Theology

Faith over Intellect? Intellect over Faith?

John Barry — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:34:47 -0800

Mind over matter. Faith over intellect. Wisdom over knowledge. We’re convinced that the alternative is better: that one of these is better than the other. But Paul says that knowledge is a gift. It’s not something to be set aside when you start believing, but incorporated.

Intellect itself convinces us that some people are more gifted with knowledge than others. We’ve been in classes with these people, and we all know the stories of the most gifted among them (e.g., Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison). But Paul is talking about a different kind of knowledge. It’s not just one about facts and numbers. (Although the type of people gifted with the type of knowledge Paul is referring to would likely be good with that as well.)

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills (1 Corinthians 12:7–11 ESV).

Earlier in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul defines what he means by “knowledge,” or more aptly how the knowledge he is referring to defers from other kinds of knowledge in its purpose.

“I give thanks to my God always for you [all (this is a plural “you” in Greek)] because of the grace of God that was given you [all] in Christ Jesus, that in every way you [all] were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge— even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you [all]” (1 Corinthians 1:4–6 ESV).

Knowledge is about enriching others. Its about the testimony of Christ among us. Intellect for intellect’s sake is a wasteful endeavor. (I’ll resist the urge to rant about the higher education system here, and the urge to rant about the problems with curriculum and teaching methods of many Biblical Studies and Theological Studies programs.)

In Graeco-Roman culture, knowledge was the basis of achieving not only higher status but (more often than not) a higher level of spirituality. This would later in church history, only about a generation after Paul, become a major issue. A religion, known today as Gnosticism (from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis), would creep in that synchronized the ideas of Graeco-Roman culture with Christianity. They would exploit grace and make Christianity about knowledge instead of experience. Rather Christianity being about a constant living relationship with Jesus (and the salvation He brings through His death and resurrection for us), it would become about simply saying the right words and knowing the right things. Gnosticism was very popular, because it was easy and exciting, but that didn’t make it true.

This religious movement, in all its diverse forms, would produce works like the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas. These fictional works, written in the epic of people that had previously died, would claim special knowledge about the workings of Jesus with His disciples, and that salvation comes through ascension to the special intellectual level they proposed.

Does Gnosticism sound like a familiar form of Christianity? That’s because it is. It’s rampant in our churches today: “If I say I believe (and I confirm it in my mind), I can do what I want through grace and God will still bless me with salvation (and other things).” It’s not usually proposed this way, but faith without actions is what’s often being preached. This type of faith is the type Jesus condemned, not confirmed, because its not faith at all. It’s admitting truth. Admission without action is useless.

Jesus didn’t come to save through knowledge. But he also didn’t come to do away with knowledge. The lack of real knowledge about the biblical text is what allows for gnostic-like religion to continue in our churches today. If we knew what Jesus really said, and really believed, for ourselves, this problem would be minor or perhaps even absent.

Paul is proposing that we emphasize and acknowledge people with the gift of knowledge of God and His workings. Yet, this is one of the many things in our churches today that is downplayed, and it’s to our detriment.

We need people with knowledge (most of which likely hold the spiritual office of teacher). Without them, we will lose our way.

How can your church cultivate knowledge, and especially emphasize the needs for those with it to speak to others about it regularly?

Join the movement. Be the first to know. Sign up for updates here.

Want to read the entire series? Here is a round-up:

Ten Verses to Defend Your Faith

Sean McDowell — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:26:13 -0800

For the past few days I have been trying to think of the top ten verses that would be most helpful to apologists and evangelists. I have reflected on my own experience and also gotten feedback from many of you on Facebook and Twitter. So, here are my top ten verses to defend your faith (in no particular order):

1 Peter 3:15: “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;” As an apologist you may find yourself having to defend the purpose of apologetics. This is the classic verse indicating that everyone is to be prepared to give an answer with gentleness and respect.

John 1:1-3: “¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” This is one of the most compelling and clear articulations of the deity of Christ. It shows that Christ is the eternal creator and is one with (although distinct from) the Father.

Acts 5:3-4: ^“3But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? ⁴ While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” There is much confusion among Christians as well as groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses about the identity of the Holy Spirit. This passage shows the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 43:10: “ ‘You are My witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.’ ” This passage clearly lays out that there is only one God and there has always only been one God. Mormons have to get very creative to avoid the clear meaning of this passage.

Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” This verse helps with the question, “What about those who have never heard?” It establishes that people do have knowledge of God through creation.

Romans 2:14-15: “¹⁴For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, ¹⁵ in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,” This passage demonstrates that the moral conscience is written on our hearts. The moral law is universal, even among those who do not have the written law.

John 6:29: “Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.’ ” Many pseudo-Christian religions base salvation on works. In this passage Jesus clearly lays out the requirement of salvation—belief.

John 20:30-31: “³⁰ Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; ³¹ but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” Skeptics often believe that faith is blind. John clearly states that the miracles of Jesus were recorded as proof so we would believe.

2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” This passage clearly shows that God desires all to turn to repentance and be saved. This can be helpful when talking about Hell.

Luke 1:1-4: “¹ Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, ² just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, ³ it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; ⁴ so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” Some claim that the disciples were inventing myths and legends. This passage shows the clear concern with historical accuracy and eyewitness accounts.

This list is certainly not exhaustive. I’m sure there are many more verses that could be included. I would love to know of any other key verses that should be added. (All Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New American Standard Version.)

