John Gresham Machen, Doubt, and Liberalism
1913-1915 were three of the most important years in the life of John Gresham Machen. He had been on the verge of de-converting from Christianity for eight years previous to this, yet here he finally realized the truthfulness of historic Biblical Christianity, and completed his ordination. Interestingly enough, his struggle with Christianity was not with atheism (as is common today), but with liberalism, which was becoming popular among intellectual circles in the United States at that time.
Liberal Christianity (also called modern liberalism) assumed science discounted the supernatural claims of the Bible, but attempted to sustain religion by separating science and religion. Liberalism also employed the high-critical method of interpreting the Bible (which assumes the Bible as the work merely of men with no aid by the Holy Spirit). Liberalism passed off historical records of supernatural events as pseudo-historical, or at best metaphorical.
Many in that day did not see the importance of the supernatural elements within Christianity. As long as there was still a place to go on Sunday mornings, songs to be sung, and a god up in heaven, everyone could all live happy moral lives and call themselves Christians.
Machen disagreed. He thought this was intellectually dishonest, and, when he sided with historic Christianity, religiously dangerous.
In my last post, I wrote about how some Christians get too worked up over small issues, but there is the other extreme. In an attempt to appease critics, some Christians can treat essentials of the faith as “small” issues, and thus leech Christianity of its core message. Machen encountered an instance of just that.
Machen later outlined why he would not call liberalism a form of Christianity in his controversial book Christianity and Liberalism. It was written to evangelicals in 1921. This book is still applicable today. In this book, Machen argues, “Christianity and liberalism must be regarded as two separate religions because of their presuppositional differences” (7-8). Liberalism discounts the Bible as historically unreliable. Machen notes that the New Testament idea of salvation is rooted in the historical figure of Jesus, his deity, his death, and his resurrection. Therefore, to discount the Jesus of the gospels is to loose the grounds for a Biblical concept of salvation.
Paul justifies his belief that Jesus was in fact the Messiah, the Son of God, God in the flesh, on Jesus’ resurrection. If we discount the resurrection, Jesus is left a mere man. He may have been a very good man, maybe even the greatest man that ever lived, but he would not be a man great enough to save mankind. After all, he could not even save himself. There are truths that are at the heart of Christianity. The historicity of the Bible and the deity of Christ are two of them.
This is a point at which unity in Christ is no longer possible because liberalism throws the Christ of the Bible out the window. This does not mean we should scream ‘Heretic!’ when someone asks an honest question about seemingly apparent contradictions in the Bible. On the contrary, J. Gresham Machen took a proper approach to the issue. He asked his questions openly and honestly. He read, researched, and wrote doubting for eight years. However, he delayed during this time in seeking ordination. He believed he would be intellectually dishonest in doing so. If we give up the Christ of the Bible, we have given up Christianity.
Further Reading:
Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen
Toward a Sure Faith by Terry Chrisope
-A revised form of his doctoral dissertation, historian Chrisope explains Machen’s early life, as he doubted his faith
Posts
Hmm….I think there are some interesting points in this post, but I am going to have to disagree and perhaps redirect much of it.
To utilize the historical-critical methods of studying Scripture is reverent and intellectually honest. To dismiss “liberalism” with such caricatures as offered above is not only personally offensive, but demonstrably ignorant. We must sharpen our tools a bit here — after all, it is important for the more conservative historical critics to be aware of the current debates, how exegesis is done, etc…perhaps reading N.T. Wright instead of something published in 1921.
Researching the historicity of the Bible is held true by both the most liberal and conservative of believers that I know. Neither swears allegiance to Jesus more sincerely than the other. The sooner each camp realizes this, the better off we will be. I would be quick to point out the struggles each has faced [for instance, it seems to me that a secularized (notice, not "liberal") Christianity is no longer faith but a culturally relevant pattern of 'loving' anchored in pseudo-religious terms, and on the ultra conservative side the deification of the Bible and the sins of fundamentalism], however I find it exceedingly ignorant to dismiss one as the bastard son of the authentic Christianity. How proud!
The overarching claim that liberal Christianity counts the Bible as “historically unreliable” depends (fittingly enough) upon what the heck you are talking about. What chapter and verse? We get into unnecessary trouble when we aren’t careful about what it is we mean to say. If I was to raise a question to you, for instance, about anachronisms within the text, should this be for cause of our separation? I would certainly hope not! We could agree to disagree: if I could offer a reasoned defense of the mistake, then I could again defend the Bible as inerrant. However, if you could indeed prove to me that the case does offer us an example of inconsistency, we might look closer at the context, the author and source tradition, etc.
In other words, liberalism does not deprive the Christian of allegiance to Christ. I resent that. For many believers, the sincere study of Scripture through historical-critical methodology is enriching, indeed, often deeply reverent as it is a means of getting closer to the intentions of the biblical authors.
I think much more could be said to respond to this, but with all sincerity, I do mean to offer a rebuttal because I can’t think of a liberal Christian scholar who would concede that this is an accurate portrayal of their faith and work. Is liberalism here the Jesus Seminar or the mass of scholars and the debates between them? Which is it?
