If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies, and if they perish, let them perish with our arms around their knees imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let no one go there unwarned or unprayed for.
—
Charles Spurgeon (via bellatoris)
It seems counter-intuitive to many that Calvinists would be so gung-ho on evangelism. Truth be told, they are some of its strongest proponents worldwide.
Notes
posted 9 / 18 / 2009
As expected, McLaren is difficult to pin down on what exactly this means. I’m all for a peaceful understanding of other faiths, but McLaren too often toes the line with syncretism.
Notes
posted 9 / 2 / 2009
for the integration of Aquinas and McCourt
wesleyhill:
I know what James K. A. Smith is getting at when he writes about his turn from exclusive reading of theology and philosophy to a love of literature. In his words: “[A]fter my conversion to Christian faith… I became a voracious reader. But I was devouring a very particular strain of ‘non-fiction’ that was a long ways from ‘creative’—books in biblical studies and theology, and later, works in philosophy…. Today, almost the exact opposite is true. Reading philosophy and theology is, for the most part, my ‘job’—an obligation I discharge at the office. I don’t bring those books home. Instead, my home library is filled with Julian Barnes and Evelyn Waugh, Updike and Flaubert, Ted Hughes and Charles Wright.”
Like I said, I know what he means. But I also can’t help feeling that this way of putting things perpetuates a dichotomy that I, for one, am trying to get beyond. I used to be like Smith, preferring only books of serious theology. But now I love all kinds of things and feel less and less need all the time to read only within my “field” or niche interest. And the people who are my intellectual heroes these days — Rowan Williams, Marilynne Robinson, Walter Moberly, to name only a few — are always transgressing disciplinary boundaries. A Williams essay, for example, is likely to reference technical works of biblical exegesis, sociological or psychological research, a Flannery O’Connor short story, an Iris Murdoch novel, and a Russian Orthodox icon. “Everything relates to everything,” as a favorite professor in college used to always say. I bet Williams takes theology books home and novels to work.
Aren’t fiction, poetry, philosophy, and theology all (ideally) part of one unified quest for wisdom in living well, in enjoying (and/or enduring) our lot? If so, why play them off against one another, especially if you’ve done that for too many years already?
Notes
posted 7 / 30 / 2009
Alister McGrath - A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology
Want.
In this landmark work, based on his 2009 Gifford lectures, Alister McGrath examines the apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe and its significance for natural theology. Exploring a wide range of physical and biological phenomena and drawing on the latest research in biochemistry and evolutionary biology, McGrath outlines our new understanding of the natural world and discusses its implications for traditional debates about the existence of God.
Notes
posted 6 / 30 / 2009
Answering some questions on abortion, the legal definition of life, women's rights, and whether God "performs" abortions
Squashed, danielholter, and talix have raised some important questions, prompted by this discussion about Jon Stuart’s interview with Mike Huckabee.
The Scientific Definition of Human Life
Squashed asks if I would consider implantation (of the blastocyst to the uterine wall) rather than fertilization as the legal starting point of life. His point (I think) is that it would avoid potentially classifying under “infant mortality” the many fertilized eggs which don’t implant for completely natural biological reasons.
That human life begins that fertilization is no longer controversial in the scientific community (see this list of quotes from a slew of scientific experts). Even abortion’s most pioneering and stringent supporters don’t deny that abortion ends a human life. Unique DNA is present from the moment of fertilization, with all the necessary genetic codes for a complete human lifetime. Before implantation, the zygote iscompletely self-sustaining and is not dependent on the mother. Indeed, a special chemical is released to weaken the mother’s immune system so that her body doesn’t reject the foreign object (source).
While this is interesting and important, quibbling over the timeline of fertilization vs implantation is not really relevant to a discussion of abortion policy because both events occur long before most women even have a clue they are pregnant.
The Rights of the Fetus and the Rights of the Mother
Talix expresses concerns about criminalizing various kinds of behavior by the mother simply because she’s pregnant. I don’t think there’s a risk of that happening as a result of restricting her legal access to abortion. There is a significant difference between engaging in legal activities that are unhealthy (smoking), or even going beyond unhealthy and actually endangering someone (drinking while pregnant), and intentionally ending a life (abortion). Just as parents have pretty wide social leeway to raise their kids how they want, pregnant women are expected to act responsibly—yet for the most part we don’t enforce draconian legal requirements on them. As toTalix’s concern that some women are denied certain medical treatments on the grounds that they are “of child-bearing age,” I do not support that. (I’d be curious to see documentation of this occurring,btw) If a woman is not pregnant, then there’s not another life involved in the issue of controlling her own body.
It is important to re-affirm that I am not disinterested in the rights of the mother. But when convenience conflicts with very existence, the latter must take precedence.
Does God “perform” abortions?