Christians Need Apologetics

Brett Kunkle — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:49:26 -0800

“Just some ordinary conversation over dinner.” At least, that’s how my host described this event. In January, I was invited to have dinner with a couple of dads and their sons to facilitate a discussion on the problem of evil. It was a spur-of-the-moment request and details were a bit fuzzy, so I met my host Jon 30 minutes prior to talk specifics. He informed me that not only would Christian dads and sons participate, but his 60-year old parents, both skeptics of Christianity, would join us as well. That night’s conversation turned out to be exceptional. Why? Because of apologetics.

For too long, apologetics has been given a bad rap. Too many Christian voices point to a few poor apologetic examples, extrapolate them to every apologist and apologetic encounter, and then dismiss the entire enterprise. But in doing so, Christians abandon one of our greatest tools to engage the world for Christ. My recent conversation demonstrates why.

(1) It was intelligent. Any robust discussion of the problem of evil will include a host of issues. We covered almost all of them, exploring objective and subjective views of morality, the definition of evil, human freedom, moral intuitions, the soul, and more. It was a rational, well-informed dialogue between Christians and Jon’s skeptical parents. And it was my apologetic training that enabled me to lead an intelligent discussion.

(2) It was gracious. The apologists I know take I Peter 3:15 seriously. All of it. We are not to be defensive with our defense, but gracious. Apologetics can give you confidence that what you believe is actually true and reasonable. That kind confidence can keep you from getting defensive. And when you’re not defensive, you can relax, give others space to question and doubt, and even enjoy the challenge of a tough question. My apologetic training has done just that for me.

That night there were no raised voices. No frustration or irritation. Not a hint of defensiveness. Rather, the entire group was cool, calm, and collected. Yes, this occurred in the context of a religious discussion, where participants held diametrically opposed viewpoints. Jon’s parents raised serious intellectual challenges to God from evil, but heard a defense that was gentle and respectful.

(3) It was patient. Beforehand, Jon was clear with his instructions to me. He wanted a methodical discussion, walking carefully through the arguments and objections. No jumping to unjustified conclusions. And there was no pressure to “close the deal.” Rather, his stated goal was to leave a stone in his parent’s shoes, an approach he picked up from Stand to Reason. He was patient with their skepticism, knowing there were many barriers to be removed before Jesus ever came into view. Apologist Ravi Zacharias puts it this way:

“The longer I am in this work, the more I realize that intellectual struggles are merely the hazardous waste of life, blocking the heart from truth. The task of apologetics is to carefully remove that hazardous material and keep it from igniting into a destructive fire. Once that is done, the way to the heart is always through the way of the Cross, God’s love for each and every one of us.”

I wanted to use apologetics to move some of that hazardous material away from Jon’s parents’ hearts, but my apologetic training helped me to understand this approach takes time and requires patience. That night, his parents were able to air a few of their intellectual grievances, which were met with listening ears and patient answers.

When you pay careful attention to what most Christian apologists are saying today and you avoid the temptation to demonize the entire apologetic endeavor because of one or two bad examples, you’ll be open to one of the great tools the Church has employed for 2,000 years. When I teach apologetics, this is the approach I commend. It’s the Stand to Reason way, the Ambassador’s way. Of course, it’s always nice to be reminded it’s also an effective way.

What was the result of that night’s intelligent, gracious, and patient conversation? As we said our goodbyes after dinner, Jon’s skeptical dad shook my hand, looked me in the eye, and with a smile said, “Let’s do this again.”

Who Made God?

Sean McDowell — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:50:05 -0800

Shortly before Christmas I received an email from Edgar Andrews, Emeritus professor from the University of London. He asked if I would be willing to review his book Who Made God? Searching for a Theory of Everything. While I’ve read many books presenting the scientific evidence for God, I thought it may be interesting to get the perspective of someone outside the traditional apologetics community. I was right!

If you enjoy the contemporary debate about the existence of God, then Who Made God? is a book you will want to have in your library. Andrews provides fresh and strong critiques of Dawkins, Victor Stenger, and other prominent atheists. He even debated Richard Dawkins a few years ago.

Probably the most controversial thing Andrews claims is that there are four scientifically inexplicable things: (1) the origin of the universe; (2) the origin of the laws of nature; (3) the origin of life; and (4) the origin of mind and thought. Not only is there no present explanation, he says there never will be a natural explanation. The main claim of his book is that any “theory of everything” must include mind. Purely material causes will never be able to explain certain features of the world. The God-hypothesis, says Andrews, explains the world much more thoroughly.

One of the most fascinating sections of the book is his defense of the reality of the human mind. He argues that thinking can change the activity and structure of the brain, which shows that human thinking is not simply an inconsequential by-product of brain activity. He points to a study from the Stanford Business School where a group of people were given the same wine on two different occasions. One time they were told it was a $45 bottle, and the other time they were told it was $5. Unsurprisingly, the group declared that the $45 wine tasted better. They even scanned the brains during consumption and found the pleasure centers of the brain lit up more for the expensive wine. Andrews concludes:

“[N]on physical mental expectations translate into bodily responses via real physical changes in the brain. If non-physical mind can affect the physical brain in this way, then mind can hardly be the mere by-product of brain activity…” (p. 259).

