, is the act of re-creating something, an act that begs reflection on our human, divinely ordained mandate in Genesis 2. The reader can do this for him or herself while I reflect one more time on my re-created wardrobe. Even when refinished, that old piece bears the marks of its past. I have yet to restore a piece of furniture to its original condition. The beauty of my wardrobe is in the newly applied stain that only partially covers the conspicuous missing chips of veneer. It’s newly found beauty is partially in comparing its past with its new present.
This isn’t a handyman column, so why do I bring up my wardrobe? I bring it up because the very same act of re-creation goes on with pastors in their own churches. Without ignoring the wonderful things God is doing with the church planting processes throughout the country, most of us—most of our graduates who leave us—are dealing with old furniture when we consider the churches and other places of ministry we serve. Who of us doesn’t live with years of old varnish and bleached stain when we enter our sanctuaries on Sundays, interact with our leadership, administrate our threadbare programs, or counsel weak and battered members within our church?
What should our expectations be as we seek, through the Spirit, to restore old churches back to usefulness? One of the things we see with some of our students who leave us after their years of study here are well-intended church re-creators who put their newly acquired tools to the task of reshaping old ministry contexts. Their desires to polish these old churches back to new luster are very good. In their tool chest, they may often pull out a newly sharpened church model that, on the surface, would seem to be just the thing to bring new life to these old places.
Then why don’t these old churches polish up? Too often, I am afraid, they—we—who dream about new life in our churches—new programs, new leadership, new potential— seek to change these antiques after our own image without seeing them for what they are, wonderful old places with rich histories of God’s faithfulness. They may have gone astray. They often are filled with old, entrenched leadership. They don’t move very fast. Dump them on the table and you will find tired old programs rolling aimlessly around the edges. We want to change all this and the sooner the better.
But, to be a good daydreamer of these old churches, is there not something to be said for first accepting them for what they are in all their uniqueness, in the context of their rich histories, and with appreciation for what has brought them to their present condition? It seems to me, to be a good restorer of old churches begins first with letting our minds wander back to their glory days. How did they start? Why did they start? In what context were they placed? How has that context changed? What kind of leaders have led these unique churches in the past and how do they represent leadership needs in the present? What kinds of programs worked earlier? Is there a relationship between these kinds of programs and what could be offered, in new ways, in the present?
I wouldn’t trade my house full of old furniture for all the furniture stores full of new furniture in the world. I love old things. I love to re-create old things. To be a re-creator of churches, I think, too, requires that we love, we truly love, old things.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Resurrection: Not a New Concept?
By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
Time magazine recently published a short article under the title “Was Jesus’ Resurrection a Sequel?” (To read the article, click here.) Written by David Van Biema and Tim McGirk it discusses a “first-century BC tablet, thought to originate from the Jordanian bank of the Dead Sea, that tells the story of a Messiah who rose again after three days from the grave.” The hyped drama here is based on the idea that, if the proposed reconstruction is correct, “Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified.” The authors suggest this reconstruction “undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up?”
Funny thing is, I have to confess I don’t recall ever hearing or using that argument before. Only now, am I discovering it is supposedly one of our strongest arguments to support the historicity of the resurrection and it is being undermined.
The authors think it provocative and shocking to suggest that when they proclaimed the death and resurrection of Christ “maybe the Christians had a model to work from.” Israel Knohl (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) points out that “for the first time, we have proof” that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah “was there before Jesus." This, he thinks, “should shake our basic view of Christianity. ... What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."
OK, I guess I should be panicking. But wait…. Thankfully (to the authors’ credit) they do check with Ben Witherington (Gordon-Conwell graduate and Asbury Seminary professor). His reported responses are (as usual) right on point. Among other things he points out that the verb Knohl wants to translate from the tablet as "rise!" could as easily mean "there arose," as in “showed up on the scene“ (cf. Matt. 11:11; 12:42; 24:11; Mark 13:22; Luke 7:16; 11:31; John 7:52). Oh yes, and “Witherington notes that if he is wrong and Knohl's reading is right, it at least sets to rest the notion that the various gospel quotes attributed to Christ foreshadowing his death and Resurrection were textual retrojections put in his mouth by later believers — Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate.”’ But according to the main thrust of the article this last possibility is supposed to be undermining one of our most important arguments for the resurrection!
This last of Witherington’s points highlights the silliest part of the article’s hype. Matthew 14:2 indicates Herod thought the reports about Jesus suggested that he was actually John the Baptist, risen from the dead. Here again the New Testament itself suggests Jewish people of his day considered the possibility that God might vindicate a righteous man by raising him from the dead. According to the gospels Jesus himself indicated that his followers should have known ahead of time, based on the Scriptures, that he, as the Messiah would die and then be vindicated by being raised by God from the dead. Luke 18:31-33 says Jesus told his disciples that “everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon. After they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again" (NRSV). After the resurrection we are told that Jesus told the disciples, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-- that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke says Jesus then “opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem‘“ (Luke 24:44-47 NRSV). Mark and Matthew both record Jesus referring to his upcoming death in the words “the Son of Man goes as it is written of him” (Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21; emphasis added).
Paul also indicates that Jesus and the rest of the early church had a scriptural model to work from. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul says,
“I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” (NRSV).
Here again it is understood that Christ’s death and resurrection took place “according to the [Old Testament] scriptures.” This was not thought to be a new idea. Just exactly which Scriptures Jesus, Paul and other early Christians might have had in mind is debatable. Certainly Daniel 12:2-3, Hosea 6:1-2 and Ezekiel 37 must be included in the mix. For a full discussion of the resurrection, see N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God [Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003]). He provides a fine discussion of the Old Testament background on pages 108-28. Part of the key turns out to be that God had done for Jesus, in the middle of time what he had been expected to do for Israel at the end of time [raise them from the dead after suffering oppression at the hands of pagans]: “In and through Jesus Israel’s hope had been realized. He had been raised from the dead after suffering and dying at the hands of the pagans” (N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 127).
Christians do not base the belief that Jesus died and rose from the dead on the uniqueness of the idea or because we can’t imagine anyone making the story up. We believe it because of the testimony of those who saw him (see again 1 Cor. 15:3-8 above) and gave their lives for the sake of that message and because of the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection life demonstrated in and through his disciples down through history and into our own time and our own lives. It is not part of the Christian message to say Jesus had such an idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture that no one else could have understood it before hand. Jesus himself said his disciples should have understood the Scriptures to teach that the Messiah must experience Israel’s destiny: He must die and rise again.
I am not suggesting that Knohl’s interpretation of the tablet will turn out to be correct. That may be unlikely. What I am suggesting is that believers do not have a horse in this race. Clearly most Jews did not expect the Messiah to die and rise again, but Jesus and the authors of the New Testament suggest they should have. If we ever find (or have just found) an ancient Jewish text suggesting the/a Messiah would rise from the dead, it will make clear whether or not others had come to understand that as well as Jesus and the other early Christians. That would be an interesting discovery. But undeserving of the “this completely undermines the Christian faith” hype that publishers hope to work up about such things. If there is any hype to be made about the tablet being discussed, perhaps it should go more like this: News from Jerusalem! Perhaps Jesus was right! His disciples should have understood that he needed to die and then rise again!
Associate Professor of New Testament
Time magazine recently published a short article under the title “Was Jesus’ Resurrection a Sequel?” (To read the article, click here.) Written by David Van Biema and Tim McGirk it discusses a “first-century BC tablet, thought to originate from the Jordanian bank of the Dead Sea, that tells the story of a Messiah who rose again after three days from the grave.” The hyped drama here is based on the idea that, if the proposed reconstruction is correct, “Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified.” The authors suggest this reconstruction “undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up?”