This question touches on the age-old theodicy question (the “problem of evil”), which is complex and not to be addressed tritely. Yet, as any Christian with any modicum of theological understanding will readily explain, sin and death have saturated this world, both spiritually and physically, and there are natural evils that are physical consequences of our current state. One day all will be restored and healed, but we are not there yet (Romans 8:22-23).
Are women who get abortions (or the doctors who perform them) murderers?
Legally, no. The laws currently allow certain abortions with zero restrictions, and other types for limited reasons. But legality does not equal moral rightness.
Should abortion opponents take matters into their own hands and publicly enforce a moral law when it is violated by a legal statute? Of course not. We live in a society governed by the rule of law, and thus our means of stopping abortion is through legal and structural methods.
Notes
posted 6 / 24 / 2009
I haven’t read all of it, so I can’t vouch for its entirety—but it looks like a valuable basic resource. (h/t Theologica)
Notes
posted 5 / 27 / 2009
azspot:
First, emergents cannot accept the idea of Bible inerrancy. Verbal inerrancy will not stand modern critical examination in the study of languages. To assign fixed inerrancy to ancient documents written in the Hebrew and Greek used thousands of years ago stretches credibility.
Affirming inerrancy does take some degree of faith. But without it we can make Scripture say whatever we want. Evangelicals believe God is big and strong enough to guard the integrity of his revelation to humanity.
Second, emergents have come to believe that the gospel that they have been taught is a caricature of the message of Jesus, rather than the real thing. Increasingly they are putting other Biblical writings in the background and have shown increasing interest in what Jesus said and did.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable….”(2 Tim 3:16) We are to use Scripture to interpret itself. Focusing on just one person or book increases the likelihood of poor interpretation and lopsided theological emphases. Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings are equally important theologically because both are the divinely inspired Word of God.
They ask “If we are followers of Jesus, why do we not live and preach his message?” In short, they are looking for a much more radical Christianity than they have found in the Evangelical (and mainline) churches.
Agreed. People who profess to follow Christ need to live it out better, myself included. (It’s important to note, however, that the previous sentence has been true through all of church history.)
Third, exposure to science in public education, universities and personal studies has led emergents to disown the conclusion that when the Bible and science appear to collide, science must take a back seat to the Bible.
In this conflict, emergents are not abandoning the Bible, but are raising critical questions about the Bible’s nature and content. This new bread of Christian remains quite committed to the Bible but they are very open to new ideas and understandings.
Affirming that the Bible is NOT the believer’s highest authority IS in fact abandoning it. Bowing Scriptural authority to “science in public education, universities and personal studies” (personal studies—is this a joke?) is a perfect example of the human tendency to conform Scripture to culture instead of the other way around.
Fourth, emergents have become disillusioned by the clay feet of church leadership. It is not just the Jim Bakkers and the Jimmy Swaggarts, but the rank and file of church leadership.
Emergents compare what Jesus had in mind and what is going on in churches, and they see a need to start over. They want a fresh start with serious intent to follow Jesus.
The tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater is one of the hallmarks of Emerging theology. This is partly because many (not all) of this movement are disaffected evangelicals overreacting against excess.
Fifth, our public schools and our nation in general are insisting that we be truly multicultural. The churches’ teaching, that people not like us, are doomed, is not acceptable to emergents. They want a much broader definition of what it means to be accepted in the family of God.
John 14:6 - “No one comes to the father except through me.” ~ Jesus (you know, the guy emergents want to focus on at the expense of the apostles).
John 3:3 - “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” ~ Jesus
Sixth, emergents are insisting that God be understood as totally gracious and loving. The angry, vengeful God that is sometime presented in both Old and New Testaments is not acceptable.
Unless you dismiss all the OT, I don’t see how one can ignore any of the elements of God’s character (all of which are perfect and holy). God required a blood sacrifice to atone for sin. Nothing has changed in the demand, but thankfully Jesus offers to pay that price for us. As a reviewer of Death by Love writes, “those who demand justice for the poor and oppressed today but deny that God should seek justice for the sins we commit against him are hypocrites.”
Seventh, acceptance of homosexuals in the family of God is common. Being pro-gay or anti-gay is not the issue. Emergents recognize that sexuality is far more complex than is generally recognized. To live in harmony with gay and lesbian friends and family members is a part of the emergent’s perspective.
Emergents’ confused viewpoints on sexuality are, again, products of conforming Scripture to culture instead of the other way around. Sexuality is one of the clearest issues in the Bible. Obfuscations abound today. Still, we in fact called to love everyone.
Eighth, echoing the first named characteristic, emergents recognize the role that language plays in their understanding and practice of the Christian Faith. Theology is language bound. Language is a limited tool of communication.
If theology is language bound, it is also culturally shaped. To be rigidly exclusive does not make sense to emergent Christians.
Again, this is too often used as an excuse to make Scripture say what you want it to say and descend into relativism.
I highly recommend “Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be).”
Notes
posted 5 / 27 / 2009
