Thoughts on Theological Polemic that Honors Christ

By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament

In Matthew 7:3 Jesus asked his disciples, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” The answer, it seems, is very simple! Because I actually think the thing in my brother’s eye is a log, and I only have a tiny speck of dust in my own eye. I’ve been thinking lately about how we tend to get so comfortable with our own views that we begin to think that our perceptions of things are “natural” while those of other people are not. In theology we often go through an early stage or period where we see strengths, weaknesses and problems with both or various sides of some issue. We wrestle through those issues, deciding which strengths outweigh which weaknesses and which problems are easier to resolve than others and we decide where we stand on the issue. We may decide tentatively initially, or we may decide with the zeal of the convert who has made a definitive commitment and who now believes they have finally come to the truth of the matter.

After we live from within the position we have adopted for a while, we tend to become more and more comfortable with the arguments we found in favor of our position and against the alternative(s). This is often to the point that we eventually fail to remember that the position we hold had and has problems of its own (which is why godly and intelligent people do not all agree on the issue and why we had to work through the issues and challenges in the first place.)

So the Arminian forgets that there are some biblical passages that seem to more easily support a Calvinist position and the Calvinist forgets that there are some biblical passages that seem to more easily support an Arminian position. Similarly, the egalitarian forgets that some biblical texts do seem to point towards a more complementarian position and the complementarian seems to forget that there are some that seem to support a more egalitarian position. Of course the number of issues could be limitlessly expanded to include various solutions to the problem of evil, the proper mode and subjects of baptism, the meaning and practice of the Lord’s Supper, Christian views on war and the use of violence, eschatological views, understandings of sanctification, and many, many more.

The longer we live within the viewpoint we have adopted the harder it becomes to recognize that what we originally thought to be branches of more or less equal thickness have over time begun to seem more like specks on one side and logs on the other. That’s not quite true. In many cases we don’t think ours are even specks any more, but the biblical and theological problems in the other person’s position clearly look like logs – obvious, embarrassing, ugly logs. I’m getting to the age where I need to visit the eye doctor on a regular basis. My vision is changing over time. Our intellectual and theological vision also changes with time. It may not deteriorate in general, but we may begin to have difficulty seeing problems with our own positions that once were not quite as difficult to see. Theological debate is made more difficult when we fail to realize that the advantages and normative status we attribute to our own positions, the positions which provide us with such a clear view of the deficiencies in others’ ideas, are not readily apparent to those with whom we differ.

When or if we enter into debate about any of the issues that have divided brothers and sisters in Christ it is important to remember that arguments and evidence that we now consider clear and obvious are not so clear and obvious to others, who are perhaps even more attuned to other arguments and evidence that we might tend to neglect or downplay. It is also important to make sure we practice love of neighbor and its proper application in the context of theological debate.

Roger Nicole, professor emeritus of theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, has written an excellent article reminding us of our obligations to those who differ from us. As he puts it, “what we owe that person who differs from us, whoever that may be, is what we owe every human being--we owe them love. And we owe it to them to deal with them as we ourselves would like to be dealt with or treated. (Matthew 7:12)”

Nicole helpfully reminds us that, “we owe it to our opponents to deal with them in such a way that they may sense that we have a real interest in them as persons, that we are not simply trying to win an argument or show how smart we are, but that we are deeply interested in them--and are eager to learn from them as well as to help them.”

Nicole provides a wonderful model for the way we ought to present the views of those with whom we disagree:

One method that I have found helpful in making sure that I have dealt fairly with a position that I could not espouse was to assume that a person endorsing that view was present in my audience (or was reading what I had written). Then my aim is to represent the view faithfully and fully without mingling the criticism with factual statements. In fact, I try to represent them so faithfully and fully that an adherent to that position might comment, “This man certainly does understand our view!” It would be a special boon if one could say, “I never heard it stated better!” Thus I have earned the right to criticize. But before I proceed to do this, it is only proper that I should have demonstrated that I have a correct understanding of the position I desire to contest.

D. A. Carson shares a helpful excerpt from Bryan Magee’s book, Confessions of a Philosopher: A Personal Journey through Western Philosophy from Plato to Popper (New York: Modern Library, 1999), 152-3, about what he learned about argumentation from Karl Popper. It takes the approach recommended by Nicole in the previous paragraph one step further:

I had always loved argument, and over the years I had become quite good at identifying weak points in an opponent’s defense and bringing concentrated fire to bear on them. This is what virtually all polemicists have sought to do since ancient times, even the most famous of them. But Popper did the opposite. He sought out his opponents’ case at its strongest and attacked that. Indeed, he would improve it, if he possibly could, before attacking it. . . . Over several pages of prior discussion he would remove avoidable contradictions or weaknesses, close loopholes, pass over minor deficiencies, let his opponents’ case have the benefit of every possible doubt, and reformulate the most appealing parts of it in the most rigorous, powerful and effective arguments he could find—and then direct his onslaught against it.