This is just one helpful illustration from Who Made God? Andrews also critiques theistic evolution, the power of natural selection and mutation, and other common atheistic arguments. Even if you disagree with Andrews (as I do at points), he provides a thoughtful scientific and philosophical defense of Christianity.

Heaven on Earth

Christopher Faris — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:09:16 -0800

My wife and I recently bought Disneyland passes. It was the big gift we hoped for at the top of our Christmas wish list this year. Though she and I have had them at various times, we have never had them together in our 9 or so years of knowing each other. I remember as a kid going to Disneyland and feeling happy. Disneyland has this kind of happiness in spades, built from the ground up not on thrilling rides, but instead on nostalgia and environment. Everything in the park exists to make you smile and be entertaining. It is my child self’s version of paradise.

Yet, after visiting the park over and over again (a luxury I surely don’t mean to diminish), there are times when the tricks of the park begin to lose steam. This is true of any number of life’s pleasures – yearly holiday traditions, visits to favorite locations, or favorite films that may initially be funny but lose charm with repeated viewings (I’m looking at you “Elf”)

If I asked you to describe what you hope heaven will be like, your description might be something like Las Vegas. Las Vegas is for much of the world the adult version of Disneyland. It is stocked with fun, attractions, and themes geared towards adults. In its most unrestricted sense, it is for many a picture of what might be our personal wish list of our own heaven: unrestricted pleasures, fantasy, substance, and dynamic visual spectacle brought to life by human imagination to be enjoyed without any regret or conviction. No part of the Las Vegas strip is natural, it is all built by human hands. Mike Erre once called it something to the effect of the height of the human ambition. In other words, it’s the best humans can come up with to make people happy.

When asked what heaven might be like, as a child I used to imagine perfect, unending versions of my favorite fast food, rides with no lines I could ride over and over again, and a huge home beyond any mansion I had seen on earth (with lots of slides). It was my human minds imagination of heaven. So when different pastor’s tried to insinuate that heaven was an eternal worship service where we would be in the literal presence of God, my heart sank a little. The music would probably be subpar, and I’d have to feign interest for 24 hours a day. That’s not much pleasure and fun at all. Where are the attractions and endless videogames on giant TV screens I had dreamed about as a child?

Christmas is built on many of the same ideals. Its traditions are meant to trigger happiness, and I enjoy them all quite a bit. It is undoubtedly my favorite time of the year. But as adults, the same Christmas traditions don’t generate the same level of happiness they once use to. Darin McWaters recently gave the distinction between happiness and joy – That happiness could be manufactured but joy was the feeling or experience of something deeper.

The point is this: If heaven is a place created by human imagination, it probably won’t be all that great. I bet it would get boring after a short period of time. If it is one huge cosmic Disneyland or Las Vegas, we will get bored after some period of time. The sparkles on the buildings and the noises we imagine to be heard will inevitably leave us wanting more. Or, if it were an endless hedonistic playground with no consequence, the lack of any real intimacy would start to corrode our happiness like rust on an old aluminum can.

So what about joy? I frequently experience joy in unexpected gifts and in nature. A loving smile from my wife that is generated by nothing more than her love for me. Wondering and being amazed at streams of water that look and sound brilliant with life existing below its surfaces. I experience joy in things that are beautiful such as great song or a sunset that is too colorful for words. In each experience, I often am left thinking that something, someone, somehow is far bigger than me orchestrating these feelings and vistas words and descriptions can’t illustrate. Something divine is being revealed, even if as a small glimpse.

With happiness, I often find it in things triggered by human imagination. Joy however leads me to experience the Divine. Therefore, when I think about my human visions of heaven, I am convinced that my mind and heart do not assume much of God. I do not assume that He is interesting or beautiful in a way that might leave me in awe and worship for an eternity. I do not assume He is interesting enough to look at and enjoy. I frequently find myself assuming that He is a system of decent ideas for a happy life. He moves and exists based on my expectations and commands of Him, not for who He truly is.

A.W. Tozer, Diedrich Boenhoeffer, and John Piper frequently wrote/write about a God who is interesting in a way that we would find ultimate satisfaction. Or perhaps, a God who in us created more longing for Him because what He offered far outclasses every human experience imaginable, even the ones that cause us to think of Him. Any concept in my human brain to approach who He must be is woefully inadequate. Heaven won’t be Disneyland, Las Vegas, or an eternal church service. Those things may excite or be a letdown for others, but none of them assume that God is anything other than a mental construction of the human imagination. It would be false to assume that He is the annual pass distributor to a cosmic playground of unfathomable pleasure. In fact, He is something I ought to take the greatest pleasure of life in if He is indeed so great.

If He is bigger and more interesting than I assume Him to be, the greatest deception I face everyday is to consider Him anything less than who He truly is. I’m left feeling really curious about what it will be like to be in His presence. If God indeed is not the construction of human emotions, feelings, and ideals, I certainly won’t have anything human to say.

Christ -- The Sign for All People

Christian Buckley — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:07:53 -0800

Luke 2:12 & 34

December 25, 2011

Christ -- The Sign for All People

I like everything about Christmas - the lights, decorations, trees, and festivity of almost every public space. I like finding gifts that express my great love and thanksgiving for those in my life. I like Christmas movies (especially Charlie Brown), cookies, cards, and the general sentiment that something is different. There is a communal anticipation, a hope, a looking forward to the morning of Christmas. For a moment, the world seems to pause and everyone is aware that the day is different.