Funny thing is, I have to confess I don’t recall ever hearing or using that argument before. Only now, am I discovering it is supposedly one of our strongest arguments to support the historicity of the resurrection and it is being undermined.
The authors think it provocative and shocking to suggest that when they proclaimed the death and resurrection of Christ “maybe the Christians had a model to work from.” Israel Knohl (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) points out that “for the first time, we have proof” that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah “was there before Jesus." This, he thinks, “should shake our basic view of Christianity. ... What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."
OK, I guess I should be panicking. But wait…. Thankfully (to the authors’ credit) they do check with Ben Witherington (Gordon-Conwell graduate and Asbury Seminary professor). His reported responses are (as usual) right on point. Among other things he points out that the verb Knohl wants to translate from the tablet as "rise!" could as easily mean "there arose," as in “showed up on the scene“ (cf. Matt. 11:11; 12:42; 24:11; Mark 13:22; Luke 7:16; 11:31; John 7:52). Oh yes, and “Witherington notes that if he is wrong and Knohl's reading is right, it at least sets to rest the notion that the various gospel quotes attributed to Christ foreshadowing his death and Resurrection were textual retrojections put in his mouth by later believers — Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate.”’ But according to the main thrust of the article this last possibility is supposed to be undermining one of our most important arguments for the resurrection!
This last of Witherington’s points highlights the silliest part of the article’s hype. Matthew 14:2 indicates Herod thought the reports about Jesus suggested that he was actually John the Baptist, risen from the dead. Here again the New Testament itself suggests Jewish people of his day considered the possibility that God might vindicate a righteous man by raising him from the dead. According to the gospels Jesus himself indicated that his followers should have known ahead of time, based on the Scriptures, that he, as the Messiah would die and then be vindicated by being raised by God from the dead. Luke 18:31-33 says Jesus told his disciples that “everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon. After they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again" (NRSV). After the resurrection we are told that Jesus told the disciples, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-- that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke says Jesus then “opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem‘“ (Luke 24:44-47 NRSV). Mark and Matthew both record Jesus referring to his upcoming death in the words “the Son of Man goes as it is written of him” (Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21; emphasis added).
Paul also indicates that Jesus and the rest of the early church had a scriptural model to work from. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul says,
“I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” (NRSV).
Here again it is understood that Christ’s death and resurrection took place “according to the [Old Testament] scriptures.” This was not thought to be a new idea. Just exactly which Scriptures Jesus, Paul and other early Christians might have had in mind is debatable. Certainly Daniel 12:2-3, Hosea 6:1-2 and Ezekiel 37 must be included in the mix. For a full discussion of the resurrection, see N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God [Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003]). He provides a fine discussion of the Old Testament background on pages 108-28. Part of the key turns out to be that God had done for Jesus, in the middle of time what he had been expected to do for Israel at the end of time [raise them from the dead after suffering oppression at the hands of pagans]: “In and through Jesus Israel’s hope had been realized. He had been raised from the dead after suffering and dying at the hands of the pagans” (N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 127).
Christians do not base the belief that Jesus died and rose from the dead on the uniqueness of the idea or because we can’t imagine anyone making the story up. We believe it because of the testimony of those who saw him (see again 1 Cor. 15:3-8 above) and gave their lives for the sake of that message and because of the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection life demonstrated in and through his disciples down through history and into our own time and our own lives. It is not part of the Christian message to say Jesus had such an idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture that no one else could have understood it before hand. Jesus himself said his disciples should have understood the Scriptures to teach that the Messiah must experience Israel’s destiny: He must die and rise again.
I am not suggesting that Knohl’s interpretation of the tablet will turn out to be correct. That may be unlikely. What I am suggesting is that believers do not have a horse in this race. Clearly most Jews did not expect the Messiah to die and rise again, but Jesus and the authors of the New Testament suggest they should have. If we ever find (or have just found) an ancient Jewish text suggesting the/a Messiah would rise from the dead, it will make clear whether or not others had come to understand that as well as Jesus and the other early Christians. That would be an interesting discovery. But undeserving of the “this completely undermines the Christian faith” hype that publishers hope to work up about such things. If there is any hype to be made about the tablet being discussed, perhaps it should go more like this: News from Jerusalem! Perhaps Jesus was right! His disciples should have understood that he needed to die and then rise again!
Monday, July 7, 2008
All Together Now...
By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
I just returned from a week teaching at a family camp sponsored by PRMI (Presbyterian Reformed Ministries International). In the past, organizers of family camp divided the attendees into age groups for teaching times. We decided, however, to do things differently. We asked that, except for the youngest children, the families attend the teaching periods together. Thus, we had the pleasure and challenge of teaching people aged 10 to 60+ in ways that were relevant and engaging to them all.
We taught a series on building strong families, based on Ephesians 6:10-18. In this passage, Paul tells us to stand strong against the evil one by putting on the full armor of God and by persevering in prayer. Paul, under house arrest, was reminded of the armor, no doubt, by the constant presence of the Roman guard to whom he was chained. The pieces of armor include the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of the preparation of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit. As I studied in preparation for this week, I was struck by how the image of the Roman soldier and his armor led me to consider the corporate nature of our faith. Most commentators I read discussed the critical importance of the Roman soldiers' coordinated formations, standing firm in a united front which both afforded protection from the enemy and created an imposing front for assault.
During the course of the week, as we presented lessons on each piece of armor, we drew out this emphasis on the individual family and the family of God, the Body of Christ. Yes, we are each individually saved by faith in Christ, but we are born into the family. God's intention for us is to live and grow into the person he intended us to be in the context of that family, the Body of Christ, the Church. God does not want solo Christians. We need each other. Even the soldier's armor, which seems at first glance to be designed for one person, needs others to be most effective. The large Roman shield, for example, was made to interlock with the shields of other soldiers. When the soldiers did this, they could create an impenetrable defense against the enemy's flaming arrows. What a wonderful image of the Body of Christ, united against the schemes of the devil!
We also had plenty of time, during the week, after the morning teaching for fun and fellowship before evening services. I found myself sought out repeatedly by one man who kept telling me about lots of people he knew who had been hurt by churches in the past and now refused to be a part of any church. We discussed the teachings on the armor and the implications for Christians remaining in fellowship to accomplish the work of the Kingdom. I encouraged him that he could be an important mediator of God's truth to these people about the need for fellowship with other believers. The church, composed of fallen, redeemed human beings, is not perfect. But it is God's chosen instrument for the living out and proclamation of the gospel. That is why we are told to not give up on coming together (Hebrews 10:25). This is the only way we can build up, encourage, and support one another as we seek to grow into the people God wants us to be and proclaim the gospel to a world that desperately needs it.
On the final morning of family camp, we set aside some time for “debriefing,” giving attendees the opportunity to share whatever they would like about their experience of the week. This man stood up and spoke, with tears, about how he now finally understood that God wants us to be together, not alone, and that it is important for him to be part of a church. The woman sitting next to me, who apparently knew this man quite well, raised her eyes to heaven in thanksgiving for his words. She had known that he was one of those people he kept talking with me about who have been hurt and were intent on staying away from any church.
Many churches have the practice, as was true of previous times at this family camp, of separating people by age. For teaching children, I can understand this, as their cognitive abilities are developing over time and what a 3 year old is capable of understanding is quite different from a 13 year old. But most churches take this much further and separate 20 somethings from 30 or 40 somethings, singles from couples, young marrieds from empty nesters. But I think this cheats us of the advantage of the family of God sharing experience and wisdom across the generations. Some people at family camp commented on how much they appreciated being together, old and young and everything in between. It had indeed been a delight during the week to see teenagers praying for their elders as well as vice versa, each encouraging the other and bringing to each other the perspectives unique to their age and life status. It does take some additional effort to make the teaching relevant and meaningful across the age ranges. But I find the value of the generations sharing their experiences to be well worth the effort.