One could argue that Popper’s approach is most consistent with the Christian ethic of love for one’s neighbor (although the word “onslaught” may not be the best description for a Christian approach to debate!). All too often one walks away from a debate sensing that one person’s (or neither person’s) strong and valid points were ever acknowledged or that many of the points of criticism that were made were completely valid but that they addressed secondary or non-essential aspects of the opponent’s arguments rather than the key planks in the foundation or essential points of their argument.

I highly recommend a careful reading of Nicole’s whole argument to all who might ever enter into any kind of theological debate. It is full of wisdom and grace. I’ll just cite two more paragraphs, regretting those that I must omit.

To raise the question, “What do I owe the person who differs from me?” is very important, for otherwise any discussion is doomed to remain unproductive. The truth that I believe I have grasped must be presented in a spirit of love and winsomeness. To do otherwise is to do detriment to truth itself, for it is more naturally allied to love than to hostility. (Eph. 4:15) Belligerence or sarcasm may, in fact, reflect a certain insecurity that is not warranted when one is really under the sway of truth. It may well be that God's servant may be moved to righteous indignation in the presence of those "who suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Rom. 1:18)…. But when dealing with those we have a desire to influence for the good, we need imperatively to remain outgoing and gracious.

When we give due attention to what we owe those who differ and what we can learn from them, we may be less inclined to proceed in a hostile manner. Our hand will not so readily contract into a boxing fist, but will be extended as an instrument of friendship and help; our feet will not be used to bludgeon another, but will bring us closer to those who stand afar; our tongue will not lash out in bitterness and sarcasm, but will speak words of wisdom, grace and healing (Prov. 10:20, 21; 13:14; 15:1; 24:26; 25:11; James 3).

Of theological debate, like the making of many books, there is no end. In fact, healthy theological debate is vitally important for the health of the church and so it is tremendously important that the church learn to do it well, in a way that honors God and edifies the church. May God help us, as we seek the truth and its benefits, to recognize our own logs, and to be people in whom Christ’s own love, grace, wisdom and patience may be seen, so that (although this may seem a stretch to some) even our theological arguments could be perceived as having been practiced in such a fair and gracious manner that they may be seen as light shining before others who might recognize them as (Christ-inspired) good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven (Matt. 5:16).

The Christian Virtue of Patience (but I digress)

By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute

I caught myself banging on the side of my computer yesterday. Can you believe it? It’s a MacBook Pro. Only two years old, which, in dog years now, is like driving around in my dad’s old 1964 Buick Electra, the dark blue one with the big fenders and the automatic windows (but I digress).

Perhaps it was the sound of the banging that jolted me back into the Middle Ages when seven deadly sins and the great seven heavenly virtues ruled the day. Patience. That’s what I need more of. (Patience…and a better memory. Upon further research, patience is not one of the original virtues, but for our sake here, let’s say it is one of the great eight heavenly virtues…but I digress).

Imagine, the Christian virtue of patience is now being defined by the length of time that it takes for me to blink my eyes. My entire psychological makeup—to say nothing of my sense of spirituality—now hangs on the thin mili-second thread that strings together my past to my present to my future. My understanding of God and His omnipresence is being redefined. My ability to trust patiently in Him is being reworked.

And then I thought about my grandfather, the potato farmer from Minnesota. What did patience look like to him during the early part of last century? How did he live up to his moral obligations to God and his friends and family during those lean years during the 1930-1940’s? For Enoch Bjork, patience was like a long-legged farm dog stretching out before a fire on a cold winter night. Once the dog got down on the floor it seemed like it took an entire day for him to untangle himself and throw his long appendages into all corners of the room.

For my grandfather, patience was measured by the seasons. In his mind, it started in spring when he put in his corn and it was tested all the way to the fall when he—hopefully—saw some fruit from his labor. The winter in between stretched out as a long, cold interlude that never seemed to end.

I wonder what it was like before clocks when Middle Age man lacked the capacity to look down at his wrist, at any given moment, to measure with precision how his day was passing. Imagine how he ordered his day—as it moved from past moment to present to future—without this basic technology that allowed time to pass before his very eyes. More to the point, I wonder what it meant for him to be patient without an instrument to measure patience.

