Science . . . and Other Avenues

The other day, I was listening to a man who was commenting on some political issue. In defense of his views, he claimed to be a scientist. He was implying, I suppose, that his views were more liable to accuracy than, say, a non-scientist. I suppose we were supposed to believe that His rationalistic approach, his “just the facts, Mam” way of looking at things carried more weight than other approaches.

Science, of course, can be a wonderful thing. Who can count the many improvements that have come about through scientific research? We reap the benefits each day. It is obvious, in other words, that science is a potentially wonderful tool. When we use the minds that God gave us, we are much, much better off than when we fail to use them; that much is abundantly clear.

What struck me about what this man’s claims, however, was the naive way he expected his hearers to respond to him. Perhaps, he himself is naive, simply assuming the superiority of his own views. Or, it may be that he has taken a reductionistic approach, squeezing everything into his personal paradigm, even when his views are inconsistent with the evidence. Then again, it could be that he doesn’t recognize his own biases, failing to understand that not all claims to being “scientific” are equally valid. At any rate, it’s stuff like this that frustrates me.+

To begin with, it is important to admit that the assertions of scientists are not of equal value. In fact some assumptions, though based on the best reading of the data available at a given time, must be altered or even abandoned. I think the best scientists already know this, for they are not out to wave a flag so much as they are on an on-going mission to uncover and make best sense of what is available to them. Theories, hypotheses, hunches–even the best of them–must take a back seat to truth.

Of course it is here that scientists, like all people, are just as liable to bias and susceptible to error. Science, in other words, is not some pristine field with no skeletons in its closet. Scientists easily confuse theories with facts or laws. Likewise, they can sometimes go about their research with mixed motives. Does the funding one receives for a given project ever hinge on the manner in which a scientist reports the facts? Does the prestige one might receive for a scientific breakthrough ever influence the way one conducts research? Hmm, I wonder. :-)

But there is something just as sinister here, which is the tendency for people to assume that science is the only valid (or at least the best) way to gain understanding. Thus, scientific proof is the only sure thing. Indeed, if it’s not observable or repeatable, we should always view it–whatever it is–with suspicion. The implication is that the (so-called) rationalistic use of our brains is the only pathway to truth. But, is it? I wonder if the scientist mentioned above does research before choosing an outfit to wear. Does he conduct research on the medicine he takes when he is ill, or does he trust on the research of others? Does he fail to express his love for his wife and children because he cannot prove that love scientifically? I hope not! The point is that science is not the only valid path to knowing, and everyday we give expression to this reality.

Please, don’t label me anti-scientific, for nothing could be more untrue. The bad scientists are all out to corrupt us and lead us astray mentality is something I truly despise. Indeed, it is often the religionists who are much more adept at deception. It’s just that we need to understand that we operate every day in spheres other than the scientific. Much of every day life is based on things like experience, faith, personal preference, intuition, cultural mores, practicality, what feels right, and a whole host of other things that are never–and indeed shouldn't/couldn't be–sifted through a scientific paradigm. That does not depreciate science. Not at all. But it should convince us that we all need to operate with more humility.

So, let’s keep up the scientific research. By all means, we must make use of science and remain leery of that which flies in the face of current findings. But, along side of science, we should remain alert to other factors, other avenues, other ways of coming to understand and properly interpret reality. Let the truth reign in any field. And let us make use of any legitimate pathways to understanding. Indeed, why not let various realities– scientific, intuitive, experiential, etc.–flow freely together? Why not allow truth in any given domain inform the other domains? What, you might ask, keeps them all together? What is the impetus behind our searching, thinking, and wondering? What is the all-permeating environment and the chief (spoken or unspoken) motivation in our efforts? A good starting point, I think, is faith. We operate in all of these realms by faith–informed or uninformed, demonstrated or mysterious–faith in some grandeur purpose. Christians merely locate this, ultimately, in a person, who is the object of faith and the embodiment of truth. In fact He is the way, the truth, and the life; we’d be wise, in all of our pursuits, to follow him.

+ This is why some make a distinction between science and scientism. Science investigates and seeks answers, while scientism exaggerates its claims and often imposes its presuppositions (which, by the way, are often philosophical in nature) on everyone else.

Wisdom and Human Sexuality

Recently, there has been a lot of talk in my town about a proposal to open up a strip club. Hopefully, this request will be turned down. Time will tell. In the meantime, I just today wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. Instead of going on a tirade against the club (perhaps that will come later :-) ), I decided to address the subject of human sexually generally. Whether or not it is published, here it is.

Let’s be clear: Sex is a good thing, the body can be beautiful, and human sexuality should be embraced as a part of what it means to be a member of the human family. Unfortunately, however, it sometimes appears like we are offered only extreme versions of the way to approach such topics.

Some are afraid to broach the subject and leave the impression, intentionally or not, that sex really is a dirty thing. While many of these people are well-meaning, upstanding individuals, their rants are often interpreted, accurately or not, as the outdated opinions of a bygone era.

Then again, others move in the opposite direction, treating sexuality as a game and offering up young women as objects of meaningless attention. These promoters of sexual liberation consider sex something to be exploited, and ironically produce a kind of enslavement to otherwise natural desires.

Recently, there has been much talk of opening a strip club in town. While I do not know the man who hopes to operate this establishment, I suspect that he is merely one of many who capitalize on the human tendency to pervert that which is good. Though there is certainly a place for legal actions (and something should be done to forestall this recent "business" proposal), the greatest way to put a halt to such activities, the best way to insulate ourselves from the misuse of good things, is to operate–individually, as families, among friends, and as a community–in ways that both promote the goodness of human sexuality and recognize the parameters for its healthy use. Much of our moral confusion would disappear if we were to consistently practice and give approval to such long held ideals as marriage, unconditional love, and fidelity.

Human sexuality is obviously a matter of impulse; this impulse is normal and certainly ought not be treated as an embarrassment to civility. Human sexuality also requires knowledge, which allows us to understand the mechanics of the sexual act, the consequences of our decisions, and the best and most healthy ways to give expression to our God-given inclinations. But, human sexuality really ought to involve more than urges and facts. If we truly want to facilitate healthy relationships, prepare our children for the real world, and guard ourselves from inappropriate choices, we also need to be wise.

Sexual desire is normal, so let’s not stigmatize its proper use. Knowledge is valuable, so let’s not underestimate the need for accurate information and education. But it is our wisdom, or lack thereof, that will ultimately determine the appropriateness of the choices we make. An old sage once wrote, "God gives out wisdom for free." We could all use a healthy dose of that wisdom.

Non-Traditional Education (Some Personal Reflections)

I earned my M.Div. (Apologetics) and DTS (Doctor of Theological Studies) degrees from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (CES). CES is a non-traditional, long distance school, offering course work through mentorship study. The school follows something of a British educational model, for students work with scholars to construct their academic programs. As with traditional education, there are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to the non-traditional scheme, and each person must decide for him/herself which avenue is best. The important thing to remember–as some traditional schools are only now beginning to recognize–is that the non-traditional, long distance paradigm is a legitimate alternative to the conventional model. Well, some time ago, a man wrote to me, inquiring about the benefits of CES. What follows are my off-the-cuff remarks.

The benefits are numerous. Besides acquiring a degree from home at a reasonable cost, the following factors were central in my thinking:

(1) Personally Relevant - I had taken classes through secular and Christian schools, and all too often the requirements and courses were overly predictable. Sometimes, the material was not as personally significant as I had hoped. Other times, the course work was, frankly, less than demanding. I cannot speak for others, of course, and I have taken a few courses that were both difficult and relevant. Most often, however, these ideals were not central. With CES, on the other hand, I was allowed to work with my mentor/advisor to craft as program that was important to me. There are, of course, limits on these matters, which is part of the reason mentors are involved in the first place. But generally, I was able to work under the guidance of a scholar to craft courses that I cared about. By the time I had heard of CES, I had a BS from Penn State, had taught in a public school for 14 years, had pastored for a decade or so, and had done course work through both secular and religious institutions. By that time, I was not interested in some prefab, predictable degree. I wanted to plunge into work that mattered to me. CES provided the opportunity to do just that.

(2) Academically Challenging - As mentioned above, I have done work through various schools. Generally speaking, these courses were not all that difficult, and the demands were not that great. I had written numerous papers and easily coasted through the various courses. Under the tutelage of Dr. Walston, however, I quickly found myself challenged. The writing requirements were comparable (and beyond) to traditional school, but it was the practical demands that made this process immensely helpful, though sometimes, frankly, frustrating. The reason for this occasional frustration, of course, is that it can be difficult being academically stretched. I can assure you, however, that it was well worth the effort. Again, I can't speak for everyone's experience, but with Rick Walston I was always challenged to think and write in a consistent, proper, and coherent way. (Aside: I have been writing for years, but I have to say that my skills were honed through CES. Thus, in part due to my experience with CES, I published Dangerous Blessing: The Emergence of a Postmodern Faith, and just recently I had another manuscript accepted for publication [Why?: Reflections on the Problem of Evil]. Both works are published with Wipf & Stock publishers. )

On top of these benefits, and perhaps outweighing all of them, my friendship with my mentor/advisor was immensely helpful. Occasionally, we would disagree, but most often we were on the same page and after the same goals. At least in my case, I actually had a much closer relationship with Rick than I have with any other teacher. This resulted in a constant give-and-take, a camaraderie, a friendship that has only deepened over the years.