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
I just returned from a week teaching at a family camp sponsored by PRMI (Presbyterian Reformed Ministries International). In the past, organizers of family camp divided the attendees into age groups for teaching times. We decided, however, to do things differently. We asked that, except for the youngest children, the families attend the teaching periods together. Thus, we had the pleasure and challenge of teaching people aged 10 to 60+ in ways that were relevant and engaging to them all.
We taught a series on building strong families, based on Ephesians 6:10-18. In this passage, Paul tells us to stand strong against the evil one by putting on the full armor of God and by persevering in prayer. Paul, under house arrest, was reminded of the armor, no doubt, by the constant presence of the Roman guard to whom he was chained. The pieces of armor include the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of the preparation of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit. As I studied in preparation for this week, I was struck by how the image of the Roman soldier and his armor led me to consider the corporate nature of our faith. Most commentators I read discussed the critical importance of the Roman soldiers' coordinated formations, standing firm in a united front which both afforded protection from the enemy and created an imposing front for assault.
During the course of the week, as we presented lessons on each piece of armor, we drew out this emphasis on the individual family and the family of God, the Body of Christ. Yes, we are each individually saved by faith in Christ, but we are born into the family. God's intention for us is to live and grow into the person he intended us to be in the context of that family, the Body of Christ, the Church. God does not want solo Christians. We need each other. Even the soldier's armor, which seems at first glance to be designed for one person, needs others to be most effective. The large Roman shield, for example, was made to interlock with the shields of other soldiers. When the soldiers did this, they could create an impenetrable defense against the enemy's flaming arrows. What a wonderful image of the Body of Christ, united against the schemes of the devil!
We also had plenty of time, during the week, after the morning teaching for fun and fellowship before evening services. I found myself sought out repeatedly by one man who kept telling me about lots of people he knew who had been hurt by churches in the past and now refused to be a part of any church. We discussed the teachings on the armor and the implications for Christians remaining in fellowship to accomplish the work of the Kingdom. I encouraged him that he could be an important mediator of God's truth to these people about the need for fellowship with other believers. The church, composed of fallen, redeemed human beings, is not perfect. But it is God's chosen instrument for the living out and proclamation of the gospel. That is why we are told to not give up on coming together (Hebrews 10:25). This is the only way we can build up, encourage, and support one another as we seek to grow into the people God wants us to be and proclaim the gospel to a world that desperately needs it.
On the final morning of family camp, we set aside some time for “debriefing,” giving attendees the opportunity to share whatever they would like about their experience of the week. This man stood up and spoke, with tears, about how he now finally understood that God wants us to be together, not alone, and that it is important for him to be part of a church. The woman sitting next to me, who apparently knew this man quite well, raised her eyes to heaven in thanksgiving for his words. She had known that he was one of those people he kept talking with me about who have been hurt and were intent on staying away from any church.
Many churches have the practice, as was true of previous times at this family camp, of separating people by age. For teaching children, I can understand this, as their cognitive abilities are developing over time and what a 3 year old is capable of understanding is quite different from a 13 year old. But most churches take this much further and separate 20 somethings from 30 or 40 somethings, singles from couples, young marrieds from empty nesters. But I think this cheats us of the advantage of the family of God sharing experience and wisdom across the generations. Some people at family camp commented on how much they appreciated being together, old and young and everything in between. It had indeed been a delight during the week to see teenagers praying for their elders as well as vice versa, each encouraging the other and bringing to each other the perspectives unique to their age and life status. It does take some additional effort to make the teaching relevant and meaningful across the age ranges. But I find the value of the generations sharing their experiences to be well worth the effort.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Image Problem
By Sean McDonough, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
I am not sure which is more disturbing: the fact that in a recent newspaper article a franchise-church pastor openly compares his church-planting strategy to Starbuck's, or the fact that this does not remotely surprise me. We are so inured to a market-driven approach to church that it just seems like…business as usual. (I will spare you the details of this latest assault on gospel decency, though I will point out that this particular outfit is looking to push into the lucrative South American market, thus adding cultural imperialism to an already dubious mix.)
Whatever good impulses might drive these chains (and I am not denying those may be involved), there seem to be two irreducible (and interrelated) elements to them: Image and Control. The first involves creating a recognizable “brand”, which used to focus on having an eloquent preacher, but now goes all the way towards an eye-catching logo and an ear-catching slogan. The second consists of replicating a particular religious experience in a variety of settings. McDonald's provides the clichéd but still perfect analogy: the two-year old recognizes the Golden Arches in an instant, and cries with longing because she knows the cheeseburgers nestled within will taste exactly the same every time.
As always, there is a baseline of common sense we can work from: it seems reasonable enough for a church to have a consistent letterhead, for example, and a certain continuity in the worship service from week to week can help people focus on the content of worship rather than trying to figure out how we are doing things this week. The problem comes when Image and Control become the driving force of the religious enterprise.
Let us begin with Image. We are well acquainted (in theory) with the physical suffering endured by those who were crucified in the Roman Empire. We are less aware of the equally devastating social consequences of crucifixion: the cross was at least as much about shame, about abject humiliation, as it was about physical suffering. What this means for us is that when Paul made the cross the centerpiece of his preaching, he was arguably making the single worst marketing decision in the history of mankind. And it turns out that the whole of Jesus' public ministry was marked by a gap between Image and Reality: only those “with eyes to see” – those who could penetrate beyond mere appearance to see how things in God's kingdom really are – could embrace the subversive message Jesus preached. An obsessive concern with Image, therefore, deprives people of the ability to see clearly, and thus to joyfully enter the Kingdom they have seen.
If Image is the hand that slams shut the door of the Kingdom, Control is the key that locks it. The Kingdom of God is all about the free movement of God-in-Christ to reclaim the world he has created. It is about the Almighty Creator breathing life into the dry bones of humanity through His powerful Spirit. Certainly God uses human beings as responsible agents in pressing his kingdom forward, but it remains His kingdom; “without Me you can do nothing.” In the good old days, an airplane pilot might invite the eager six-year old up to the cock-pit to enjoy the view and marvel at the array of instruments spread out before him. But even in the good old days, the fun would stop if the kid tried to shove the pilot aside and say, “Okay, pal, that's enough; I'll bring her in from here.” Making reliable disciples of Jesus is not the same thing as making reliable five dollar lattes. It is a lifelong process utterly dependent on God every step of the way. “Without Me, you can do nothing” – really.
Associate Professor of New Testament
I am not sure which is more disturbing: the fact that in a recent newspaper article a franchise-church pastor openly compares his church-planting strategy to Starbuck's, or the fact that this does not remotely surprise me. We are so inured to a market-driven approach to church that it just seems like…business as usual. (I will spare you the details of this latest assault on gospel decency, though I will point out that this particular outfit is looking to push into the lucrative South American market, thus adding cultural imperialism to an already dubious mix.)
Whatever good impulses might drive these chains (and I am not denying those may be involved), there seem to be two irreducible (and interrelated) elements to them: Image and Control. The first involves creating a recognizable “brand”, which used to focus on having an eloquent preacher, but now goes all the way towards an eye-catching logo and an ear-catching slogan. The second consists of replicating a particular religious experience in a variety of settings. McDonald's provides the clichéd but still perfect analogy: the two-year old recognizes the Golden Arches in an instant, and cries with longing because she knows the cheeseburgers nestled within will taste exactly the same every time.