Neil Postman has it right in his book, Technopoly, when he says that all technologies possess inherent ideological biases. They are not neutral tools but they shape us in ways we cannot begin to imagine. Just imagine, the presence of a simple piece of technology like the watch has altered our ability to be patient. Just imagine, I am banging on my computer because time is no longer fast enough. Just imagine (but I digress).

Searching for the Righteousness of God at Gordon-Conwell: The New Perspectives and the “Downsizing” of the Law?

By John Jefferson Davis
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics

I

was at the xerox machine in the faculty workroom, duplicating some class handouts for my Systematic Theology III class on Justification and the “New Perspectives.” A faculty colleague whose classes also address these issued happened to be passing by, and our conversation turned into an animated and vigorous discussion on justification, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, the “New Perspectives on Paul”, the role of good works in the final judgment, the definition of the “righteousness of God,” and other important matters in biblical theology and the doctrine of salvation. Several other faculty colleagues were in and out of the discussion, which lasted for about 90 minutes, and several students who happened to be there at the time enjoyed this somewhat unusual opportunity to hear two faculty members engage in friendly discussion and debate on matters that are at the heart of our biblical faith.

He graciously gave me some of his class handouts on these issues, and I gave him copies of mine, and both agreed that further discussions on these topics would be good for us, and for the school as a whole. In case you are interested in these discussions, I want to make available to you by the following links several of the class handouts that I am using in my theology classes: “Where N.T. Wright Isn’t Quite Right: Further Brief Perspectives on the New Perspectives” [revised version]; “Reflections on the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ,” defending the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, and responding to some objections; and “On ‘Righteousness’ of God, Man, and the Law”, arguing against a “New Perspectives” definition of the “righteousness of God” which tends to reduce it to a generalized sense of “covenant faithfulness,” and so tends to “downsize,” so to speak, the concrete demands of the moral law in salvation and the Christian life.

I hope you might find these materials helpful as you continue to proclaim with clarity and confidence the wonderful saving truth that because of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection, we can stand confident before the throne of God, clothed in Jesus’s blood and righteousness.

Everything I Needed to Know I Learned from My Puppy

By Sean McDonough, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament

Not literally, of course: my five-month old puppy is no help when it comes to parsing Aramaic verbs, or understanding the history of the Quakers, or finding the perfect sermon illustration. (She has written an interesting paper on economic factors leading up to the Maccabean revolt, but that is a story for another day.) But I did want to pass along a few life lessons I have learned sojourning with our little canine companion:

Love Keeps No Record of Wrongs: Well, yes, I actually learned this from 1 Corinthians 13:5; but it is nice to see it lived out on a daily basis. Step on her toes, be late with her meals, keep her in her “gated community” in the kitchen away from the rest of the pack: do what you will, she still wakes up each morning delighted to see you. “Hey! It’s you! Awesome! I am so totally stoked to see you! I love you!” What makes this especially appealing is the fact that it stands in such stark contrast to a culture in which keeping a record of wrongs is something of a national pastime. Real or imagined slights dominate the headlines and percolate down to every level of society. People are forever worried about whom they might offend, and so we endure treacly talk high on affirmation and low on content. Paying attention to what we say is a crucial life skill and a core biblical value; but paying attention to how we listen is equally important. We need to listen charitably, and we need to get rid of the little Book of Slights we all carry around in our hearts.

Alpha Dog Shakedown: Don’t worry: I didn’t learn this from our puppy; it’s something we do to our puppy…and we do it, I must add (see prior paragraph) with the full approval of ultra-dog-loving trainers. The Alpha Dog Shakedown consists of grabbing the puppy by the scruff of the neck and holding them down until they know, with Tony Danza, Who’s the Boss. The ADS has become a nice way for me to capture the sense of many of God’s Old School dealings with his people. God is not simply a nice guy, as many popular portraits make him out to be.

The Bible describes God not only as kind (which he undoubtedly is) but also as our Master who is perfectly willing to shake us up and pin us down as the need arises. The best personal example may be Jacob wrestling with the angel. While Jacob “prevails” in some sense, the dislocation of his hip is a painful and perpetual reminder of who is in charge.