There are, of course, some "negative" features to this type of program. You aren't actually sitting in a classroom, which some people enjoy. Also, you are perhaps somewhat limited by the fact that you normally work with a single scholar (or two) instead of with the myriad of instructors offered through a traditional program. That being said, I don't think these are necessarily that significant. In my view, non-traditional education is not better or worse than traditional education; rather, it is simply different. In some ways it excels (at least it did for me), while in other ways it may lack some of the benefits of the typical classroom. All said and done, however, I honestly don't feel that long distance programs are a Plan B alternative to traditional schemes. Rather, I see them as different ways of achieving desired academic goals. I think a lot of traditional schools are just beginning to catch on and see the benefits of long distance education. There may be a tendency, however, to minimize these for obvious financial reasons. I'm not saying that secular schools are only "in it for the money," for there are clearly many fine traditional institutions. I'm merely pointing out the financial constraints/pressures of any school that wishes to continue offering its programs. At any rate, CES was a wonderful experience for me. There are still some, unfortunately, who would frown on the lack of accreditation. But, I think at least some people are beginning to see that the ultimate value of an educational model is not the size of the library or the beauty of the campus, as good as these might be, but the actual education that it provides.

Well, I've rambled on long enough. Please feel free to write back.

Passages in Romans and Divine Sovereignty (Part 2 of an Email Discussion)

In this email, I was seeking to respond to some (not all) of the issues raised when reading portions of Romans 9 and 11.

The Romans texts are not the only passages to consider, but they are important ones.

At the very beginning of Romans 9, Paul shows his intense concern for his people, even willing to be "cut off" for the sake of those he loves. Whatever Paul’s version of divine sovereignty, it included a healthy dose of compassion (1-5).

Then, of course, Paul writes about the difference between a work of God on the heart and a merely outward profession. Privileges are fine; in fact they’re gifts from God. But they, by themselves, are not the center issue (6ff); God’s love governed promise is.

Next, of course, we come to the difficult verses (14ff), where it seems that God’s choice is the issue. Whatever the order of these things, however, note the way Paul describes it. These are not merely theoretical moves on God’s part. No, they are acts of mercy and compassion. So, whatever God’s sovereignty entails, it is a merciful and compassionate sovereignty.

I take the hardening process (18) to be God’s way of saying, "Hey, if you don’t want me, then you can have your way." It’s kind of like his giving people what they want.

Verse 19 picks up on the implications of such a divine choice. There are a few things to consider here:

(1) The imaginary objector is apparently getting cocky with God, being arrogant and basically accusatory. There are times in Scripture when questioning and complaining are valid expressions of an honest faith. Here, obviously, that’s not the case. Therefore, the questions are of a rebellious sort.

(2) The response that Paul provides is aimed, I think, at showing the imaginary objector (and any who would accuse God) that His ways are far above our own. Who are we, mere creatures, to question the Creator? Can a house complain against the one who built the house? Of course not. The point here is that God is, ultimately, a different category of being, and the objector here has failed to recognize this fact. In fact, in an almost escalating argument, Paul basically confronts God’s imaginary accuser with an "in the face" challenge. God is God, is He not? If so, He can do whatever He wants, and He doesn’t have to first gain permission from His creatures.

(3) The Romans 11 passage is another tough one. Calvin seems to take the entire passage in a rather positive way. If God has had mercy on us, then He is just as likely to have mercy on others. We all require mercy because we’re all disobedient, Jews and Gentile alike. "Paul makes the Jews equal in guilt to the Gentiles, in order that both may understand that access to salvation lies open to others as much as to themselves" (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Romans, 258). If Calvin is correct, the purpose of this passage is to state emphatically that all are shown to be disobedient and in need of rescue. That way, they are all forced to partake of the offer provided by the only Savior. The context that follows also seems to fit this interpretation. God has shown that we are all disobedient, but He has done so in order to provide the only path of salvation. If this is true, it makes sense that Paul would cry out, "Oh the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God" (33)!

(4) All that being said, there are still some very hard passages and some difficult to swallow truths. What can any of us say? God is truly sovereign. He calls the shots and runs the show. At the same time, we are still responsible for our choices. The best way to handle these matters, I think, is to do our best to retain this tension. We might think that human responsibility contradicts any notion of divine control. Then again, we might be led to believe that divine sovereignty utterly destroys any sense of human freedom and divine fairness. Somehow, and I’m not sure how, both of these truths are compatible. The temptation is to allow one of these ideas to suck the meaning out of the other. A better, more biblical, yet clearly very puzzling alternative is to seek to allow both text types to have their sway in our lives and our theology. Easier said than done! :-)

The Fall of Adam and the Problem of Evil (Part 1 of an Email Discussion)

Recently, I received an email from a man who was asking questions about the problem of evil. Among other things, he inquired about God's purpose in creating Adam, knowing that he would sin. Did God want what happened to happen? Is there another way to enter into a relationship with creatures other than creating a race that would fall? These are good (though difficult to answer) questions. In part, I offered the following:

My perspective says that God did in fact know all that would happen in creating Adam and permitting him to sin. Theologians sometimes make a distinction between the descriptive and the decretive wills of God. In one sense, God describes what he wants for human beings, that they should be holy, etc. In another sense, however, he allows his creatures to choose what they want, including both our prope and imporper choices. God in His wisdom decrees that good and bad, righteousness and rebellion, will be permitted as a part of His overall scheme.

To repeat, the descriptive will of God is what God, in keeping with His own character, commands us to be and do, while the decretive will is what actually takes place, the beauty and ugliness of it, in human history. God's descriptive will says, "Do what is right, and follow Me?" God's decretive will is what you see every day and read in the newspaper; it is what God actually allows to take place.

In answer to your question of did God want Adam to sin, I think–to be fair to all of the biblical data–we have to answer "yes" and "no." As far as His own righteous standards are concerned, God certainly wanted Adam to be righteous and not to rebel. Then again, as far as His overall plan, including the plan to rescue sinners, God "wanted" or permitted the fall in order to accomplish other things.

Of course these terms merely highlight what is occurring biblically. They do not answer every question for us. Indeed, they often raise more questions than they answer! This is why the bad we observe is often referred to as the problem of evil. God is sovereign and good, yet bad things take place all of the time. How do we account for these things in God's world?

I honestly believe there are partial answers to the questions you raise, and categories such as "the greater-good" and "free will" are helpful. That is, God accomplishes at least some measure of greater good by allowing for evil. For instance the presence of evil allowed God the opportunity to display the supreme measure of love in sending His Son to rescue us. Likewise, a good amount of the evil we encounter is explainable in terms of human rebellion; if we choose that which is wrong, we may have to pay the consequences for it.

Still, also to be honest, I think we can only scratch the surface on these matters. I do not believe that a flawless theodicy is available to us at this time. In fact I'm not certain that we'll ever grasp these difficult matters comprehensively, though I'm confident that we'll know a lot more than we do now. I'm also confident that, eventually, these matters won't bother us.

When Job experienced his various troubles, the "solution" to his problem was related primarily to God, shall we say, showing up. When God appears in a whirlwind, questioning Job about what he truly knows, Job is somehow satisfied. It seems, then, that evil is an amazingly large problem, but God is an even larger Solution.

When we approach Scripture, we have to recognize that there is a "knowing/not knowing" tension within much of what we discover (see Deut 29:29). We know things about God and His ways; this provides a basis for our identifying Him, etc. On the other hand, there are many things about God that defy our ability to grasp. He is, after all, God!

If we possessed no access to the things of God, we'd be taking a blind leap in the dark, and our faith would be irrational at best. But if we possessed all knowledge of God, if we pretty much had him figured out, He would hardly inspire awe and worship. So–and this is an important point–the fact that we don't have all of the answers is–how shall I say it?–an intentional and necessary part of our relationship with our Maker. The point is not that there are no answers to these baffling questions but that God has chosen not to reveal all of them to us. Amazingly, He does have answers to questions we cannot begin to fathom. Thus, there are times when what God does or allows surely seems impossible to make sense of. The key term here is seems, for God actually does have answers to these dilemmas but hasn't given us all of them. We are left to trust and to marvel that these insuperable problems actually make sense to a good and wise God.