And every year I read The Story (Luke 2) and am re-amazed by the obvious fact that the single greatest birth story of all time is covered in about two pages of text. Every year I want more, I want to ask the Shepherds questions and find out how Joseph really felt seeing his young love, Mary, go into labor in the most inhospitable of places. I want the text to give me something – and this year it gave me the word “sign” and it gave it to me twice.

In Luke 2:12, the angel tells the shepherds, “…this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” Then in Luke 2:34, Simeon says that Christ the child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel and to be a sign that will be opposed and spoken against, revealing the hearts of many.

After reading and re-reading the passages I began to ask myself what it means that Christ is a sign and why the concept is included twice in Chapter two.

I reasoned a couple of things:

In verse 12, the sign that is being given to the shepherds is practical, directional, or for purpose of identification. The word connotes that the angel was trying to give the shepherds information that would direct them to the Christ child rather than any other baby in Bethlehem. I get that. But why would simple directions have been included by Luke and the Holy Spirit so that the words would be read over and over and over again for all time? Why didn’t the angel say something more profound, after all, this was the announcement of God’s incarnation. Was something more being identified for us? Maybe the sign was something more than the angle just saying, “Hey – look over there.”

In verse 34, the word sign means a warning, caution, or point of alarm. Christ the sign would be a dividing rod for the nation of Israel no doubt. But Christ is a sign of something more – a sign that would be opposed in such a way that hearts would be revealed. Perhaps Simeon and the Holy Spirit were also making clear that the birth of Christ, the incarnation of God, should be taken as a sign worthy of reflective pause because it would divide all of humanity.

Christ the sign. Sign of what? Sign to whom?

For nearly 2000 years, all of humanity has stopped each year to mark the birth of Christ. History has been defined by the event and at least in America, it is probably the only event that is universally recognized as a practical point of demarcation. Christmas is a stop sign of sorts on the way to a new year.

This year, all of humanity will stop for a moment because Christ was born as a baby at a specific time, in a specific place, to a real set of parents. The birth of Christ is a historical fact and, in retrospect, it is apparent that God has made the birth of His Son the singular point of history and the calendar year we now live by. Perhaps in a way, God was saying in effect, “Every year you are going to get a practical reminder that my Son was born, it was important, and I just want to remind you it happened.”

You don’t have to read the bible, go to church, or be a follower of Christ to get the sign. God has made it so clear that for almost 2000 years, all of humanity has been reminded, like it or not, that Jesus was born. In all its secular glory, Christmas remains the greatest single evangelistic event on earth. No matter what the effort, there is simply no way to take Christ’s name and the historical fact of His birth, out of the word Christmas. God, in his infinite wisdom, created Christmas so that every year His creation would get a practical reminder that His son was born.

But it wasn’t just a point to remember, like the date Columbus discovered America or your own date of birth. It isn’t just another date. Every year all of humanity is given the chance to pause and reflect on the warning that Christ was and is. He changed everything. His human story began and the story of humanity dramatically shifted. Every year we are given the chance to stop and reflect. We can take notice and bow to His lordship, or we can ignore the warning, overlook the opportunity, and move forward as if nothing important has happened.

That night God became man. Every year He points us to it and thereby provides an annual opportunity for the lost to see Him, the sick to touch Him, and the broken to feel Him. Every year most of us just overlook the sign. Like the countless numbers of people in Bethlehem at Christ’s birth, we walk right by the manger, never stopping to consider that God just made himself man so that man could be reconciled to God.

How amazing it is that every year God gives us the chance to stop and consider that the birth of Christ changed everything for everyone for all time. Every year God is asking us a simple question: “What will you do with my baby?”

This will be a sign unto you – Christmas.

Rethinking Education for Pastors: Why I am Underwhelmed

Kyle Strobel — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:31:42 -0800

To start this post, let me begin with several qualifications: First, I think that theological education has some serious meditation to do concerning its task. Second, I think the overall model / approach upon which we’ve built is flawed. Third, I am excited about virtually anything that seeks to think creatively about this. In comes Mike Breen. Mike Breen, who I know little about but have heard good things, posted this back in November. It is a wholesale engagement with the kinds of worries I have. In light of that, let me again state some qualifications: First, I know nothing about this other than this post. Second, if I saw this right when I graduated seminary I probably would have called him up and said, “Sign me up and tell me what to do.” Third, I have some doubts about some of the statistics in the video, but for the purpose of this discussion lets assume they are true.

Now, qualifications aside, I was left frustrated by this post. But why? Why would I be frustrated by someone who is, for all practical purposes, hitting all of my sweet-spots? I actually found myself asking this exact question at times. Let me try and point to some issues I think are inherent to this project (keeping in mind how limited my knowledge of it is).

First, it is built on over-simplification. The “Christendom” versus “post-Christendom” divide is helpful for sermons but not for academic discourse. Things are just not so simple. Furthermore, keeping in mind my ignorance of their overall plan, this seems steeped in the present evangelical culture. In other words, based on how evangelicals are intuitively thinking about things, their overall approach makes perfect sense. That worries me. This feels no different than the megachurch mentality they oppose. In light of that claim, note the inherent pragmatism to the message. We have statistics, we have an action plan, and we can use Jesus as the model. But is this right? It strikes me that it is not. Again, over-simplification seems to govern the day (maybe this was just for the sake of the video?) Also, in light of their allergy to the megachurches and the “business” model (again, no complaints here), it seems to me that they have not dug deep enough to the pragmatist idolatry that fueled the errors they worry about. In other words, they could be trying to build on the same broken foundation (even as they claim they are doing the opposite in their video).