As always, there is a baseline of common sense we can work from: it seems reasonable enough for a church to have a consistent letterhead, for example, and a certain continuity in the worship service from week to week can help people focus on the content of worship rather than trying to figure out how we are doing things this week. The problem comes when Image and Control become the driving force of the religious enterprise.
Let us begin with Image. We are well acquainted (in theory) with the physical suffering endured by those who were crucified in the Roman Empire. We are less aware of the equally devastating social consequences of crucifixion: the cross was at least as much about shame, about abject humiliation, as it was about physical suffering. What this means for us is that when Paul made the cross the centerpiece of his preaching, he was arguably making the single worst marketing decision in the history of mankind. And it turns out that the whole of Jesus' public ministry was marked by a gap between Image and Reality: only those “with eyes to see” – those who could penetrate beyond mere appearance to see how things in God's kingdom really are – could embrace the subversive message Jesus preached. An obsessive concern with Image, therefore, deprives people of the ability to see clearly, and thus to joyfully enter the Kingdom they have seen.
If Image is the hand that slams shut the door of the Kingdom, Control is the key that locks it. The Kingdom of God is all about the free movement of God-in-Christ to reclaim the world he has created. It is about the Almighty Creator breathing life into the dry bones of humanity through His powerful Spirit. Certainly God uses human beings as responsible agents in pressing his kingdom forward, but it remains His kingdom; “without Me you can do nothing.” In the good old days, an airplane pilot might invite the eager six-year old up to the cock-pit to enjoy the view and marvel at the array of instruments spread out before him. But even in the good old days, the fun would stop if the kid tried to shove the pilot aside and say, “Okay, pal, that's enough; I'll bring her in from here.” Making reliable disciples of Jesus is not the same thing as making reliable five dollar lattes. It is a lifelong process utterly dependent on God every step of the way. “Without Me, you can do nothing” – really.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Authority, Doctrine, Moral Theology: Hermeneutical Reflections on Interfaith Dialogue and Sexual Ethics
By John Jefferson Davis, PhD
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
The following is a talk I gave on June 16th at Andover Newton Theological School at a conference on “Covenant, Community, and Sexuality” sponsored by the Boston Theological Institute. In the talk I tried to show how differences in churches and denominations on issues such as homosexuality and sexual ethics are rooted in differing understandings of biblical authority, biblical interpretation, and the nature of Christian doctrine itself – and as a result, are very difficult to resolve.
I wish to thank Dr. Rodney Peterson and the planning committee for their work in organizing this conference on “Covenant, Community and Sexuality,” sponsored by the Boston Theological Institute in partnership with Andover Newton Theological School and Hebrew College. The remarks that I will be sharing with you this morning come from the perspective of a faculty member who teaches at a conservative Protestant theological seminary, Gordon-Conwell, a member school of the BTI, and who, as an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church USA, has been part of a confessional body that for the last three decades has been embroiled in debate and controversy over matters of sexual ethics.
My purpose during these next twenty minutes or so is to propose, in a very schematic fashion, a “theological topography”, so to speak, of these debates over homosexuality and same-sex marriages, and to argue that the differing positions in question are based on fundamentally differing construals of authority, doctrine, and moral theology. It is the assumption of this proposal that unless these basic methodological and and presuppositional differences are recognized, it will continue to be difficult, if not impossible, for the various parties in this conversation to truly engage one another, much less reach consensus or agreement.
For the purpose of this discussion I propose to use the nomenclature of “traditionalist” and “revisionist” perspectives in these human sexuality debates. I will be using the term “traditionalist” rather than “evangelical” – the latter term commonly associated with theological positions represented by a theological seminary such as my own, Gordon-Conwell – both in an attempt to disengage the listener’s possibly stereotypical associations with this word deriving from the Christian Right and the popular media, and in an attempt to connect with a broad historical consensus on these issues that was widely shared by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants for much of Christian history through the 1960s. I admit at the outset the limitations of any such generalized nomenclature, and invite further qualifications and nuancing of the topography that I am proposing in the discussion that is to follow.
Religious Authority and the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”
As regards the contentious issue of authority in religious communities, I propose to discuss the well known “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” as a heuristic device for analyzing the fault-lines in the current debates on human sexuality. It will be recalled that the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which may be visualized as a rectangle with the four terms “scripture”, “tradition”, “reason”, and “experience” placed at the four corners of the rectangle, point to four possible sources, in any given religious community, for the construction of doctrine and moral judgments, and the subsequent justification of these doctrines and moral judgments. Scriptures are those sacred texts that the community recognizes as constitutive for its origins, continuing life, and self-identity. “Tradition” may include formal and explicit confessional documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith or Augsburg Confession, or informally, “hermeneutical protocols” or tacitly agreed upon ways of construing scriptures on matters that are deemed central to the community’s identity. For example, in Pentecostal churches it is assumed that the charismatic phenomena (e.g., glossolalia) in the book of Acts are operative and available in the present, while in certain conservative Protestant churches of a “cessationist” tradition, it is believed that such phenomena were only temporary and disappeared in the later centuries of church history.
“Reason,” a third component of the Quadrilateral, may be understood as a shorthand expression for “elite wisdom” that is recognized by a religious community at any given period of its history, and which operates to provide background information and assumptions for the interpretation of scriptures and the formulation of doctrine and moral judgments. For Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century “reason” was exemplified by the philosophy of Aristotle; in the modern and postmodern periods, “reason” may represent the current consensus of expert opinion in the natural and social sciences.
“Experience” is a fundamental concept that is somewhat elusive and not easily definable, but for the purposes of this discussion, it will be used to denote those immediate, affective, and largely pre-reflective human perceptions of persons, things, and events by the self and the community, that function both as a theological source and pre-understanding for the faith and life of religious communities. The visceral “gut reaction” of some to certain sexual practices, or, on the other, personal observations that, “In my experience, lesbian parents seem to be just as good at parenting as heterosexual parents” can both function, tacitly or explicitly, as “experience” for the various religious communities.
To bring the foregoing discussion of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to the point, it is here hypothesized that from the point of view of a traditionalist religious community, it is their self-understanding and intent to give scripture the greatest epistemic weight relative to tradition, reason, and experience. All four elements are operative, but scripture is understood to “trump” the others in cases of real or apparent conflict. By way of contrast, from the point of view of traditionalist communities, revisionist communities are perceived as giving reason and experience epistemic and theological priority: reason and experience “trump” scripture and tradition, so to speak.
To broaden this latter point even further, it might be said that from the traditionalist perspective, warrants for authority are seen to be grounded externally to the self and to the community, while for revisionist communities (at least as perceived by traditionalists), authority is not only mediated through the self and the community, but, operatively, grounded internally in the self and its community. Both perspectives appeal to experience, but locate its grounding differently – transcendently or immanently, so to speak. On this construal of the fault lines of the current debates, the “traditionalist” and “revisionist” religious communities (both across and within given confessional boundaries) are, in effect, operating with different “decision making algorithms” in which the four elements of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience are each understood differently and given differing epistemic weight. Religious communities that can not agree on a shared decision-making algorithm may find themselves stalemated in intractable doctrinal and ethical debates.
The Nature of Doctrine
In the second place, it is here proposed that traditionalist and revisionist religious communities not only hold differing doctrinal beliefs, but differing understandings of the nature of doctrine as well. On this construal of the differences, not only would it be the case that revisionist communities might dissent from one or affirmations of, say, the Nicene Creed, but further, creedal affirmations as such would be construed differently from the two perspectives in question. Traditionalist communities would presuppose some form of a “divine revelation” theory of the basis and nature of doctrine. That is to say, while all creedal formulations are in fact socially constructed in specific historical and social locations by specific human agents with specific interests, it would nevertheless be believed by traditionalist communities that the fundamental source and point of reference for doctrine in not in the self or its religious community, but external to the self, ultimately located in the being and intentionality of the deity, and mediated in scriptures perceived as bearing revelatory content.