If you were to read my manuscript, you'd discover that one of my chief strategies, if you can call it that, is to allow ample room for mystery. I'm not saying that we have nothing to say about these strange subjects, for we do. But, and this is very relevant, our best approach is to recognize up front that we are talking about an all-powerful deity, a being who created out of nothing, a God who is both imminent (with us and responding to us) and transcendent (above us and governing our lives). So, we seek whatever answers we can locate, but we do so with faith (however weak) and humility (however inconsistent).

By the way, lest you think that God doesn't have solutions to the problem of evil, remember for a moment what God did at the cross. God was (and is) holy; thus, no amount of un holiness could remain in His presence. At the same time, God is also loving, desiring to befriend His creatures. But, and here's the rub, how can a holy God allow unholy people into fellowship? If He just allows is into heaven and ignores our rebellion, God compromises His own purity. To take this route would strip God of His very character, His very "Godness." So, how can the unrighteous have a relationship with the Righteous One? How can purity embrace impurity? In what way is it possible for a flawless God to befriend the very flawed? Answer: Jesus. In Jesus, sin is absorbed and its penalty swallowed. Thus, as Scripture teaches, God is "just and the justifier" of the one who believes in Jesus." We aren't good enough to access our Creator. Indeed, we are worthy of judgment. But God's Son is good enough, and He's taken our wrongs and made a way for us. So far as our discussion is concerned, here's the point: God was able to solve this amazing dilemma, although no one would have guessed that He would have taken this route. Thus, iff He was able to provide an answer to such puzzling issues then, we can and must trust that He can do the same with our questions and doubts now.

Okay, I'm getting a bit tired–its 2 am here; I was out at a friend's house until a short while ago. Thus, my comments might not be entirely coherent. I do hope, though, that they help point you in a good direction.

Could God have done things differently? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing He could have. What we must grapple with, however, is that this is the world He's given to us, and in this world there are many difficulties and questions. My suggestion, Jeremy, is that you keep on asking them, and that you do not fear taking even your hardest questions and doubts to God. Complain, if you want, but take your complaints to the One who is not only truly mysterious but also completely good.

Here are a few suggestions for reading:

Carson, D. A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1981.

________. How Long, O Lord?-Reflections on Suffering and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990.

Frame, John M. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1994.

Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Publishers, 1962.

Plantinga, Cornelius. Not The Way It's Supposed To Be: A Breviary of Sin. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

Stackhouse, John G. Jr. Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Tiessen, Terrance. Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Yancey, Philip. Disappointment with God: Three Questions No One Asks Aloud. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.

Always a Kid!

Kids are great! Just today, I was looking out our front door, watching my youngest boy play football with the kids across the street. The energy, the enthusiasm, the zeal, the excitement, the fun–all of these characteristics and more were evident as my eight year old played. My thirteen year-old is the same way. They are both overflowing with exuberance, thrilled at the opportunity to give expression to their inward vitality.

It is often said that we are to retain a certain type of childlikeness. Indeed, some would gladly exclaim, “I’m a kid at heart.” There is, in their view, an “inner child” in each of us. To be honest, I think they are right and that this reflects a truly biblical theme. We are to be like children.

But, wait a minute. What does it mean to be a child? Well, it certainly does not mean that we are to remain utterly naive or ignorant. Lord knows, we have enough of that going around. Also, this childlikeness is not a reference to immaturity or to the all-to-common tendency of young ones to throw temper tantrums. Again, there is already too much of that in all of our lives. What’s more, we’re not talking about a perpetual sense of self-centeredness. Some adults, like children, are self-absorbed.

What I have in mind, instead, is the childlike enthusiasm mentioned above. We are to live our lives, in other words, with enthusiasm and energy. If we are God’s image-bearers, if we live in God’s world, if we are blessed by him in countless ways, if he is truly with us–if these things are true, we ought to be truly engaged in daily affairs. This does not mean, of course, that we make-believe that everything is fine, for sometimes, frankly, it is not. Neither should we wear a false smile, pretending to be perpetually “happy.” Tears are just as valid an expression as are bouts of laughter, and pain is clearly a part of our existence. So, let’s not confuse this childlike spirit with the counterfeit spirituality that results from inauthentic attitudes or behavior.

The childlikeness in view here is simply the inner joy we can experience as we recognize the wonder and beauty of the life God has given. Many of us have countless opportunities to manifest this child within. It can happen when we feel the warmth of the sun, throw a snowball, run across a field, jump up and down at a sporting event, attend a concert, or converse with a close friend. It is perhaps most powerful when we authentically relate to the people God brings our way, be they family, friends, strangers, or even enemies.

“Lord, open our eyes to the wonder and beauty of it all. We know there is a lot of ugly out there. We realize that part of our duty is to weep amid the struggles of everyday existence. But please, Lord, help us not to miss the good stuff–the relationships, the opportunities to interact with other divine image-bearers, the chance to appreciate the demonstrations of your handiwork and love.”

Jesus had something to say about this subject. At one point, in fact, he said that only those who are like children will enter the kingdom of heaven. Pretty heavy stuff! Of course there are a number of ways to interpret Jesus’ words. Some argue that children is a reference to those child-like individuals who are willing to admit that they are needy; just like a child will instinctively cry out for mom or dad, so we should do the same with God. Other interpreters like to point to the basic innocence of children; we, like children, are to be unencumbered by the worries of the world. These and other interpretations are frequently found among interpreters of Jesus’ words, and I think there is much wisdom in what they say. My point in this blog, simply, is that, drawing from the overall emphasis of Scripture, believers should embody this attitide, this perspective, this outlook of child-like wonder!

WFD in a PM World

The following is reproduced from the October 2006 edition of Next Wave.

Christians have long recognized that there is opposition in this life to the ways of God, hindrances to the walk of faith. Typically, these have been delineated as the World, the Flesh, and the Devil (WFD). "The world" is a term used by Jesus and the biblical writers to describe the prevalent anti-God atmosphere that permeates human society (John 15:18-19; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 1 John 5:4). The trends that mislead, the attitudes that run contrary to divine wisdom, the choices that fly in the face of God’s will, these are said to be of "the world."

Next, there is "the flesh," which refers to the inner human inclinations to violate God’s commands, the tendency within us all to ignore our created purpose. Everything that is wrong about us is a related to our fallen nature and character. This is why Peter, for example, can write of those who "indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires" (2 Peter 2:10).

Finally, there is the devil, who, according to Scripture, is a personal being of rebellion, the ally and instigator of evil. Whatever one’s view of the paranormal, the Bible clearly teaches that nefarious forces, living unseen entities, vie for our attention and seek to lead us astray. In fact the world is said to "lie in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19).

The World, the Flesh, and Devil. We need not enter into detailed discussion of this three-pronged attack to spiritual well-being. It is enough to acknowledge that people make bad choices, wrong philosophies allure the unsuspecting, deception is an inescapable reality within any age, even a PostModern one.

The purpose here is simply to remind those of us who seek to postmodernize the faith, who desire to be on the cutting edge of what God is doing in our day, that we are not immune from falsehood. Indeed, it is often the case that harmful influences show up at precisely the time when God is most active. We should be aware, therefore, that ungodliness can show up during a revival, and pride is never far from even the humblest servant. But, what about now? Where might the demonic appear today? In what ways is the emerging church particularly prone to the temptations of the WFD?

Of course, from the perspective of the emerging church, it is precisely the traditionalists who went astray, having been duped by the WFD (though they might not state it exactly this way). Having succumbed to some of the more questionable presuppositions of the enlightenment, modern Christianity confused cultural ideals with biblical ones. Indeed, the emergence of an alternative (postmodern) view is due, in great part, to an increased perception of (and frustration over) these faulty ways. Postmoderns, in other words, are of the opinion that the traditional church has, on many points, been misled.

But how ironic it would be if, in criticizing others, we failed to see our own shortcomings. For this reason, it is all the more important for postmoderns to be cognizant of their own negative tendencies. What follows is a short list of ways in which the emerging church opens itself up to imbalance and, worse, deception.

When modern hubris is (rightly) condemned but is done so in a condescending way, something is amiss. Pride is something that no age can completely avoid.

Similarly, when dogmatism is opposed dogmatically, we are clearly off target. Sometimes, as mentioned above, this is evidence that we postmoderns cannot escape our worst qualities. Other times, it simply demonstrates that a certain kind of dogmatism still has a place in the emerging church.

Likewise, when postmodern humility (a potentially wonderful commodity) starts to sound like naivete, it’s time to reevaluate. We need more caution and discernment, but foolishness and an unwillingness to stand for the ways of God is never good.

When reason is minimized through the use of reasoned argumentation, perhaps we have "thrown out the baby with the bath water." Reason as the sole arbiter of truth is a modern myth, but reason as one facet of the image of God is an unavoidable (and potentially healthy) thing.