Following the present culture, it strikes me that we have another case of Jesus vs. Paul (and by Paul I mean the rest of the NT). As a side note, if you haven’t noticed this phenomena, watch for it. It is pervasive. I think it gained popularity through the emergent church conversation, particularly the more radical ends, but it is a view that is becoming “normal.” Notice how quickly we can just say: “Well Jesus did it this way, therefore this must be a model.” There is a pragmatism and a lack of a robust biblical vision (or so it strikes me).

Second, I was struck by the odd feeling that I would have loved this earlier in my life, but now I am left with much hesitancy. Why? First, I think that my earlier point about pragmatism is again wielding its head. The seminary grads I talk to almost all want pragmatic ways to fix things. I tend to hand them Eugene Peterson. In other words, starting from what seminary grads want doesn’t necessarily lead us anywhere. I am again struck by how similar this seems to be to the megachurch movement these guys reject. I grew up at Willow Creek, and it feels the same to me. We start with statistics, move to what makes intuive sense, and then build a common-sensical model based on New Testament narratives. Is this just the same old evangelical game? The fact that high-up on the list of “to-dos” to get this thing going was developing a savvy video strikes me that the answer would be: “Yes.”

Third, I was struck by how much I disliked the terms “character” and “compentence.” Both strike me as inherently secular. As an advocate of the spiritual formation conversation, I quiver when I see terms like this. Maybe there is much more depth to them than strike me at first glance? I don’t know. To me, this again feels American (or Western would probably be more adequate). It thinks of education in terms of trade schools. Furthermore, there was a tinge of that classic evangelical inclination that there was the Acts 2 church that lasted for a generation and then everything has gone 100% wrong ever since. Therefore, what we need to do is to just recover that church. I don’t know if that is there (it is certainly ubiquitous in the evangelicalism I grew up in), but if nothing else, some form of that inclination is still floating around. There just doesn’t seem to be a lot of theological depth in a discussion of theological education.

Fourth, other than reference to the importance of the mission of God (whose importance is not questioned here), there really isn’t any focus on how thinking Christianly is at the heart of our participation in the mission of God. 1 Corinthians would be helpful here. Again, with the last point, it seems like the mission of God was picked up at random with no other theological structures in place. And maybe it is here that my real frustration lies. Rather than theology I find common-sensicalism.

Fifth, is the problem the model of education, or is the problem our ideal of education? Both, no doubt, have their problems, but which is more central? I would point to the total lack of theological education over the last generation, where theology itself was seen as an end rather than an aid to meeting Christ in the scriptures (see Stephen Holmes’ post for some excellent thoughts on this). Rather than a wholesale rejection of the model, why don’t we start asking new questions about how that model can be more faithful to the call of the church? While I used to be on their side of things, wanting to rethink everything from the ground up, it is my new inclination that a more fruitful endeavor would be to rework the model from within it. This is not just a pragmatic claim, but I have a lot in mind when I suggest this. Maybe we can discuss this. I should say that I was in an innovative seminary program designed with many of the same worries as Breen’s, and it did deal with (in my mind) many of their worries (not to diminish other major issues such as the financial, etc.).

Last, the post and video point to two distinct issues that they believe are interrelated: the church and the seminary. I wonder if we would explore the relationship between these in more detail if that would help. For instance, I know few churches who really take a role in future pastor’s and missionary’s development (spiritual, financial, etc.). I wonder if the seminary is often required to hold a load a bit too large? Anyone who has taught an introductory class at a seminary can recognize how low biblical and theological knowledge truly is, as well as an understanding of the Christian life. It is no surprise that three years later they don’t feel equipped for ministry.

In the end, I like the questions, I like the desire, but I am left with much more hesitancy than excitement. It has too much of the feel of the evangelicalism that continues to say: “I know, we should just start from scratch;” and “Finally, I have come around to fix everything.” What are your thoughts? Am I being too harsh? Am I totally off about what they are doing? What do you think?

Trusting God Instead of Self

Dave Sterrett — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:16:33 -0800

In my book, Why Trust Jesus?, I refer to Augustine’s journey and wrestle with trust, but as I have been taking a course this semester at the University of Dallas with Dr. William Frank, I decided to come back and revisit that theme of trust. I still agree with what I wrote in my book, Why Trust Jesus? but I wanted share another one of my short papers that I wrote for this class. I will eventually submit a couple more papers on this Conversant blog about Augustine. If you have read the Confessions multiple times or are brand new in studying Augustine, please write your comments and let me know what you have observed in the text.