Boundaries Can Be a Good Thing: We are repeatedly told nowadays to “color outside the lines”. What we once would have called “bad coloring” has now become a metaphor for the need to unleash the creative genius within all of us. We are likewise encouraged by everyone from pop stars to car manufacturers that there are “no boundaries” in life. Well, try driving your Ford Explorer off a cliff and see how far that gets you. The fact is, there are boundaries to what we can do, and attending to the boundaries God puts on our lives is a way of ensuring happiness, not restricting it. Our puppy would love to roam freely about the house; she would less love ingesting Lego pieces, so for now she stays in a clear and limited space. She would equally enjoy dashing headlong into the wide world outside. Since this would also involve dashing headlong into oncoming traffic, we keep her on a leash. Legos and automobiles are both good things, but there are rules that govern their use, and if you don’t learn those rules you will have some serious problems.

Help From Above: Franz Kafka is best known for his disturbing stories of personal paranoia and nightmarish bureaucracy. But he is also the author of the charming “Investigations of a Dog”, in which the title character tries to probe the mysteries of dog life. His task is made almost impossible, however, by his inability to recognize the role of humans in caring for and carrying around his canine kindred (hence investigations of “floating dogs” and food dropping from the sky). Whatever Kafka’s intent might have been, I have found it to be one of the most winsome shakedowns of atheism in modern literature. I am grateful that our own puppy has advanced well beyond Kafka’s dog in her understanding. While in the early days she did stare at the floor waiting for bits of popcorn or cheese or toast to magically appear, now she looks up at us. She knows where her daily bread comes from. Do we?

By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus

At Easter time, I often find myself reflecting on one particular character in the Easter story. This year, I found myself thinking about Thomas. The Scripture refers to him as Thomas the twin, but he is better known today as doubting Thomas. This is no doubt because of the story found in John chapter 20. Thomas appears only a few times in the Gospel stories, mostly during the listing of the names of the twelve. In John 11, when Jesus tells the disciples that he is returning to Bethany to raise Lazarus from the dead, Thomas response first, saying "let us go also, so that we may die with him." He also appears however in John 14 where his question to Jesus about not knowing where he is going, Jesus responds with that oft-quoted verse "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the father but through me." You've got to love the guy! On the one hand, his faith seems to be reflected in his willingness to follow Jesus even though he thinks it will result in death. On the other hand, he does not really understand who Jesus is or what he is doing. Which brings me to John chapter 20, were Jesus helps him to finally be clear on the subject of who he is.

After the disciples had been shocked by the report of Mary Magdalene that she had encountered the risen Christ, he had appeared to them through the locked doors of the upper room. He calmed their fears and showed them that he was truly risen from the dead. Thomas, however, was not with them at that time. When he showed up, they told him about seeing Jesus risen from the dead, and he expressed his doubt: “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe” (John 20:25). Some commentators suggest that the presentation of injuries were sometimes presented as evidence in court. This would be in keeping with some of the other testimony-like features of the resurrection story. Nevertheless, it is, no doubt, because of this response that we call him doubting Thomas. But is it so different from the rest of the disciples who did not believe Mary Magdalene?

I can appreciate Thomas. I can appreciate his need for evidence. I've spent most of my career as a biomedical scientist, and I tend to look for evidence to support or refute my theories. I have to see it to believe it also. When I was a young Christian, I was ashamed of this. If I really had faith I wouldn't need "evidences." I would be able to hear God's Word and that would be sufficient. I feared judgment for my unbelief. And then I found Thomas.

What draws me to this story in John 20 is Jesus’ response to Thomas. About a week after the first appearance, Jesus shows up again behind closed and locked doors, but this time Thomas is present. The first thing reported of Jesus is that he speaks to Thomas: “He said to Thomas, ‘Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.’” Thomas needed evidence, and Jesus offered the evidence he needed. As a young Christian, this was not the response that I had expected to my struggle and unbelief. I expected condemnation. But Jesus doesn't condemn Thomas. Jesus offers Thomas what he needs to believe. And Thomas rises to the occasion remarkably well: ‘Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”’ (vs. 28). The Gospel of John highlights the response of people to Jesus’ ministry and claims about himself, contrasting belief and unbelief. What endears this story to me is that it tells me that no matter how fragile my faith is and no matter how challenged it is by my inclination to require evidence, Jesus will always meet me there and give me what I need to have the faith he requires. In fact, right there with Thomas I see myself receiving a promise directly from Jesus: “Jesus said to him, ‘Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed’” (vs. 29). Thank you, Jesus.