When the significance of narrative is stated in propositional form ("Thou shalt preach the narrative portions of Scripture"), one wonders how postmoderns miss the fact that, as meaningful as the stories of Scripture are, propositions deserve more than lip service (after all, Jesus is lord). Stories must be returned to their proper place in the life of the church, but propositions (especially when tied to these stories!) mustn’t be forgotten.

When community (a much needed emphasis) becomes so nebulous that it actually interferes with the needs of the individual, it might be time to take a closer look at what we are promoting. While there is something special and refreshing about community, the noble effort to embody this corporate concept must never interfere with personal accountability and the life of each individual believer.

When the quest for an experiential faith doesn’t recognize that experience should be fostered through truth ("sound doctrine"), perhaps we have failed to provide the proper (biblically oriented) contexts for these experiences.

When the written word is treated as passe through the medium of print, one wonders if some postmoderns even notice the inconsistency. The emerging church can still learn via books.

When image is emphasized with hardly a thought about the possibility of idolatry (visible or conceptual), it may be time to sit up and take notice.

Please don’t misunderstand. The purpose of these illustrations is not to "throw a wet blanket" on the postmodern motifs mentioned above, and I am certainly not advocating a "three steps forward, two steps back" approach. Indeed, it is my contention that we must consciously highlight such notions as community, mystery, humility, experience, and creativity. God, keep us from getting in the way of the wonderful things God is doing in this postmodern era.

At the same time, though, it is good to occasionally pause and look at ourselves. In our quest to catch the wave of God’s new dealings, amid the rejuvenated feeling of being in on something that is truly grand and wonderful, let us never think that we have arrived. Though God is providing a renewal of church, our hearts are still deceitful. While the Lord of history is actively leading us to embrace certain cultural trends, the world is still a dangerous place. Though our hearts resonate with Spirit-driven topics, the heart can still be a factory of idols, the inner chamber where half-truths sap the very life out of us.

WFD–the world, the flesh, and the devil–they still compete for our attention, seeking to take God’s people captive through the misuse of opportunities, and by means of the simplistic belief that these nemeses of the faith have little impact in today’s world. May the Lord preserve us from error, and may we learn to journey together through this world, excited by what God is doing but also cognizant that, in the end, what will matter most is not our ability to postmodernize the faith but that we faithfully serve the Rock of (all) ages, postmodern and beyond.

Bad Religion vs. the Truth ( another response to a skeptic)

At one point, my conversation partner briefly mentioned how Christians have used their belief structures to justify some pretty horrible behavior (prejudice, close-mindedness, meanness, etc.). Here’s my response:

It is true that many seek to prove their own belief structure. This, by itself, is understandable, for it is comfortable. Still, this does not rule out the possibility that God can choose to reveal himself to whomever he pleased. The Jews, for instance, are an interesting choice for God's revelatory work. In one place, in fact, Scripture records God's saying that he has chosen the Jews not because they were bigger or better, for they were the contrary at the time. Rather, he chose them because he chose them. In other words, God has reasons that he has chosen not to disclose, or perhaps we can't comprehend them at this time. In this case, ironically, God's revelation entails the reality that there are some things that he hasn't revealed. Weird stuff!

I agree that prejudices can be fostered when each group thinks it has a perfect grip on the truth. On the other hand, there are probably times when “prejudices” are good. I am prejudice when it comes to the safety of my family. I am certainly in favor of opposing mass murder. I have a prejudice against those who steal, and against those who seek to do harm to others. Etc.

Now, having said all of this, that God chose to reveal himself to the nation of Israel, this does not at all minimize the fact that he has also chosen to reveal himself to all people, albeit in somewhat different ways. God speaks to all people through nature, the human spirit (since we are made in his image, this makes sense), and to all who will look to Jesus. In fact I feel comfortable saying that God can speak through various religions; I say this because the people who comprise these groups are divine image-bearers. Thus, it makes sense that the image of God would seep through in most of them.

I believe that the ultimate truth is a person, and Jesus said as much (John 14:6). God is the truth. However, this God of truth is certainly capable of displaying various facets of his truth to those, as Scripture puts it, “who have ears to hear.” In other words, if anyone has been given access to the voice of God, he/she ought to pay attention to that voice. Again, this voice can be heard in various places, from philosophies and poetry to sacred texts and movies. It is embedded, as it were, in God's creation. From a Christian reading, however, this revelation becomes clearest in and through the person of Jesus. He is the apex of God's revelation, the embodiment of the God of truth, the expression of divine love in human form.

There is a wealth of evidence to support the Christian contention that Jesus existed, made unique claims, died via Roman execution, and then was seen alive from the dead. Interestingly, Anthony Flew, the famous atheist, recently changed his view on God's existence. While he is by no stretch a Christian, he did say that “the evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity . . . .” This is quite an admission from someone who has spent his life denying such matters. The point, of course, is not that we have a film clip of Jesus walking out of the tomb. In fact even if we did it might be interpreted as a clever technological hoax. The real point is that the resurrection of Jesus is no fairy tale, created long after the fact. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was raised, and there is solid historical support (not proof, per se) for that contention. The changed lives of millions are merely a fruit of this divine act. Of course I'm getting a bit off track. Sorry.

All I'm saying is that there is nothing anti-human, immoral, arrogant, suppressing, or unbelievable about the fact that God can choose to reveal himself as he deems fit. In fact for me to say that he cannot do such things is tantamount to saying that I have access to information that others don't. After all, who am I to pretend to speak for God or to tell him what he can or cannot do? The truly Christian view is that God reaches down to us feeble creatures, thus unveiling facets of his being. These are the things about which we can speak with a measure of confidence.

If Jesus is truly God’s unique Son, if he actually conquered the grave, then–whatever else is true about others–he, Jesus, is certainly in a class by himself. This isn’t always a case of Jesus being good and all others being bad (though this certainly is true at certain points) but rather that Jesus alone is equipped to, as it were, “carry us to heaven.” Others may instruct, guide, give advice, etc., and much of it may be wonderful. But, if only Jesus is “genetically related” to God, then he would be special. I feel confident that, however goofy we Christians can tend to be, that Christ himself is such a person. Historically, philosophically, archeologically, “religiously,” he is unique. There might be, to use an illustration, many people who would be willing to speak or act in my name, but only my kids are genetically related to me and have the same DNA. Jesus has “God's DNA,” at least that’s what we claim. It is unfortunate when well-meaning Christians take this clearly biblical claim and stretch it to mean that everything else is evil. This negative approach has harmed the church’s cause for many years.

Is there such a thing as truth? (response to a skeptic)

Over the years, I've had some rich correspondence with many people. Some of these have been skeptics, those who resist anything that looks or sounds too orthodox. To one such friend–an agnostic type who is keenly aware of the dark side of religious conviction–I wrote the following:

I agree that religion can be a real pain in the ____, if you know what I mean! And people often try to justify all kinds of stuff.

Jesus, interestingly enough, didn't go this route, and much more often than not he attacked the religious people of his day.

Of course a lot of this also depends on how one defines religion. One definition (among others) says that it entails man’s efforts to reach God, or some such thing. In one sense, this can only lead to belief systems that are, at best, human! On the other hand, since we are all human, it is impossible to escape our humanity. Thus, in this sense, we are all inescapably religious.

A lot of this is also derived from one’s presuppositions (and we can’t escape these). Is it possible that God could have revealed himself to human beings? Is there reasonable evidence that he has? Is life interpretable in the first place, or are we all so trapped by our own biases that we cannot speak with any measure of confidence about much of anything? Many moderns (those impacted by the worldview of the enlightenment, those who think that life is easy and who believe that human reason can provide most any answer) have sometimes treated this whole issue in simplistic ways. But life isn’t always easy, and we all have biases, etc. On the other hand, postmoderns (of which I would call myself one, generally speaking) can sometimes go too far the other way. Life can still be deciphered. Many things can be known with a good sense of reasonable certainty. We know that 2 + 2 = 4 (and even if we object on some theoretical grounds, we act like this is a universal mathematical fact). We intuitively react against rape or the pillage of our property. We typically defend our loved ones. We search, in one way or another, for the transcendent. We at least act like communication is possible (This doesn't mean it is always easy; it doesn't mean that misunderstanding never occurs, for it often does. Yet, at the end of the day, we expect to be able to come to reasonable conclusions about various matters). Also, we tend to argue our points (loudly or softly), which points to the intuitive sense that there must be some universal “standard” (known or not) to which we appeal in the first place. If I say something, and you think that my views are in need of improvement, the assumption is that you might be interpreting reality better than I am, at least in your own opinion. I think this is an appeal, though most often hidden and unspoken, to something transcendent.

We can’t escape who we are, but this might simply be another way of saying that we can’t escape what God has made us to be. Also, we can’t avoid his world and the way he has constructed it. The fact that people will argue, get upset with whatever, put forward different views, cry out against things that they believe to be wrong, etc. all points to some universal factor. The fact that children are generally treated as precious, and that those who harm them are considered immoral, is an indication that there is this transcendent impulse in us all.