In Book VIII of Confessions, Augustine recollects the experience of internal turmoil, indecisiveness, self -knowledge, and temptation of old memories and habits. Augustine encounters Lady Continence, urging him to trust God. Throughout this eighth book, we see multiple pictures and stories, each in its unique way, reinforcing one of this book’s main themes of trusting God rather than self. As Continence speaks, trust seems to be such a simple act, but complex emotions including fear, lust and pride are at stake. Continence challenges, Augustine, "Why do you stand on yourself, and thus stand not at all? Cast yourself on him. Have no fear. He will not draw back and let you fall. Cast yourself trustfully on him: he will receive you and he will heal you.”[1] Trusting God, specifically through Jesus Christ, was included in the final passage that brought a peaceful light streaming into Augustine’s soul. “Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in strife, and envying; but put you on the Lord Jesus Chris, and make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence.”[2]

Contrary to trusting God, trusting in self could include the comfortable dependence on temporary pleasures and lusts of flesh, like “drunkenness,” or lust of the eyes, “impurities” or the pride of life, such as “envy.” The Bishop Augustine reflecting on this encounter with the lady of continence, says, “hosts of youths, men and women of every age, grace widows and aged virgins…were born of you, O Lord, her spouse.”[3] She smiles at the young Augustine and says, “Cannot you do what these youths and these maidens do?”[4] This challenge not only challenges the young Augustine to consider the simple of faith of uneducated, but also seems to be climatic of these previous stories in the book that the Bishop Augustine has told.

Earlier in the book, Augustine recalled how Simplicianus, who was mentor of Ambrose, told Augustine a story about Victorinus. The story of Victorinus was the first of several stories of showing how a person, with influence in the eyes of the world, at one point, gave up trust in self to “cast themselves trustfully on God.”[5] James O’Donnell’s summarizes the book: “Book Eight, consists almost entirely of a series of specific recalled episodes; the first two (conversations with Simplicianus and Ponticianus) containing embedded narratives of other conversation stories, the third (the garden scene) being Augustine’s own conversion story.” [6]

Victorinus was a Roman rhetorician, with wider fame than Augustine. For a while, Victorinus was convinced intellectually that Christianity was true, but did not want to submit his will and trust to the worship of the Holy Eucharist. Finally he submitted and made a public profession of faith. Previously, Augustine wrote on his own intellectual conversation, but the conversion of the heart, includes a decision of trust. The older bishop Augustine now sees the similarity of both conversion stories of Victorinus and himself. O’Donnell writes, “Nowhere in book eight, does Augustine offer the slightest suggestion that he had any remaining intellectual doubts about Christianity.”[7] This indicates that the purpose of this book is to show the will of decision, the attitude of the heart and surrender of trust.

Augustine references multiple times, “the world.” Concerning his contemplation of Victorinus, he mentions, “Thus by the burdens of this world I was sweetly weighed down, just as a man often is in sleep.”[8] As Augustine mentions “world” and “self,” he seems to be indicating a spiritual dimension. According to Augustine, “self” is not just the physical, materialistic body of Manichaeism. Neither is the “world” always, purely the physical world. It is true that Augustine’s struggle was with the material world to some extent, as he recollects his transition from Manichaeism to the ideas of Neo-Platonism. He recalls Platonism persuading his mind away from the philosophical materialism of Manichaeism. However, Augustine, who references St. Paul’s letters of Romans and Ephesians throughout this books, wrote, “Thus I understood from my own experience what I had read, how ‘the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.’”[9]

As Augustine’s battle is not entirely the physical world (though the physical can be included), he seems to be referring to the world defined by St. John in 1 John 2:15-17. Earlier, the Bishop Augustine had referenced, St. John who wrote, “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.”[10] It seems that St. John, whom Augustine alludes, was bringing a clarification in terms, that the world does not mean just the physical world, rather than the ‘lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and pride of life.’” Otherwise St. John (and Augustine) would seem to be contradicting himself, in his gospel account of Christ. John wrote, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”[11] So the “world” is not merely physical, but can also include the soul’s inward desires and choices towards lust and pride.

Next Augustine has a conversation with Ponticianus. Ponticianus speaks of the courtiers of Trier who gave up everything that had to follow God. He references the influence of the men reading Anthony, the Egyptian monk, who grew up in wealth yet forsook it. Carl Vaught says, “Augustine’s shame intensifies as Ponticianus continues to speak, and hidden dimensions of himself of which he has been unaware for so long begin to emerge from behind his back. When his friend has finished his story and leaves Augustine standing in the garden with Alypius, the young Rhetorician begins to talk to himself. He lashes his soul to make it follow his will; and the ethical side of himself no longer winks at his sin (8.7.18). Yet in this moment of perplexity and indecision, he continues to turn away from the transformation he seeks.”[12]

Augustine has wanted success has a rhetorician, yet he is still holding to not only pride, but specifically lust. It was not that anything was wrong specifically, intrinsically with the material goods of this world including bodies and possessions, but Augustine, must as Continence says himself trustfully on God. This indicates Augustine no longer trusting finite goods, nor trusting his own false infinitude. Collin Starnes says, “The problem with these finite goods was simply that they were finite. The difficulty was not that nature was evil as such, but its goods were temporal and limited and in this way they were inadequate to his rational desire for the eternal and infinite good.”[13] Starnes adds, “Sexual desires were the main thing that held him in the world and so the forms in which he saw Continence were examples of sexual chastity. As opposed to nature’s way which urged Augustine to an infinite pursuit of finite goods, Continence (=the church) invited him to follow a single way to the infinite good.”[14] In chapter twelve, soon after hearing the voice a child, Augustine will think again about Anthony forsaking all earthly pursuits to trust that he will have treasure in heaven.

Augustine believed that Christianity is true, but he knew that he had to surrender his trust just like Anthony and the others in this book of VIII. Augustine opened the book, and the chapter in which his eyes fell told him to put on Christ and make no provision for the flesh. Thus, Augustine finally submitted to the words of continence, to not stand on his own self, but to cast himself trustfully on God.