From the point of view of these traditionalist communities, it seems that in revisionist communities doctrine is viewed, at least at the limit, as socially constructed almost without remainder, so to speak, and grounded internally in the self and in the experiences of the self-selecting community, rather than in some location external to and transcendent to the self. This latter characterization of the revisionist construal of doctrine might recall Schleiermacher’s notion of doctrine as “religious affections set forth in speech,” or George Lindbeck’s “cultural-linguistic” understanding of doctrine as those forms of religious discourse that provide internal cohesiveness and identity to a given religious community. In such revisionist understandings, doctrinal assertions may or may not make any cognitive assertions about states of affairs external to the religious consciousness of the community (e.g., “rose again [bodily] from the dead on the third day”), while in traditionalist communities doctrinal claims are understood to function not only as self-identifying modes of discourse, but as making cognitive-ontological claims as well.
From traditionalist perspectives, doctrine in revisionist communities has suffered a “hollowing out” and “lightening” of epistemic weight; doctrine is seen as being effectively replaced by social ethics - a social ethic often not markedly different from that of the prevailing secular culture. From the traditionalist point of view, a robust commitment to Christian doctrine is not only intrinsically important in terms of its cognitive, ontological, and soteriological content, but instrumentally important as well in terms of its social function in maintaining a clear sense of the community’s self-identity, distinctiveness, vibrancy of worship, and mission to the world. Seen from this perpective, religious communities such as Unitarian-Universalists would be perceived as having a rather “thin-description” in terms of their doctrinal identity, and perhaps consequently, an evisceration in the intensity and vitality of worship, and a much weakened “brand identity” that handicaps retention and recruitment of new members in the religious marketplace.
Moral Theology and Metaethics
As Alistair McIntyre pointed out years ago in his seminal work After Virtue, it has been increasingly difficult in our fragmented modern and postmodern contexts to find agreed-upon bases for moral judgments that transcend the confines of a given interest group, and this has become starkly evident in the human sexuality debates. Traditionalists, at the metaethical level, tend to presuppose some form of a “divine command” theory of ethics. The foundations of moral judgments are believed to be “discovered” rather than “constructed.” Revisionist communities, on the other hand (at least as seen from traditionalist perspectives), are perceived as operating on the basis of a utilitarian construal of ethics and, concomitantly, some neo-pragmatic (Rortian) epistemology. From a revisionist perspective, moral judgments can be seen as primarily if not exclusively as the social constructions of the community, the “good” and the “just” being understood as those beliefs and practices that increase the net utility and satisfaction of the self and the community. The calculus of personal and communal utility trumps any purported “divine command” from scripture and tradition, the latter of which are revisable in light of contemporary “reason” and experience. From one perspective, marriage as being limited to a human male and a human female is a divine command; from another, marriage is socially constructed and revisable in the light of new experience.
On this reading of the landscape, as in the case of doctrine, so in the case of moral theology, the fault line in the current debates would be seen to run between one perspective (“traditionalist”) that locates final authority outside the self and the community, and another (“revisionist”) that, at the end of the day, locates final authority in the self and its self-chosen community of interpretation.
Can traditionalist and revisionist religious communities seriously listen to one another, and perhaps even achieve some new form of consensus on the contentious issues of gender and sex? Recent decades do not appear to give grounds for great optimism in either regard, and the cultural momentum toward greater affinity-group segmentation driven by the internet and digital media shows little sign of abating. Real movement toward consensus would appear to be blocked by the realities of fundamentally differing “decision-making algorithms” and notions of doctrine and moral theology in traditionalist and revisionist communities.
Nevertheless, conversations such as those fostered by conferences such as this one will prove to time well spent if traditionalists broaden their horizons of concern beyond opposition to same-sex unions to a greater emphasis on the renewal and repair of existing marriages, and revisionists rediscover a more robust construal of Christian doctrine that can, when properly understood, provide a firmer and more coherent foundation for sexual ethics and religious ethics generally.
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
The following is a talk I gave on June 16th at Andover Newton Theological School at a conference on “Covenant, Community, and Sexuality” sponsored by the Boston Theological Institute. In the talk I tried to show how differences in churches and denominations on issues such as homosexuality and sexual ethics are rooted in differing understandings of biblical authority, biblical interpretation, and the nature of Christian doctrine itself – and as a result, are very difficult to resolve.
I wish to thank Dr. Rodney Peterson and the planning committee for their work in organizing this conference on “Covenant, Community and Sexuality,” sponsored by the Boston Theological Institute in partnership with Andover Newton Theological School and Hebrew College. The remarks that I will be sharing with you this morning come from the perspective of a faculty member who teaches at a conservative Protestant theological seminary, Gordon-Conwell, a member school of the BTI, and who, as an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church USA, has been part of a confessional body that for the last three decades has been embroiled in debate and controversy over matters of sexual ethics.
My purpose during these next twenty minutes or so is to propose, in a very schematic fashion, a “theological topography”, so to speak, of these debates over homosexuality and same-sex marriages, and to argue that the differing positions in question are based on fundamentally differing construals of authority, doctrine, and moral theology. It is the assumption of this proposal that unless these basic methodological and and presuppositional differences are recognized, it will continue to be difficult, if not impossible, for the various parties in this conversation to truly engage one another, much less reach consensus or agreement.
For the purpose of this discussion I propose to use the nomenclature of “traditionalist” and “revisionist” perspectives in these human sexuality debates. I will be using the term “traditionalist” rather than “evangelical” – the latter term commonly associated with theological positions represented by a theological seminary such as my own, Gordon-Conwell – both in an attempt to disengage the listener’s possibly stereotypical associations with this word deriving from the Christian Right and the popular media, and in an attempt to connect with a broad historical consensus on these issues that was widely shared by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants for much of Christian history through the 1960s. I admit at the outset the limitations of any such generalized nomenclature, and invite further qualifications and nuancing of the topography that I am proposing in the discussion that is to follow.
Religious Authority and the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”
As regards the contentious issue of authority in religious communities, I propose to discuss the well known “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” as a heuristic device for analyzing the fault-lines in the current debates on human sexuality. It will be recalled that the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which may be visualized as a rectangle with the four terms “scripture”, “tradition”, “reason”, and “experience” placed at the four corners of the rectangle, point to four possible sources, in any given religious community, for the construction of doctrine and moral judgments, and the subsequent justification of these doctrines and moral judgments. Scriptures are those sacred texts that the community recognizes as constitutive for its origins, continuing life, and self-identity. “Tradition” may include formal and explicit confessional documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith or Augsburg Confession, or informally, “hermeneutical protocols” or tacitly agreed upon ways of construing scriptures on matters that are deemed central to the community’s identity. For example, in Pentecostal churches it is assumed that the charismatic phenomena (e.g., glossolalia) in the book of Acts are operative and available in the present, while in certain conservative Protestant churches of a “cessationist” tradition, it is believed that such phenomena were only temporary and disappeared in the later centuries of church history.
“Reason,” a third component of the Quadrilateral, may be understood as a shorthand expression for “elite wisdom” that is recognized by a religious community at any given period of its history, and which operates to provide background information and assumptions for the interpretation of scriptures and the formulation of doctrine and moral judgments. For Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century “reason” was exemplified by the philosophy of Aristotle; in the modern and postmodern periods, “reason” may represent the current consensus of expert opinion in the natural and social sciences.