We can, of course, act like differences of opinion indicates that no one opinion can possibly be universally right. But this is an assumption, not an overarching and unavoidable conclusion. In fact if this conclusion is correct–if it is true that there is no universal view–then it is self-contradictory. Indeed, the only way that this relativistic view could be correct would be if one universal maxim is smuggled into the argument, namely, that there is no universal view. :-)

What is amazing to me is the fact that those who decry absolutes cannot escape them. What has happened, I think, is that many people have rightly reacted against the hubris of modern Christianity. In the process, however, it is all too tempting to “throw out the baby with the bath water.”After all, if nothing is universally true, if no one has the right to say that their view is applicable to others, if our imperfections and wrong interpretations indicate that no opinion or interpretation can ever possibly be right or better than someone else’s, then one is left in the uncomfortable place of maintaining these things and yet somehow assuming that we–those of us who are offended by the universal claims of others–must somehow have escaped the problems faced by others. After all, we believe that these universal claims and those who advocate them are wrong (or not as good as ours). But how can we maintain this opinion if our opinion itself is self-defeating?

In other words, if my opinion is that it is wrong to believe in truth, and if it rubs me the wrong way to hear those who make such claims, what has rendered me exempt from the failures I observe in others? If my opinion is that there is no universally applicable truth, either: (1) I am wrong and universal truth can be located, or (2) Truth cannot be located. If it cannot, then I have to admit that, in my opinion, there is no universal truth except one, which is that there is no universal truth. This, I maintain, leaves me with a self-contradicting opinion, an opinion that, even if it is correct, is also wrong, for it sneaks in one absolute truth. Of course if it is possible that there is indeed one absolute truth, then there might be others. Christians, among others, maintain that this inclination is a part of the divine image in human beings. Okay, I’m rambling!

When it comes to differences of opinion, there is another option. These differences might tell us at least the following:

(1) Not everything is clear. Many Christians don’t get this!

(2) We ought to be humble and careful in making universalistic claims. Again, many good people miss this point!

(3) But the impulse to make such claims might be an indication that God has in fact put it in us the desire to search for and, at some level at least, discover truth. This might take some effort, though, and a delineation ought to be made between the really important stuff and lesser things. Some confuse these two.

(4) We have been built with a sense–an imperfect sense, a handicapped sense, a humanly flawed sense–that there exists truth, the transcendent . . . the true God. Even when we deny this, we affirm it in every day life.

(5) The true God is able to get through our biases and shortcomings and enable us to grasp at least the essentials, the big-picture, of what he wants us to embrace. This is what we’re looking for, and what believers presuppose (on solid grounds, I think).

(6) We are intended to follow the truth where it leads. Again, we need humility but also a willingness to receive the truth as it comes to us.

(7) God never planned that we would know the truth flawlessly, perhaps because to do so would put us in a place where we might imagine that we no longer need him! We can know the truth sufficiently, but the imperfections of our current views aren’t intended to yield outright skepticism but rather a personal dependance on the personal being who created us. In other words we can know the truth, but we will know it best when we connect with God himself, seeking to build a relationship with him. We look for the truth and for the one who is the Truth!

A Christian worldview maintains these things, even if Christians sometimes don’t. I’m probably as turned off by the many things done “in the name of religion” as anyone could be. But I have encountered them as one of its supposed proponents. This leads to a lot of tension. Of course in the process I don’t want to dismiss the good that I find in the traditional church either. Where I recognize hubris (and I do!!!!), I want to identify it. But if I only notice the hubris of others, I might be opening myself up to a subtle type of hubris in myself (and, unfortunately, I sometimes have!!!!).

Just some random thoughts! :-)

Niceness - Plus

Some people are hard to get along with, consistently miserable, and just plain mean. In my worst moments I’d call them (or myself, when I fit this depiction) jerks. Boy, we could use a lot more nice people, people who say hello to you, who hold the door, who show genuine interest in others, who do the right thing. Some days, it appears the good guys are hiding. Someone called for a gathering of kind individuals, and I wasn’t invited. So, I’m stuck with the unkind and, I suppose, I’m one of them. Though I exaggerate to some degree, it is certainly refreshing to meet people who are just plain nice.

On the other hand, we probably shouldn’t be too quick to commend every person who wears a smile or speaks cordially. Sometimes, in fact, the very people who initially look and sound so impressive are the worst kind of jerks. I mean, some “kind and gentle” neighbors end up flying airplanes into buildings. Other “nice guys” end up making the evening news as perverts. Indeed, sometimes the worst culprits are the very ones who make the grand claims about morality and religiosity. Let’s not confuse an attractive outward demeanor with genuine niceness. Lots of jerks masquerade as the upholders of righteousness. Whatever your smile frequency, however many times you’ve been cordial, none of these makes up for a mean-spirit, a flawed sense of ethics, or an obvious lack of personal authenticity.

So, there you have my rant on niceness. I’m all in favor of being nice, good, kind, cordial, and the like. Lord, save us from an uncaring mean-spirited attitude. On the other hand, keep those plastic smiles away from me, too. Disingenuous people-pleasing is not what I'm after in anyone, including myself. Okay, then, what am I seeking? Hmm. I guess, I’m looking for people who are both nice and real. Niceness plus authenticity, niceness plus a willingness to by-pass the cordial when a situation demands it, niceness plus an commitment to speaking the truth even when it hurts, niceness plus boldness, niceness plus an appropriate emotional fervor, niceness plus all that is sacred and right. That’s it! I’m searching for (and praying for) niceness-plus!

King James Only?

During my Master's program, one of my course-requirements included the preparation of a short paper on the subject of the King James Only dispute. Specifically, my assignment was to interact with the works of James White (The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?) and D. A. Carson (The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism). That paper is reproduced here.

King James Only?: An Analysis of a Divisive Issue

Introduction

Christians have long maintained that the Bible is the Word of God. Thus an acquaintance with the Bible's contents is integral to knowing and serving Him. This being the case, it is surely a blessing that the Scriptures are (in the Western world, at least) so easily accessible. In fact, numerous versions of the Bible are available, from quite literal translations to looser paraphrases.[1]

Thankfully, the vast majority of English translations fairly represent the Greek and Hebrew (and a small number of Aramaic) manuscripts from which they are derived. Indeed, textual criticism has gone a long way in providing trustworthy modern translations.

Unfortunately, though, the sheer number of Bible versions has stirred a measure of controversy. The debate centers on the precise location of God's Word. If God has spoken, it seems impossible to accept translations that are something less than identical. Some would argue, therefore, that it makes sense for God to have preserved a single deposit of inspired truth. Such are the sentiments of a group of individuals that can be broadly labeled King James Only advocates.

Though a number of people hold to some form of King James Onlyism, many evangelicals strongly disagree with the King James Only position. Indeed, a number of biblical scholars and apologists have taken this view to task. Among these are James White and D. A. Carson. This paper will briefly interact with the thoughts of these (and, to a lesser extent, other) men as propounded in their respective works.[2] As a result, a number of broad principles will be brought to bear on this sometimes divisive issue.

The Origin and Preservation of the Bible

While the Scriptures were inspired by God, those who eventually copied them were not. Early on, mistakes crept into the NT text.[3] Occasionally these were deliberate. Most often they were the result of human error.[4] As time went by, more and more copies of manuscripts were made. Soon we had copies of copies and so forth.[5] Eventually, manuscripts could be broadly grouped according to textual types or families. "Basically, a text-type or text-family refers to a grouping of manuscripts that share common readings or characteristics that distinguish them from other text types."[6] Though the peculiarities of a given text are not always easy to classify, these categories are somewhat helpful in sorting through the many NT manuscripts.

Of course, all of this talk about textual variants raises questions about the manner in which God has preserved His Word. King James advocates believe preservation comes via the King James Bible. After all, one would expect God to preserve one version, not many. This view is hardly tenable, however, for the plain fact remains that God has preserved a variety of texts. Thus the divine message is embedded within the many manuscripts.

While identifying the best manuscripts is no simple task, it is helpful (and encouraging) to consider that manuscript variants do not normally disappear. In other words, the original readings of the NT are likely to have been preserved, for once a variant reading appears in a manuscript, it doesn't simply go away. It gets copied and ends up in other manuscripts. . . . The tenacity of the New Testament, while forcing us to deal with textual variants, also provides us with the assurance that our work is not in vain. One of those variant readings is the original. We are called to invest our energies in discovering which one it is.[7]

Determining God's Words: Textual Criticism

The study and analysis of ancient manuscripts is called textual criticism. This can be further divided into two types, lower criticism and higher criticism. Lower criticism involves the study of manuscripts of the Bible, those written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, as well as ancient translations into other languages like Latin, Sahidic or Coptic. Its goal is to reproduce the original text of the Bible from this vast wealth of information.[8]

Higher criticism, however, is less concerned about the manuscripts than the process by which the Bible came into its present form. Because it is highly subjective, higher criticism is prone to speculation and the whims of the interpreter. Lower criticism, on the other hand, is a valid instrument for determining the biblical text.[9]

Ironically, Erasmus, who gave us the Greek text (later known as the Textus Receptus) which undergirds the King James Bible, "used the very same methods of textual-critical study that modern scholars use."[10] Yet many King James only advocates decry similar methodology among those responsible for the newer translations.