[1] Confessions 8.11.27

[2] Romans 13:14 cited, Confessions 8.12.29

[3] Confessions 8.11.27

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] James O’Donnell, Augustine’s Confessions, Vol. III. Commentary, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 3.

[7] James O’Donnell, Augustine’s Confessions, Vol. III. Commentary, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 8.

[8] Confessions, 8.5.2

[9] Ibid.

[10] 1 John 2:15-17 NIV

[11] John 3:16 NIV

[12] Carl G. Vaught, Encounters with God in Augustine’s Confessions, Books VII-IX, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004), 84.

[13] Colin Starnes, Augustine’s Conversion, (Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University Press, 1990), 230-231.

[14] Starnes, 231.

The Metaphysical Nature of Sin in Augustine’s Pear Theft and Theater

Dave Sterrett — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:18:20 -0700

In Book two, of the Confessions, Augustine recollected the evening in which, late one night, he and his buddies stole pears from his neighbor’s vineyard. At first reading, this does not seem like too big of a deal. Obviously, most ethical theories understand that stealing is wrong, but do not most boys steal at some point in their lives? Why would stealing fulfill Augustine’s deep description of depth of foul lust and carnality in the opening in this book: “I wish to bring back to mind my past foulness and the carnal corruptions of my soul.”[1] Augustine wrote, “For in my youth, I burned to get my fill of hellish things. I dared to run wild in different ways of love.”[2] Burning to get his fill of hellish things, does not seem to describe a few young teenagers stealing pears from a neighbor’s orchid and feeding them to pigs. But Augustine’s aim is not merely autobiographical, to tell stories of his hell raising pear theft, but to allow the reader to see the metaphysical nature of sin. Carl Vaught reminds the reader, “The pear-stealing episode is not simply Augustine’s story, but also our own.”[3]

In these early stories like that of the pear, theft as well the theater scene, Augustine described his sin as disorder and movement into nothingness. Colin Starnes wrote, “Unlike animals, man can steal because he places the things in the world in a rational relationship with himself.”[4] Augustine begins the pear theft story by simply stating that he sinned against God by rebelling against God’s written revelation, but also the natural law written on the hearts of men. Augustine did not need the pears, but he willed to commit theft and drove himself into destruction.

Augustine also revealed that sin is the denial of the rationality, which distinguishes human beings from other creatures. Starnes seems to be in agreement with Vaught on this point. Starnes said that this is pure violation of the law of non-contradiction. He wrote, “Animals cannot steal because they ‘know’ no other form of ownership than immediate possession. But, having once recognized the rational ordering of things- ‘the pear belong to my neighbor’- the thief goes on, in one and the same breath, to deny that order to suit his own particular interest- the pears are mind. This is the purest self-contraction which, in relation to property, is the universal form of theft.”[5] Theft can only be done by humans, but the action self contradicts human nature, because it does not consider the rationality of other persons nor himself.

Augustine, later in book two, wrote about a division of the goods that God has placed in the universe. When Augustine denied the law, in order obtain a pretended liberty, he imitated God, by feeling a false sense of omnipotence. He sought to break God’s rational order as he willingly sought sin for its own sake. Augustine therefore showed us that the root of sin has nothing to do with the pears in of themselves. He wrote several times in book two that he did not need the pears, nor was he hungry. “But I willed to commit theft, and I did so, not because I was driven to it by any need.”[6]

Starnes provided a clear description by calling Augustine’s descent the negation of being. “He has shown that in his adolescence he willed nothing less than the negation of being, life and truth of the universe as a whole. Through his fornications and through the theft of pears he had tried to pervert the natural and rational orders, themselves, considered qua orders, to his own private desires. And in both, but in the latter especially and self-consciously, he set himself in absolute opposition to the universe and to the designs of its maker.” [7] Augustine’s sin became negation of being.

Augustine says that he turned away from God and therefore erred. He implies that err is missing the mark of God’s moral nature. Because Augustine turns from God’s nature, he becomes a wasteland. Though God’s character is unchanging, Augustine moves into a changing spiral of longing and thirsting after counterfeit and self-destruction.

Just as the pear theft gave Augustine a counterfeit sense of God’s metaphysical attribute of God’s omnipotence, the theater provides Augustine a counterfeit experience of God’s moral attributes. God in his nature is merciful, love, joy and just. However, Augustine sought a counterfeit of these attributes in the theater. He watches a counterfeit of love on the stage, but it is not true love. For true love takes action of providing and protecting. Augustine experienced a feeling a love, but did not have to commit to the actors of stage. He felt mercy but does not have to show justice. The more moved Augustine’s heart longs for the fictions, the less he is free. Though God in his nature is free, Augustine rejected God’s character and turned to counterfeit freedom that only leads to bondage. Carl Vaught observed that sin is that which is counterfeit. “The theater is filled with images of his own misery and because he can identify his own predicament with what he sees depicted there. On the other hand, he distances himself from the theater by insisting that he does not want the tragic events enacted there to happen to himself. As a consequence, his love for the theater becomes a counterfeit version of his life and a counterfeit solution to the problems generated by his own misery.”[8] Longing for fictions provided counterfeit, but took away true freedom.