“Experience” is a fundamental concept that is somewhat elusive and not easily definable, but for the purposes of this discussion, it will be used to denote those immediate, affective, and largely pre-reflective human perceptions of persons, things, and events by the self and the community, that function both as a theological source and pre-understanding for the faith and life of religious communities. The visceral “gut reaction” of some to certain sexual practices, or, on the other, personal observations that, “In my experience, lesbian parents seem to be just as good at parenting as heterosexual parents” can both function, tacitly or explicitly, as “experience” for the various religious communities.
To bring the foregoing discussion of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to the point, it is here hypothesized that from the point of view of a traditionalist religious community, it is their self-understanding and intent to give scripture the greatest epistemic weight relative to tradition, reason, and experience. All four elements are operative, but scripture is understood to “trump” the others in cases of real or apparent conflict. By way of contrast, from the point of view of traditionalist communities, revisionist communities are perceived as giving reason and experience epistemic and theological priority: reason and experience “trump” scripture and tradition, so to speak.
To broaden this latter point even further, it might be said that from the traditionalist perspective, warrants for authority are seen to be grounded externally to the self and to the community, while for revisionist communities (at least as perceived by traditionalists), authority is not only mediated through the self and the community, but, operatively, grounded internally in the self and its community. Both perspectives appeal to experience, but locate its grounding differently – transcendently or immanently, so to speak. On this construal of the fault lines of the current debates, the “traditionalist” and “revisionist” religious communities (both across and within given confessional boundaries) are, in effect, operating with different “decision making algorithms” in which the four elements of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience are each understood differently and given differing epistemic weight. Religious communities that can not agree on a shared decision-making algorithm may find themselves stalemated in intractable doctrinal and ethical debates.
The Nature of Doctrine
In the second place, it is here proposed that traditionalist and revisionist religious communities not only hold differing doctrinal beliefs, but differing understandings of the nature of doctrine as well. On this construal of the differences, not only would it be the case that revisionist communities might dissent from one or affirmations of, say, the Nicene Creed, but further, creedal affirmations as such would be construed differently from the two perspectives in question. Traditionalist communities would presuppose some form of a “divine revelation” theory of the basis and nature of doctrine. That is to say, while all creedal formulations are in fact socially constructed in specific historical and social locations by specific human agents with specific interests, it would nevertheless be believed by traditionalist communities that the fundamental source and point of reference for doctrine in not in the self or its religious community, but external to the self, ultimately located in the being and intentionality of the deity, and mediated in scriptures perceived as bearing revelatory content.
From the point of view of these traditionalist communities, it seems that in revisionist communities doctrine is viewed, at least at the limit, as socially constructed almost without remainder, so to speak, and grounded internally in the self and in the experiences of the self-selecting community, rather than in some location external to and transcendent to the self. This latter characterization of the revisionist construal of doctrine might recall Schleiermacher’s notion of doctrine as “religious affections set forth in speech,” or George Lindbeck’s “cultural-linguistic” understanding of doctrine as those forms of religious discourse that provide internal cohesiveness and identity to a given religious community. In such revisionist understandings, doctrinal assertions may or may not make any cognitive assertions about states of affairs external to the religious consciousness of the community (e.g., “rose again [bodily] from the dead on the third day”), while in traditionalist communities doctrinal claims are understood to function not only as self-identifying modes of discourse, but as making cognitive-ontological claims as well.
From traditionalist perspectives, doctrine in revisionist communities has suffered a “hollowing out” and “lightening” of epistemic weight; doctrine is seen as being effectively replaced by social ethics - a social ethic often not markedly different from that of the prevailing secular culture. From the traditionalist point of view, a robust commitment to Christian doctrine is not only intrinsically important in terms of its cognitive, ontological, and soteriological content, but instrumentally important as well in terms of its social function in maintaining a clear sense of the community’s self-identity, distinctiveness, vibrancy of worship, and mission to the world. Seen from this perpective, religious communities such as Unitarian-Universalists would be perceived as having a rather “thin-description” in terms of their doctrinal identity, and perhaps consequently, an evisceration in the intensity and vitality of worship, and a much weakened “brand identity” that handicaps retention and recruitment of new members in the religious marketplace.
Moral Theology and Metaethics
As Alistair McIntyre pointed out years ago in his seminal work After Virtue, it has been increasingly difficult in our fragmented modern and postmodern contexts to find agreed-upon bases for moral judgments that transcend the confines of a given interest group, and this has become starkly evident in the human sexuality debates. Traditionalists, at the metaethical level, tend to presuppose some form of a “divine command” theory of ethics. The foundations of moral judgments are believed to be “discovered” rather than “constructed.” Revisionist communities, on the other hand (at least as seen from traditionalist perspectives), are perceived as operating on the basis of a utilitarian construal of ethics and, concomitantly, some neo-pragmatic (Rortian) epistemology. From a revisionist perspective, moral judgments can be seen as primarily if not exclusively as the social constructions of the community, the “good” and the “just” being understood as those beliefs and practices that increase the net utility and satisfaction of the self and the community. The calculus of personal and communal utility trumps any purported “divine command” from scripture and tradition, the latter of which are revisable in light of contemporary “reason” and experience. From one perspective, marriage as being limited to a human male and a human female is a divine command; from another, marriage is socially constructed and revisable in the light of new experience.
On this reading of the landscape, as in the case of doctrine, so in the case of moral theology, the fault line in the current debates would be seen to run between one perspective (“traditionalist”) that locates final authority outside the self and the community, and another (“revisionist”) that, at the end of the day, locates final authority in the self and its self-chosen community of interpretation.
Can traditionalist and revisionist religious communities seriously listen to one another, and perhaps even achieve some new form of consensus on the contentious issues of gender and sex? Recent decades do not appear to give grounds for great optimism in either regard, and the cultural momentum toward greater affinity-group segmentation driven by the internet and digital media shows little sign of abating. Real movement toward consensus would appear to be blocked by the realities of fundamentally differing “decision-making algorithms” and notions of doctrine and moral theology in traditionalist and revisionist communities.
Nevertheless, conversations such as those fostered by conferences such as this one will prove to time well spent if traditionalists broaden their horizons of concern beyond opposition to same-sex unions to a greater emphasis on the renewal and repair of existing marriages, and revisionists rediscover a more robust construal of Christian doctrine that can, when properly understood, provide a firmer and more coherent foundation for sexual ethics and religious ethics generally.
Monday, June 16, 2008
The Itching Ears We Love
By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
I recently came back from a seminar that reminded me, in an ironic way, of Paul’s solemn charge and warning to Timothy: “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-- with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:1-4; Scripture citations are from the NIV unless otherwise indicated)
The seminar was called REVEAL. It was sponsored by the Willow Creek Association to explain their research based on the spiritual life survey that has been taken by 118,000 people in 420 congregations. When provided with a broad “list of benefits a church could provide” and asked to rank them in terms of importance the highest ranking benefit was “Help me understand the Bible in depth.” When asked a different question about what they wanted most from the weekend service of their church the top choice was for a service that “Incorporates relevant Bible teaching to help me with everyday life.” The third choice (out of many) was for a service that “Incorporates frequent use of Scripture” and the fourth choice was for a service that “Provides in-depth study of the Bible” (REVEAL: On the Road 2008, © WCA 2008). Three out of four of the top priorities for the worship service had to do with engaging Scripture. The ears of the people in these churches are itching for the Word of God!