The Genesis of the King James Bible

The King James Bible did not appear one day from heaven.Rather it was the culmination of a series of important historical events.[11] During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there was an interest in returning to the ancient writings. In fact a popular motto among thinkers of that day was the Latin phrase ad fontes, meaning "To the source!" "These men did not want to hear about the opinions of men passed down through the centuries. They wanted to go directly to the sources, directly to the ancient documents, so that they could learn for themselves."[12] For centuries, the Latin Bible, i.e., the Vulgate, was the accepted translation of the Church. But now there was a concern to examine the original languages. This eventually led the humanist-scholar, Erasmus, to publish the entire Greek New Testament (A.D. 1516).

It was Erasmus, and later Stephanus and Beza, who was responsible for the Greek text utilized by the King James translators in 1611.[13] Years after the publication of the King James Bible, the preface of the Elzevir brother's second Greek edition contained the words, "the received text," hence the term Textus Receptus.[14]

Noteworthy to this discussion is the fact that the King James Version and the Greek texts from which it was derived admit discrepancies. That is, there is no perfect Greek text, nor an infallible translation. In every case, scholars seek to piece together the original (i.e., by means of textual criticism) from the available manuscripts.

The King James Version is a monument to those who labored to bring it into existence. Of this there can be no question. But as we have seen, it was a human process, and as in all human life and endeavor, it did not partake of infallibility.[15]

Types of King James Advocates

Due to the popularity of the King James Bible, it is not surprising that some have become staunch advocates of this tried and true translation. Still, it is not always easy to characterize the King James advocate. Some prefer the King James Bible for stylistic reasons alone. Others of a more radical bent claim inspiration for the Received Text or the King James Version itself. Unfortunately, some of those who hold such views have made these matters a cause for disunity among brothers. As White laments, "That sharing in the gospel of Christ can be disrupted by such an issue should cause anyone a moment's reflection, and more than passing concern."[16]

King James Only Arguments

A number of arguments have been put forth in defense of King James Onlyism. Among these are the following: (1) Modern translations make compromises when it comes to doctrinal matters. (2) The Greek text underlying the King James Version (i.e., the Textus Receptus) is superior. (3) We can't be certain of what God says unless we possess a single translation (and/or Greek text); that is, discrepancies among versions prove that one is correct and the others false. These can be briefly examined in order.

First, the accusation that modern versions compromise the truth is clearly fallacious. If the modern translations were part of some grand conspiracy to excise biblical doctrine, it is strange that these give full support to orthodox beliefs. Indeed, comments White, "Some KJV advocates are surprised to note that the KJV does not do as well as some modern versions when it comes to providing clear, understandable translations of the key, central passages in the New Testament that testify to the full deity of Jesus Christ."[17]

The argument for the Textus Receptus is a bit more complex. Let it suffice to say that most conservative scholars prefer an "eclectic" approach to the manuscripts, "in that each reading is examined on its own merits and no absolutely overriding rule is used to artificially decide each variant."[18]

Furthermore, the Byzantine text-type, which formed the basis for the King James Version, is lacking in the earliest manuscripts. Instead, the Bible of the early centuries of the Church resembled a more ancient, that is an Alexandrian text-type.[19] This doesn't mean that textual critics automatically favor older readings. But such manuscripts certainly ought to be given due consideration in the quest to uncover the original.

Finally, the desire for absolute certainty when it comes to textual matters, while understandable, is not realistic. History has left us with numerous extant manuscripts. These not only differ from each other, but none are flawless representations of the autographs. Even the King James is not without imperfection. For example, "a dozen or so readings in the KJV find no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever."[20]

Problems with the King James and King James Onlyism

King James defenders are often critical of those who choose other Bible translations. Yet the King James Bible itself is fraught with a number of difficulties. For one, the King James Version is not as uniform and simplified a translation as its more radical adherents would like to believe. Indeed the Textus Receptus——a Byzantine type text that is often given high priority by King James defenders——is a collation of various textual readings.[21] Therefore, "to claim a particular text-type is inerrant is meaningless because a text-type is established by comparing manuscripts, grouping those with most features in common, and accepting the most probable readings."[22]

Next, the King James Bible is based on a number of relatively late manuscripts, none earlier than the tenth century. To arbitrarily assert that older texts (e.g., Alexandrian) are inferior surely begs the question. A more balanced approach would be to give appropriate weight to a variety of manuscript families and to then decide (based on internal and external criteria) which best reflects the original.[23] As mentioned above, this allows for both confidence and progress. Confidence results from a realization of the overall continuity between the many variants when it comes to major doctrine, while progress (and humility) is facilitated through diligent research. At any rate, the King James Only mentality only works to impede spiritual and intellectual integrity.

Finally, there is something to be said concerning the archaic language of the King James Bible. At times, its antiquated terminology has been a stumbling block to modern readers/hearers. Not only are certain words outdated (e.g., thou, ye), but some terms actually mean something entirely different today than they did when originally penned (e.g., prevent in 1 Thessalonians 4:15). Indeed, if one sure sign of a good translation is that it successfully relates the ancient text to contemporary people, the King James Version is swiftly becoming an inadequate vehicle of communication.

Conclusion

Throughout their respective works, James White and D. A. Carson do a masterful job addressing the King James Only topic. In the end, they leave the reader with a basic understanding of the textual issues, a clear response to the faulty logic of King James Onlyism, and a sound defense of the Bible's reliability.

Of course, some might be tempted to make the relative complexity of the textual critic's work a reason for skepticism. But Carson notes:

There is no need for such rigorous pessimism. The vast majority of the manuscript errors have to do with details of orthography, word order, and the like. Moreover, many of the theologically significant variants can be sorted out quite easily by comparing manuscript with manuscript. The result . . . is a certain word from God.[24]

Not skirting the issues, both writers build assurance in the biblical text, while simultaneously challenging the reader to employ sound textual critical methods.

NOTES:

1. For a fairly recent review of some of the more popular translations, see Lewis Foster, Selecting a Translation of the Bible (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1978, 1983).
2. James White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
3. Though much could be said about Old Testament textual matters, here the primary emphasis will be upon the New Testament.
4. Carson, 21-24.
5. See F. F. Bruce, "Transmission and Translation of the Bible" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), 39-57.
6. White, 42.
7. Ibid., 48. This isn't meant to imply that every copy of a manuscript contains all the words of that manuscript. The point, rather, is that when multiple copies are made of a given text, somewhere within the copies is found the words of the original. Textual criticism seeks to extract the original by sifting through these copies.
8. Ibid., 27-28
9. For a nice review of textual variants and some of the principles by which manuscripts are evaluated, see Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text and Canon (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 137-149.
10. White, 58.
11. Carson, 33-37.
12. White, 13-14.
13. It is worth mentioning that the King James Bible has undergone numerous revisions (e.g., 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, 1769), with most modern versions following the 1769 edition. Ibid., 77-82.
14. See Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman, Facts on The Textus Receptus and The King James Version (Anaheim, CA: Foundation Press, 1975).
15. White, 82.
16. Ibid., 5.
17. Ibid., 196.
18. Ibid., 151.
19. Ibid., 152-154.
20. Carson, 69.
21. "To keep a correct perspective it is important to note that the TR is not exactly the same as the Byzantine tradition. The Byzantine text-type is found in several thousand witnesses, while the TR did not refer to one hundredth of that evidence." ibid., 37.
22. Ibid., 72.
23. For an excellent overview of textual principles, see David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 32-36.
24. Carson, 24.

the extent of the atonement

The topic of “limited atonement” has sparked more than its share of debate and antagonistic response. Part of the problem, I think, is the lack of clarity of this terminology, and the emotional response it often elicits. To that end, definite redemption might be a more accurate depiction. Another part of the problem is the fact that we tend to compartmentalize ourselves into an either-or mode. This modernistic brand of theologizing is both limiting and naive.