Easter and Christ’s Mission in Ephesians 1:20-22

By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament

Christ is risen! He is risen indeed! We just celebrated Easter, the victorious resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. I’m also finishing up an essay on “Missio Dei and Imitatio Dei in Ephesians” and it has had me thinking about how Ephesians 1:20-22 reveal how Christ’s resurrection and ascension relate to God’s strategy and plan for our redemption.

In Ephesians 1:20-22 Paul alludes to both Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 8:5-6. I should quote those verses in their context:

¹⁸ I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, ¹⁹ and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, ²⁰ which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, ²¹ far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. ²² And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, ²³ which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. (Eph 1:18-23, NIV)

Let me start with the allusion to Psalm 8 in v. 22. God “placed all things under his feet” comes from the second half of Psalm 8:6. Psalm 8 is a meditation on God’s creation of humanity to serve as his vice-regents as reflected in Genesis 1 (see, for example, the references to having dominion over the realms of the beasts, birds and fish in Psalm 8:7-8 and compare with Genesis 1:20-25 and note the dominion language in how it relates to the material in Genesis 1:26, 28). The psalm describes God’s commissioning of the human race with their dominion as over all creatures in terms of having all things placed under their (“man’s” feet), that is, under their reign and authority. This is applied to Christ, who, as Messiah, represents the whole human race and fulfills our destiny in his own person.

In Ephesians 1:20 we have the reference to Christ being seated at God’s right hand, alluding to Psalm 110:1: “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’” (NIV). Here the Davidic king (who is much greater than David himself) is invited to sit at the place of honor beside God as he brings all his enemies into submission. Psalm 110 looks forward to the restoration of the pattern described in Genesis 1 and Psalm 8 through the Davidic king. Paul informs us that this has begun to find its fulfillment through the resurrection and exaltation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ establishes his triumph over all his enemies, including sin and death, and provides the foundation for our confidence that in him we find not only the forgiveness of our sins and new life in Christ by the Spirit, but also points to the ultimate redemption in which in the saint will reign with Christ for ever and ever (cf. Rev. 22:5; 1 Cor. 15). To him, our great redeemer, be all glory, honor and praise, now and forever!

Where is Brad Pitt Now?

By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute

Where is Brad Pitt now? I have just returned from a one-week missions project to New Orleans with nine Gordon-Conwell students, Jeff Arthurs on our faculty, and our wives. We had the privilege of serving post-Katrina New Orleans with a variety of building and recovery projects.

We, of course, visited the Ninth Ward of New Orleans on the first day we were there. A bomb hit it. It must have been a bomb, so devastating was the carnage, and this after five years since the hurricane. But right there in the center of the parish, like a Phoenix rising out of the ashes, were four or five futuristic-looking houses that can only be described through the lens of my own childhood Saturday morning television experience. The houses looked like they came right out of the Jetsons. Brad Pitt built them, I assume from the proceeds deep in the north side of his wallet. Much to his credit, he made an early contribution to the cause.

We stayed on the sanctuary and classroom floors of Faith Bible Church in neighboring Slidell. What a wonderful little, faithful church. When the storm first hit, they did the logical thing: They first cleaned up the two feet of muck and swamp water from their own church, and then went about the business of gutting and cleaning up the houses of their neighbors and others in New Orleans. They have been doing it ever since, hosting groups like us on a wing and a prayer for five years, even as their congregation gets smaller and smaller. To date, this little church, through the hundreds of volunteers they have hosted, has restored almost 60 houses, in addition to hundreds of other restoration projects.

I can’t begin to tell you how proud I am of our students and their contribution to the lives of total strangers this past week. In the grand scheme of things, I suppose, they didn’t sacrifice much other than a week of much needed study time. But they showed up, and on their own dime, and they didn’t have to. They were joined by students from two other schools as well. What an intense little community we became in just one week.

Which brings me back to Brad Pitt. Where is he now? One of the unsung songs in the national media, now that the television cameras are gone after five years, is that it is almost solely faith-based organizations—churches, Christian schools, and other religious organizations-- that are still packing their bags and heading down to New Orleans to patch the city back together again. Where did everyone else go? But why should the national media care? They already have their story. And the story is that apparently the church is full of hypocrites who think about little else but heaven.

I wish they would take five minutes to talk with my new friend, Sarah, as she tells, in her halting Korean-laced English, about her role in tearing down a storm-soaked trailer this week. She probably has never held a hammer before, let alone a crow bar. But there she was, swinging away, along with Sam, her husband, and Caleb and Joan, JK and Joseph, and Anna and Erin and Josh, and Jeff, Liz, and Cec. Just give her five minutes. Now that would be a story.