In some cases it is preachers rather than the listeners who may be most tempted to think the church needs a different diet. Pastors are sometimes tempted to think careful or in-depth Bible teaching was something that an earlier generation would tolerate but that those attending church today would balk at it and want less blatantly religious teaching. The truth is that there have been too many cases of churches or Sunday School classes where in-depth Bible teaching was given but there was no life transformation to go along with it. The Bible can be and sometimes has been taught for the sake of knowledge alone (or a view of spirituality that views knowledge as being equal to spirituality), and that does not build up the church or its members. But that should not lead anyone to conclude that life change must come about some other way and not through knowledge of the Scriptures. While spiritual growth requires much more than a knowledge and understanding of Scripture (and more than private spiritual disciplines), solid spiritual growth and health will not be sustained without such a foundation. It seems the sheep understand the diet they need even if their shepherds are not always so clear about it.
The first article of the Gordon-Conwell Mission Statement reads “To encourage students to become knowledgeable of God's inerrant Word, competent in its interpretation, proclamation and application in the contemporary world.” The rationale given is as follows: “Because the teaching of God's Word is indispensable to the well-being and vitality of God's people, the Seminary has a fundamental responsibility to encourage in students a love for Scripture. The Seminary is to teach exegetical skills by which they will be able to apply Scripture effectively.” In 2 Timothy 2:15 Paul exhorts Timothy to “Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately” (NET). Later he points out that the teaching of Scripture is essential if God’s people are to be “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17). It is the holy Scriptures “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (v. 15).
We do not believe in providing in-depth understanding of Scripture merely for the sake of intellectual curiosity, but for the essential contribution it makes, by the work of God’s grace and God’s Spirit, to our continuing transformation - the transformation of our heart, soul, mind and strength. Unsurprisingly, the REVEAL research confirms the crucial role of Scripture engagement in spiritual growth. Cally Parkinson, the co-author of REVEAL who led our seminar, told us that their research shows that exposure to (reading/study of and reflection on) Scripture, both privately and in worship, was by far the most significant and catalytic factor in people’s advancement through the stages of spiritual growth.
I am grateful to God to be serving on the faculty of a seminary that has a wonderful heritage of maintaining the highest possible standards in training Christian leaders to be careful and faithful interpreters of God’s Word. It is a heritage that, by God’s grace, we are committed to maintaining and building upon. We must (and do) teach our students much more than that, but we will never settle for anything less.
It is encouraging to hear (and to be able to spread the news) that the people in our pews long to have the Word of God read, taught and preached to them. They long to grasp its message more fully that its message might grasp their lives more completely. This is a case where pastors would do well to listen to the flock and rededicate themselves to providing them with a solid diet of clear, life-transforming biblical teaching and preaching. By the grace of God this is what the ears of our people are itching for! If we are to preach the Word even when people’s ears itch for other things instead, how much more should we be eager to do so when that is what they crave for both spiritual milk and spiritual meat? Paul tells Timothy to “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season” (2 Timothy 4:2). I thank God for every preacher who is prepared to preach the Word when it is “out of season” (as we all must be) but rejoice in the news that, as a matter of fact, it is “in season” (at least as far as those surveyed are concerned)!
May God continue to multiply the numbers of those whose ears itch for the clear and undiluted preaching of his Word. Those are the itching ears we love! And may God continue to raise up faithful shepherds who will feed their flock the diet it needs to grow up “to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13).
Associate Professor of New Testament
I recently came back from a seminar that reminded me, in an ironic way, of Paul’s solemn charge and warning to Timothy: “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-- with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:1-4; Scripture citations are from the NIV unless otherwise indicated)
The seminar was called REVEAL. It was sponsored by the Willow Creek Association to explain their research based on the spiritual life survey that has been taken by 118,000 people in 420 congregations. When provided with a broad “list of benefits a church could provide” and asked to rank them in terms of importance the highest ranking benefit was “Help me understand the Bible in depth.” When asked a different question about what they wanted most from the weekend service of their church the top choice was for a service that “Incorporates relevant Bible teaching to help me with everyday life.” The third choice (out of many) was for a service that “Incorporates frequent use of Scripture” and the fourth choice was for a service that “Provides in-depth study of the Bible” (REVEAL: On the Road 2008, © WCA 2008). Three out of four of the top priorities for the worship service had to do with engaging Scripture. The ears of the people in these churches are itching for the Word of God!
In some cases it is preachers rather than the listeners who may be most tempted to think the church needs a different diet. Pastors are sometimes tempted to think careful or in-depth Bible teaching was something that an earlier generation would tolerate but that those attending church today would balk at it and want less blatantly religious teaching. The truth is that there have been too many cases of churches or Sunday School classes where in-depth Bible teaching was given but there was no life transformation to go along with it. The Bible can be and sometimes has been taught for the sake of knowledge alone (or a view of spirituality that views knowledge as being equal to spirituality), and that does not build up the church or its members. But that should not lead anyone to conclude that life change must come about some other way and not through knowledge of the Scriptures. While spiritual growth requires much more than a knowledge and understanding of Scripture (and more than private spiritual disciplines), solid spiritual growth and health will not be sustained without such a foundation. It seems the sheep understand the diet they need even if their shepherds are not always so clear about it.
The first article of the Gordon-Conwell Mission Statement reads “To encourage students to become knowledgeable of God's inerrant Word, competent in its interpretation, proclamation and application in the contemporary world.” The rationale given is as follows: “Because the teaching of God's Word is indispensable to the well-being and vitality of God's people, the Seminary has a fundamental responsibility to encourage in students a love for Scripture. The Seminary is to teach exegetical skills by which they will be able to apply Scripture effectively.” In 2 Timothy 2:15 Paul exhorts Timothy to “Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately” (NET). Later he points out that the teaching of Scripture is essential if God’s people are to be “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17). It is the holy Scriptures “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (v. 15).
We do not believe in providing in-depth understanding of Scripture merely for the sake of intellectual curiosity, but for the essential contribution it makes, by the work of God’s grace and God’s Spirit, to our continuing transformation - the transformation of our heart, soul, mind and strength. Unsurprisingly, the REVEAL research confirms the crucial role of Scripture engagement in spiritual growth. Cally Parkinson, the co-author of REVEAL who led our seminar, told us that their research shows that exposure to (reading/study of and reflection on) Scripture, both privately and in worship, was by far the most significant and catalytic factor in people’s advancement through the stages of spiritual growth.
I am grateful to God to be serving on the faculty of a seminary that has a wonderful heritage of maintaining the highest possible standards in training Christian leaders to be careful and faithful interpreters of God’s Word. It is a heritage that, by God’s grace, we are committed to maintaining and building upon. We must (and do) teach our students much more than that, but we will never settle for anything less.
It is encouraging to hear (and to be able to spread the news) that the people in our pews long to have the Word of God read, taught and preached to them. They long to grasp its message more fully that its message might grasp their lives more completely. This is a case where pastors would do well to listen to the flock and rededicate themselves to providing them with a solid diet of clear, life-transforming biblical teaching and preaching. By the grace of God this is what the ears of our people are itching for! If we are to preach the Word even when people’s ears itch for other things instead, how much more should we be eager to do so when that is what they crave for both spiritual milk and spiritual meat? Paul tells Timothy to “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season” (2 Timothy 4:2). I thank God for every preacher who is prepared to preach the Word when it is “out of season” (as we all must be) but rejoice in the news that, as a matter of fact, it is “in season” (at least as far as those surveyed are concerned)!
May God continue to multiply the numbers of those whose ears itch for the clear and undiluted preaching of his Word. Those are the itching ears we love! And may God continue to raise up faithful shepherds who will feed their flock the diet it needs to grow up “to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13).