In my opinion, definite redemption is difficult to deny biblically. For instance Jesus said that He came to lay down His life for His sheep, etc. In the context of His redemptive labors, He appears to be saying that His cross work would actually accomplish something, that entailed more than a potential redemption, and that His salvific death is a part of God’s great plan that spans the ages. This kind of understanding, which is more “Calvinistic” in orientation, appears to flow out of certain texts and in particular from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

Of course there are also other texts that seem more universalistic in their intent. I believe a good number of these can be best understood as meaning something like “all without distinction,” that is, Jesus’ death is not limited to Israel or to some particular brand of human being. Some of the “world” texts (1 John 2:2) might also be interpreted this way. However, there might also be passages that lead to more general atonement theory (John 3:16?). This being the case, what stops us from categorizing the redemptive work of Jesus as a “both-and” type of situation?

In one sense, His cross work is for all. It is offered to all in complete sincerity by God Himself. As such, it contains enough “redemptive power” to redeem any and all who desire to partake of it by faith. The best Calvinists have maintained something close to this idea, but I also believe many of them have been governed more by logic (which is important) than a plain reading of certain “hard” passages (which is essential–these are those passages that don’t neatly fit a given system).

At any rate, Jesus’ death is genuinely offered to all and truly contains, if we can put it this way, enough “propitiatory potential” to satisfy God’s justice for any who want it. At the same time, though, His cross–while not being withheld from anyone–is particularly applied to those “sheep” He came to rescue.

Of course we now enter holy ground, and with it we encounter profound mystery. How can this be? In what sense is this fair? Does this not contradict those other passages that treat the atonement in a more general sense? All of these are good questions, and I believe they are worth pursuing. However, I also believe that a complete understanding of them is unavailable in this life. In good postmodern fashion, we are left with mystery and tension, but we are also provided a (modernistic?) model that fits all of the biblical data. This, I would suggest, is of supreme importance.

Some Calvinists, though rightly emphasizing the particularism of the atonement, have minimized the fullness and sufficiency of the cross for all. Indeed, John 3:16, that most famous of evangelistic passages, is, in the opinion of some, a general atonement passage. On the other hand, some non-Calvinists have gone in the other direction, and have accused God of unfairness and the like when it comes to His liberty to exercise His complete and just will.

As an aside, many postmoderns seem comfortable with free will, which is fine, but they don’t seem to accord to God the same privilege. Thus, they minimize God’s freedom in order to highlight man’s. Again, this is naive and imbalanced. Worse, it fails to do justice to the many passages that speak of God’s freedom. When it comes to discussing these matters, the desire to guard man’s free will (which is a good thing) often dictates the type of conclusions we allow for. Since particularism appears to limit human free agency, it is tempting to jettison God’s freedom. Two comments: (1) God is presented as King in Scripture. As a transcendent being, He calls the shots. (2) Man is free in some genuine sense, but his freedom is not absolute (and whatever it is, it is not as great as God’s). Man is free in some sense (although simultaneously bound by his fallenness and humanity). Of course the concept of freedom (intellectual and moral) is not easy to capture. Indeed, theologians and philosophers have for centuries debated its meaning. Thus, to admit free will–which is a biblical thing–is not necessarily the same thing as saying that God is bound or limited by the free choices of His creatures.

In my opinion, divine sovereignty and (a rightly nuanced) human freedom are very puzzling concepts, and neither Calvinists nor Arminians have completely solved this dilemma. This is part of the reason why I have shied away from such labels, for I question their ability to convey much that is helpful. Not only are there varieties of each type (i.e., Calvinists and Arminians), but the labels have tended to keep people from honestly and openly investigating the various pieces of the redemptive puzzle (e.g., “limited atonement”). Furthermore, they have fostered an “us vs. them” mentality among equally sincere believers. When this occurs, we are all the worse off. Let it suffice to say that I believe that Jesus’ death was both for everyone (in some true sense) and for a particular group (in some other sense). However one defines this position, it is my attempt to incorporate all of the relevant data into the discussion and to allow the whole counsel of God to have its mystery-making but worship-inducing way with us.

Decision Making

During a segment on decision-making in my high school health class, we discussed what goes into decision-making and what makes us the decision makers that we are. To this end, I jotted down these words:

One’s decision-making strategy is dependent, to some degree, on the type of decision he or she is faced with. Some decisions are, frankly, not that life-altering (e.g., what to order at a restaurant, which shoes to purchase), while others are much more serious (e.g., whether or not to marry, the school you wish to attend). That being admitted, a good portion of decision-making is more about who and what we are than it is about a logical progression or step-by-step process. This is not to say that we cannot articulate factors that–whether consciously held or not–actually contribute to our decision-making. It’s just that decision-making, over the long term, is about our attitudes, the influences around us, the experiences we’ve had, and the people who are a part of our lives.

Beyond this, or so it seems to me, we cannot avoid seeing some decisions as inherently morality based. That is, we make at least certain choices based on whether or not we believe those choices are right or wrong. This leads many (not all) people to rely on (and draw from) ethics/morality-determining factors such as religious beliefs, spirituality, or some (perhaps undefined) higher reality or purpose. This reality or purpose includes standards of morality, of course, but it is never limited to the application of specific "rules." Our beliefs, in other words, not only inform us, but they actually help to shape us.

How, then, might we improve our capacity for making make wise decisions? One sure way is by becoming better decision makers, that is, better and wiser human beings. This, it appears, is inextricably linked to our spheres of influence, the people and places with which we have regular contact. Some of these cannot be easily altered, but some of them are well within our control.

To summarize, decision-making is a complex and on-going activity that relates to who we are (and are becoming), our experiences (consciously chosen or not), and the various influences in our lives. All of these are affected by deep personal beliefs, spoken or not, which provide the atmosphere or framework within which we make our choices.

Thoughts on Salvation

Our Sunday morning “church” group is currently taking a look at the subject of human salvation. To help stimulate our thoughts, we’ve decided to use portions of Terrence Tiessen’s Who Can Be Saved? In examining the various views of human salvation, Tiessen uses the following categories: Ecclesiocentrism (salvation only comes to those who hear and respond to the gospel), Agnosticism (while explicit faith in Jesus is normative, we don’t really know the fate of those who never hear the gospel), Accessibilism (there is reason to be hopeful about the salvation of some who have never heard the gospel), Religious Instrumentalism (while Jesus is in some ways special, God raises up non-Christian religions as instruments of salvation), and Relativism (salvation is universally available through various religions).

Of course there is some overlap between categories, and other writers have come up with their own schemes for delineating the different responses to the relevant subjects. We are not necessarily committed to Tiessen’s conclusions, though we do like the subjects he broaches and the way he handles at least some of these matters. What we are concerned about is thinking through some of the big issues that pertain to human salvation from a Christian and biblical perspective. To this end, I put some rather random thoughts on paper, which I hope will assist us in our discussions. These are not final thoughts or completely organized thoughts but rather general ideas that come to mind when approaching such matters. For what it’s worth, here they are:

Thoughts on Salvation

It is essential to realize that the thoughts I’m putting down here are not inspired, and that certain things I say are probably based more on gut feelings and assumptions than on some perfect understanding of what God is saying. While I hope these words are helpful and accurate, I do not assume, and neither should you, that they are somehow flawless representations of the truth. This being said, here are some off-the-cuff thoughts about the subject to which we now turn.

● It is important to ask what the practical implications of our choices are. If we are talking about human salvation, it is not enough to speculate about the spiritual status of so-and-so if we never weep over his lostness (if he is actually lost), celebrate his salvation (if this is the case), or are even likely to impact his life. E.g., How helpful is it to speculate about the fate of the ignorant in Africa if we are probably never going to visit Africa? It might, I suppose, affect our prayer lives or our missionary efforts. For most of us, however, (and whether or not this is good) it’s probably not a practical daily concern. Therefore, how much of our energy should be expended on such matters?

● What is the next question? If something is stated as necessary or likely for salvation, are we sure that we’ve asked enough questions about it? For instance, if we say a person must have faith to be saved, we are still left with a number of inquiries: What is faith? What does it mean to believe? If we say that true faith ushers in a holy lifestyle, which seems to be a biblical axiom, are we sure we are able to recognize holiness or fruit when we see it? (E.g., Holiness is obviously not “measured” by number of services attended or by our ability to use religious lingo). Please, do not misunderstand: We do not want to get tied down to an endless array of questions, rabbit trails that distract us from the real questions at hand. We do, however, want to stop and ask relevant questions when they have a direct bearing on the way we understand a given issue. For instance, if we say that the coming of Jesus has ushered in a new era, which it has, we should also ask ourselves in what sense (theologically and practically) this is so.

● What is salvation in the first place? By this, I am not trying to take a bare minimalist approach, reducing salvation to as few facts as possible. Rather, I’m seeking to understand what it is that unites any lost person with his Creator. As best as we can understand, what’s the essence of faith? From the human perspective, how does one come into a right relationship with God?

● What does it mean for God to save? If He saves, in what manner does He? Clearly, He uses human instrumentality in the conversion of others, which–for us–is both a responsibility and an honor. But, does He need to use us? Or, does He normally use us? Or, has He merely told us that He uses us, not in the sense to limiting His own ability to act apart from us but in order to call us to responsible action?