The sin of Augustine’s heart in the theater, is encountering a low level of being. Vaught wrote, “they point away from the themselves to the nihil to which the pear-stealing episode calls our attention.”[9] Though we see distinction between the two sins, the movement towards nothingness is parallel in both the pear story and theater scene. The actors are not real and their love is not as good as true love in real life. Likewise, earlier Augustine had stolen the pears, even though they did not look, nor taste as good as the ones in his own vineyard. Augustine said that he would not have stolen the pears alone, but later he said that friendships were nothing.[10] This is evil without purpose, a denial of humanness and the intrinsic knowledge of laws of logic. Vaught described this sin: “willfullness plunges beneath the continuum of finite goods, displaying an infinite attachment of its own infinitude.”[11] Augustine’s illusion of his own infinitude negates the love of knowing and finding rest in God. Sin is a disorder, illusion, and lunge into bondage and ultimately nothingness. Augustine has shown as that sin descends in lower levels moving in a negation of being, but it often begins with the exchange of the truth for a lie “tending down towards lower things, forgets you, its creator, and loves your creature more than yourself.”[12]

[1] Augustine, Confessions, 2.1.1.

[2] Augustine, 2.1.1.

[3] Carl G. Vaught, The Journey Toward God in Augustine’s Confessions, Books I-IV, (New York: State University of New York Press, 2003), 51.

[4] Colin Starnes, Augustine’s Conversions, (Ontario: Wilfried Laurier University Press, 1990) 40.

[5] Ibid.

[6]Confessions 2.4.9.

[7] Starnes, 40.

[8] Vaught, 69.

[9] Ibid., 72.

[10] Augustine 2.8.16.

[11] Vaught, 61.

[12] Augustine 2.3.6.

Israel's Struggle: A Historical Perspective Pt. 1

Matt Chapin — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:29:30 -0700

Genesis 32:28 records Jacob, the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham, having his name changed to Israel. Why? The text tells us it is, “because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.” What a prophetic word, with a promise.

The context of the passage shows us that it was Jacob who wrestled the angel and won, but the message from the angel and name Israel takes on much more theological significance than we may typically think. To understand this more it will be helpful to take a macro view of the Israelites heritage through the Old Testament.

Moses and Elijah are two Old Testament heroes of the faith who were worn out by the lack of faith and depravity possessed by God’s chosen people. In 1 Kings 19:10 Elijah communicates his plight to the Lord of how the Israelites have rejected God’s covenant (Mosaic) and put the prophets to death. Elijah saw himself as next in line the line of fire and was wondering where hope for Israel was to be found. God replied that he had reserved seven thousand in Israel. (1 Kings 19:18)

Moses’ frustrations with the Israelites are well documented throughout the Law. Numbers 20:1-13 tells us the quarrels the people had with Moses over the lack of abundance they found in the desert. God asked Moses to speak to the rock and it would provide water, but Moses becomes angry with the people’s obstinacy and he struck the rock instead. As a result God did not let Moses enter the Promised Land.

Israel’s struggle with men is just as old as their struggle with God. In 2 Chron. 12:3-4 Solomon’s son Rehoboam is attacked by the king of Egypt. The name of the Egyptian king is Shishak, and he brought against Israel a massive army: “twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen and the innumerable troops of Libyans, Sukkites and Cushites that came with him from Egypt,”. (2 Chron. 12:3) The Sukkites are an unidentified group, but most likely they are from N. Africa since the other three nations mentioned in this text launch their attack from Egypt. Cush is considered part of modern day Ethiopia. The outcome of this battle was that Israel was defeated but not destroyed.

The nation of Israel divided into two kingdoms shortly after the reign of Rehoboam. The division was in 930 B.C. The northern kingdom was Israel, and the southern kingdom was Judah. Jerusalem was the dividing line between the north and south, Jerusalem being part of the south. Samaria became the new capitol for the northern kingdom and 1 Kings 20:1-30 describes Israel’s king Ahab, fighting against the Arameans, which is modern day Syria. The Arameans also came against Israel with a massive army and lost over a hundred and twenty seven thousand troops. (1 Kings 20:29-30)

Nearly two hundred years later, between 724-722 B.C. Israel was invaded, the capitol Samaria collapsed, and the people were sent into exile by the king of Assyria. Assyria was a geographic region which today makes up four nations: Syria, Northern Iraq, Eastern Turkey, and a sliver of Iran.

The southern kingdom, Judah, survived as a sovereign nation until it was invaded by the Babylonian Empire. Babylon is a city in the nation of Iraq. The Babylonians invaded Judah three times, each time taking groups of Israelites into captivity. The last invasion and exile, including the destruction of Jerusalem, was in 586 B.C.

Despite Israel’s removal from the Promised Land, God in his mercy and love did not cast Israel permanently to the side. II Chronicles 36:14-21 summarizes the reasons God allowed his people into captivity and the text reveals the last of the survivors who went into exile were called “the remnant”. (II Chr. 36: 20) In fulfillment of the prophet Jeremiah’s words found in Jeremiah 29:10 “the remnant” in Babylon were allowed to return to their homeland.

What makes Israel’s name so theologically rich is since their existence as a nation, Israel has consistently struggled with God and men. I think this struggle relates to their spiritual condition before God, as well as the national implications between other nations. In my next blog I’ll continue on this theme of Israel’s struggle with God and men, as it relates to history from the time of Christ to today, and how can we expect Israel to overcome?