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Living Together Before Marriage
By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology and
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling at the Charlotte campus
Living together before marriage has become extremely common in American society. In fact, it has been estimated that over half of couples in the US will live together before marriage. Couples will report a variety of reasons for cohabiting before marriage, when asked. These range from financial considerations to convenience to simply “drifting into living together.” Concern about avoiding divorce, however, also appears to be one of the motivations for couples deciding to live together before marriage.
The divorce rate in the US continues to hover around the 50% mark, and increasing attention is being paid to factors that increase or decrease the risk of divorce.1 For example, risk of divorce increases for second marriages and if the partners are under 20 years of age. It decreases with more education, and if the woman grew up in a two-parent home. With the intention of avoiding divorce, I have heard numerous couples and individuals say that they believe it is important to live together first, to see if they are compatible. In fact, many young people believe that living together prior to marriage increases the likelihood of the marriage being successful. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Research has shown that cohabitation prior to marriage is actually a risk factor for divorce. In fact, premarital cohabitation is has been shown to be linked to multiple negative outcomes, including higher rates of physical violence, wife infidelity, and lower levels of marital quality. This has become such a clear pattern that researchers interested in marriage have begun to study the factors that contribute the “cohabitation risk”.2 One obvious factor that investigators have looked at is religiosity. It is assumed that cohabitation as well as willingness to divorce would be negatively related to how religious a person is. However, the negative effect of premarital cohabitation is apparent even after taking into account variables such as degree of religious commitment.
Markman & Stanley conceptualize two sets of forces that impact individuals in the formation and maintenance of marriages. One force encourages individuals to form and maintain the relationship and the other force increases the cost of leaving. They refer to these forces as Dedication and Constraint Commitment, respectively. Examples of dedication would be the sense of “we” or couple identity, desire for a shared future, and so on. Constraint commitment refers to the financial cost of separating or perceived low quality of alternatives. They suggest that constraints contribute to why unhappy couples stay together and marry if they are living together. Recently, they have begun to examine some of the factors that contribute to marital instability in couples that cohabit prior to marriage. In a longitudinal study of almost 200 couples, they found that men who cohabit prior to engagement were less dedicated to the women than men who did not cohabit or did so only after they were engaged. This lower dedication persisted into the early years of marriage, to the limit that the study followed the couples.
These results sound remarkably like some pop psychology, for example, that men are more reluctant than women to make a commitment to marriage. They also, however, call into question some other myths, particularly that women are likely to believe that cohabitation is a step toward marriage to a greater extent than men do. Women who cohabit with the goal of coaxing men into marrying them are misguided about the effect of this on the men’s dedication to them. Lack of dedication increases the probability of divorce.
As evangelical Christians, we are committed to marriage as a creation ordinance, and to supporting the formation and maintenance of healthy marriages. Here is a place where modern psychological science provides additional support for a biblical model of family development, with cohabitation following marriage as the pattern producing the most stable, healthy marriages. This encourages me once again that what God prohibits in Scripture, he does so not to spoil our fun but because it is best for us: these are the boundaries that enable us to grow into mature, healthy individuals who become all that God intended us to be, enabling us to honor him in all areas of life.
I have provided premarital counseling to Christian couples who are cohabiting. When I present these research findings about the effects of premarital cohabitation to them, I have been amazed at the reaction. Rather than recognizing the wisdom of God’s way, they have simply disbelieved the research. This seems to me a place where postmodern philosophy has had a deeply practical impact on how people live. When one believes that truth is relative and socially constructed, then this kind of evidence about the consequences of premarital cohabitation need not have any effect on personal choices. This reminds me how extremely important it is that we hold and teach a biblically grounded perspective on truth and the application of truth to our lives.
1Bramlett MD and Mosher WD. Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22). 2002.
2G.K. Rhoades, S.M. Stanley, & H.J. Markman (2006) Pre-engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital commitment. Journal of Family Psychology 20(4), 553-560.
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology and
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling at the Charlotte campus
Living together before marriage has become extremely common in American society. In fact, it has been estimated that over half of couples in the US will live together before marriage. Couples will report a variety of reasons for cohabiting before marriage, when asked. These range from financial considerations to convenience to simply “drifting into living together.” Concern about avoiding divorce, however, also appears to be one of the motivations for couples deciding to live together before marriage.
The divorce rate in the US continues to hover around the 50% mark, and increasing attention is being paid to factors that increase or decrease the risk of divorce.1 For example, risk of divorce increases for second marriages and if the partners are under 20 years of age. It decreases with more education, and if the woman grew up in a two-parent home. With the intention of avoiding divorce, I have heard numerous couples and individuals say that they believe it is important to live together first, to see if they are compatible. In fact, many young people believe that living together prior to marriage increases the likelihood of the marriage being successful. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Research has shown that cohabitation prior to marriage is actually a risk factor for divorce. In fact, premarital cohabitation is has been shown to be linked to multiple negative outcomes, including higher rates of physical violence, wife infidelity, and lower levels of marital quality. This has become such a clear pattern that researchers interested in marriage have begun to study the factors that contribute the “cohabitation risk”.2 One obvious factor that investigators have looked at is religiosity. It is assumed that cohabitation as well as willingness to divorce would be negatively related to how religious a person is. However, the negative effect of premarital cohabitation is apparent even after taking into account variables such as degree of religious commitment.
Markman & Stanley conceptualize two sets of forces that impact individuals in the formation and maintenance of marriages. One force encourages individuals to form and maintain the relationship and the other force increases the cost of leaving. They refer to these forces as Dedication and Constraint Commitment, respectively. Examples of dedication would be the sense of “we” or couple identity, desire for a shared future, and so on. Constraint commitment refers to the financial cost of separating or perceived low quality of alternatives. They suggest that constraints contribute to why unhappy couples stay together and marry if they are living together. Recently, they have begun to examine some of the factors that contribute to marital instability in couples that cohabit prior to marriage. In a longitudinal study of almost 200 couples, they found that men who cohabit prior to engagement were less dedicated to the women than men who did not cohabit or did so only after they were engaged. This lower dedication persisted into the early years of marriage, to the limit that the study followed the couples.
These results sound remarkably like some pop psychology, for example, that men are more reluctant than women to make a commitment to marriage. They also, however, call into question some other myths, particularly that women are likely to believe that cohabitation is a step toward marriage to a greater extent than men do. Women who cohabit with the goal of coaxing men into marrying them are misguided about the effect of this on the men’s dedication to them. Lack of dedication increases the probability of divorce.
As evangelical Christians, we are committed to marriage as a creation ordinance, and to supporting the formation and maintenance of healthy marriages. Here is a place where modern psychological science provides additional support for a biblical model of family development, with cohabitation following marriage as the pattern producing the most stable, healthy marriages. This encourages me once again that what God prohibits in Scripture, he does so not to spoil our fun but because it is best for us: these are the boundaries that enable us to grow into mature, healthy individuals who become all that God intended us to be, enabling us to honor him in all areas of life.
I have provided premarital counseling to Christian couples who are cohabiting. When I present these research findings about the effects of premarital cohabitation to them, I have been amazed at the reaction. Rather than recognizing the wisdom of God’s way, they have simply disbelieved the research. This seems to me a place where postmodern philosophy has had a deeply practical impact on how people live. When one believes that truth is relative and socially constructed, then this kind of evidence about the consequences of premarital cohabitation need not have any effect on personal choices. This reminds me how extremely important it is that we hold and teach a biblically grounded perspective on truth and the application of truth to our lives.
1Bramlett MD and Mosher WD. Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22). 2002.
2G.K. Rhoades, S.M. Stanley, & H.J. Markman (2006) Pre-engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital commitment. Journal of Family Psychology 20(4), 553-560.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)