● It seems true that God can do whatever He wants with His creatures. Thus, if He chooses to allow us all to be condemned, that would be a biblically permissible thing for Him to do. In fact, it wouldn’t be unfair for Him to do a whole lot of things that we deem hard to swallow. On the other hand, He will not and cannot do that which contradicts His own nature and character. Nor, it would seem, does He act in ways that violate His own purposes.

● What is God like? From Scripture, it appears that a number of ideas come to the fore. God is holy, which entails His moral perfection, His separation from anything that is evil or wrong, His utter rightness and one-of-a-kind ness. Likewise, He is absolutely fair. Whatever He does is right, and any creature who could see things from His perspective would totally agree with His choices. As Scripture says, “Surely, the judge of all the earth will do right?” Also, and especially, God is love. What this entails is not always self-evident, and certainly God can be loving while simultaneously judging those who oppose Him. That much is clear. Beyond this, however, it appears that God is a community of perfect love, a being of incomprehensible mercy and grace, a Lord who has set as His primary agenda the mission of sharing His love with others. A being of perfect holiness (whatever that means, and I think we can know something [but not everything] about this), and absolute fairness (whatever that means, and I think we can know something [but not everything] about this, as well), has chosen to rescue us from ourselves and to envelop us in His immense love. Our assessment of salvation has to come to grips with the kind of being God is.

● In any Christian perspective, Jesus is the only Savior. Only He satisfied the demands of God’s justice. Only He is able to link heaven (since He’s God) and earth (since He’s a human). Only He can carry us into the presence of God, etc. Thus, if a person is saved, this salvation must come through the work and activity of Jesus. Still, there is another question: How does one come to benefit from Jesus’ activity? The normative answer is faith. But questions remain: What is faith, exactly? How much information is necessary to believe? How much error can be present where there is genuine faith? Can a person be united to God through Jesus without knowing about Jesus? In other words, is it possible to come to God through His Son without actually knowing anything about Him?

● In dealing with various biblical passages, it is important, I think, not to allow certain passages to be used in such a way that they crowd out or take precedence over other passages. When we do this, and it’s admittedly difficult to avoid such a mentality, we allow certain realities to shield us from other realities, or we allow one aspect of the truth (or our interpretation of it) to become the force by which we misrepresent another aspect of the truth. This often occurs when we consider matters of human responsibility, divine sovereignty, and the like.

● In discussing these matters, a number of related thoughts are relevant. These include but are not limited to the following: - Divine Sovereignty, - Free Will, - Epistemology (How do we know, and how do we know that we know? What is the basis for our knowledge?), - Hermeneutics (Interpretation), - The Hermeneutical Spiral, - Theology, - Cultural Assumptions (premodern, modern, postmodern, other tendencies and presuppositions). We should be willing to add to this list anything that is helpful to (and not a distraction from) the discussion. Want to add any?

● When it comes to our use of Scripture, we must take a number of things into consideration: (1) What a text says. (2) Whether our interpretation of the text is accurate or in need of revision. (3) Whether we are allowing certain texts greater priority than others. If we do this, why, on what basis? (4) Common sense and divine influence in our own lives. We are not inspired, to be sure, but neither are our interpretations of what the inspired text says. Thus, in thinking through these issues, I think it’s okay to ask one another (and God) how this works out. God’s working in our lives is not on par with Scripture, per se, but God Himself is. Thus, if God enables us to see something that throws a light on Scripture, it is potentially a good thing. (One example would be the age of the earth debate, etc. Some would argue that what God is saying in the world has given us “new eyes” for reading Genesis.)

● Where is God in all of this, and why has He designed things this way? If these discussions are important, and I think they are, why has God chosen such a round about way of leading us into the truth. We come to a Bible that requires our efforts to understand and apply it. Our interpretations are sometimes accurate and sometimes in error. There is no single text that gives us undeniable support for a single way of looking at these matters; instead, we have to grapple with various passages and ideas, seeking to pull the pieces together. God has taken a very indirect approach to these matters, requiring that we take time and make effort to unfold the truth, requiring that we interact with those who came before us, and leading us on a journey. If this is an accurate assessment, it would seem that God has “built into the system” of our journey a general sense that we can’t do this on our own. And, if that is the case, we clearly need Him. Thus, as we read, discuss, contemplate, and wonder, we are led, as well, to lean on Him for guidance, wisdom, strength, and a sense of His presence. As Psalm 119 says: Verse 18 - “Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Your law,” Verse 27 - “Make me understand the way of Your precepts, so I will meditate on Your wonders,” Verse 169 - “Let my cry come before You, O LORD; Give me understanding according to Your word.”

Okay, that’s enough for now. ☺

Show Me the Way

One of my all-time favorite songs is Show Me the Way by Styx. These lyrics, which capture the outlook of those hovering between belief and doubt, do something that is quite rare, for they strike a balance between realism and spiritual conviction. In these words, frustration and disillusionment rub up against authenticity and hope. The result? Real faith, the kind that comes when God himself shows us the way.

Every night I say a prayer in the hope that there’s a heaven
And every day I’m more confused as the saints turn into sinners
All the heroes and legends I knew as a child have fallen to idols of clay
And I feel this empty place inside so afraid that I’ve lost my faith

We all feel this way from time to time, and some of us live in a state of perpetual uncertainty. When so many of our childhood heroes turn out to be fakes, when even the “good” people end up going off the deep end, when people mask their weaknesses, and sometimes their perversions, with outward displays of piety, when it becomes common, even expected, that moral spokespersons fall prey to immorality and society’s big shots end up looking small–with all of this crap, how could we not feel somewhat taken aback?

But why would one be afraid to lose faith? Why would lack of faith lead to emptiness? Faith seeks a way ahead.

Show me the way, show me the way
Take me tonight to the river
And wash my illusions away
Show me the way

Oh, Lord, how we need (how I need) you to wash away everything that’s fake and disingenuous. Clearly, we need Someone bigger than we are to come to the rescue, to provide a guiding light and a mighty hand. Show me the way!

And as I slowly drift to sleep, for a moment dreams are sacred
I close my eyes and know there’s peace in a world so filled with hatred
That I wake up each morning and turn on the news to find we’ve so far to go
And I keep on hoping for a sign, so afraid that I just won’t know

There are times, and You know when, Lord, when the good old days come to mind. More important, still, there are occasions when we see what we once saw and feel what we once felt. Our skewed views and blurred vision give way to something buried deep within, something for which we still long. Imagine, a world without strife, a world of peace and genuine love, and . . . oh, yeah, that’s right, the “real” world is filled with divorces, personal attacks, a disregard for truth, and terrorist threats. Still, hope won’t go away. Maybe, if I read between the lines, if I look really hard, I’ll find something that supports faith and doesn’t simply cause me to question it. What, though, am I looking for?

Show me the way, show me the way
Take me tonight to the mountain
And take my confusion away

Lord, I need a word from you, I need to hear your calm yet authoritative voice if I’m going to think clearly.

And if I see a light, should I believe
Tell me how will I know

On the other hand, I’m not entirely sure I’d recognize your voice if I heard it. If you shine a light, how will I know it’s your light? Tell me, please!

Show me the way, show me the way
Take me tonight to the river
And wash my illusions away
Show me the way, show me the way
Give me the strength and the courage
To believe that I’ll get there someday
Show me the way

Even if I can’t understand as much as I’d like, at least let me know that one day I will. Move me in the right direction, keep me on the right path. Show me the way!

Every night I say a prayer
In the hope that there’s a heaven . . .

There it is, hope. It seems like the singer (Dennis DeYoung) wants to believe, but why? Perhaps, it’s all self-deception. It’s better to make believe and feel good about it than it is to face the facts and feel depressed, or so say some pundits.

But maybe, just maybe, there’s a better way. Why do so many people want to believe? It might be that we were created to believe. Indeed, the great majority of people throughout human history have believed. What’s more, so many of our daily affairs require that we believe. Every time we entrust our kids to the school bus driver or assume that we can safely cross a bridge, we express faith. Faith is built into the fiber of human beings.

This, I think, is why the song-writer yearns for faith, desires to believe, hopes that there is indeed a way. Life tends to drain the life out of us, sapping our energy and our sense of purpose. This results in a kind of tension in our lives. On the one hand, we think and hope that faith is true. On the other hand, we are faced with the undeniable reality of everyday pain, confusion, and uncertainty. So, what do we do? If we’re wise, we will “say a prayer in the hope that there’s a heaven.” God seems to have set it up this way. Fully aware of life’s difficulties and truly desiring to make sense of the confusion, we do what makes sense. We cry out or sing out “Show me the way.” Whether you’re a skeptic, an agnostic, or a believer, this is pretty good advice. Show me (show us all) the way!