In closing I will passionately affirm your note on the resurrection and key doctrinal issues. We must revere these points and be critical and skeptical of the theories posited by each and every scholar especially on the basis of something like the resurrection. For the mass of Christians, believing that the resurrection of Christ is suprahistorical and thus “merely” symbolic will never cut it, and so, unsurprisingly, such a view will never hold much water in the churches. However, young-earth creationists are (hopefully about to be) finding that their defenses of a 6,000 year old earth are grossly inadequate. It is imperative that we begin to consider the use of poetry and symbol in the Bible instead of wallowing in the waters of lazy literalism. (At least on this front, which, I suppose, is rightly critical.)
Let’s freshen our perspectives and open our minds to the debates that are alive today! The bulk of this has been done since 1921, so as relevant as Machen’s legacy might be, I would pose the challenge of getting up to date with contemporary theology and biblical criticism. Yea?
Much lovins,
chris
To clarify, the secularized “Christianity” that I mentioned in the previous post is NOT to be misunderstood as liberalism or liberal Christianity. This is the distinction I had meant to make, and feel as though left unclear.
Under the umbrella of liberal Christianity one can find people with authentic belief, adoration, love, and allegiance to Jesus.
“He believed he would be intellectually dishonest in doing so. If we give up the Christ of the Bible, we have given up Christianity.”
and who is the Christ of the Bible? There’s at least four of them. plus the criticism is there to help you remove your own prejudice, keep the bible from being a mirror of your own bigotry, and help you prepare for the transformational message that the bible has.
this is a rather modernist concept that i don’t fully buy into but i understand it. just as i understand those premodernist who would rather stick to what they “think” the bible says, instead of actually reading it. i tend to go more post-modern. this was an interesting post, i’ll leave it at that.
Chris Nation-
“Perhaps reading N.T. Wright instead of something published in 1921.”
My field is history, which is why I chose Machen and not Wright. Furthermore, I was dealing with an early stage of liberalism in the US. Also, I must point out that to write off an argument because of its date is an informal fallacy.
“Researching the historicity of the Bible is held true by both the most liberal and conservative”
I should hope so. I am very much interested in Biblical criticism, especially lower criticism. However, in this paper I was dealing with theological liberalism in the early 20th century, which discounted any supernatural claim of the Bible (the higher-criticism of that time). This was where Machen struggled (specifically with the virgin birth as an actual event).
You mentioned the “fundamentalists” on one side and the “liberals” on the other. I would like to remind you that these terms had drastically different meanings in the early 1900s, and that Machen refused to be called a fundamentalist.
I’m not sure what to do with the Jesus Seminar. Even the most liberal modern day scholars I have read discount them. I don’t’ think they are really out there for good scholarship at any rate.
“believing that the resurrection of Christ is suprahistorical and thus “merely” symbolic will never cut it”
I’m right with you on the issue of the resurrection, but I would like to point out that the liberals Machen was dealing with would drastically disagree with you. They argued that there was no need for an historical resurrection. Because of this I am curious what your definition of a “liberal Christian” is. I understand that you find lots of “good people” there, but how do you classify a liberal?
I do not affirm “young earth” because the Bible is not clear on the issue. I would say this is an issue not worth dividing over (my last post was on non-essential issues like this one).
The reason I wrote on an issue that is 160 years old is because I believe every philosophic, theological, or political discussion is rooted in history. In order to understand the debate we must go back. This is my reason for studying history.
Luke-
Does truth being personal discount it? Of course we know of Jesus through texts written by people who were influenced by the world around them. We know of Alexander the great in the same way. Yet this does not discount their writings.
Understanding that knowledge is personal but not relativistic I think is the start of a post-critical philosophy. I think with your “pre-modern” and “post-modern” you draw a false dichotomy. There are other options available to us.
Josh -
I am sorry, it wasn’t clear that this post was meant merely as a historical artifact. I do agree with you that studying this old stuff is important, but if we were to spend our lives detailing our disagreements with A.A. Hodge and his roots of fundamentalism, we would have quite a task on our hands! My point is that while Machen’s legacy might be relevant, I think it would behoove conservatives to equip themselves with something more up to date. I’m sure we don’t disagree at all on that - so this is much ado about nothing - but still the point should be made because it seems that countless people that I speak to on these issues might as well be using Hodge in dealing with biblical criticism, again, which is completely inadequate because Hodge hasn’t the benefit of the tools we have today. What has Hodge to do with Marcus Borg or Bart Ehrman?
More later — gotta go to a wedding!!!
Much love,
chris
The statement “something more up to date” peeks my interests. Arguments don’t grow invaild with time. Still, the debate does wear on. I read Ehrman’s “Lost Christianities” while doing a research project on canonization. It seemed to me his argument was circlical.
Prehaps writting “What has Hodge to do with Marcus Borg or Bart Ehrman?” is like asking “What has Bertrand Russell to do with Plantiga?” Although they may be separated by a generation or so, they deal with similar issues, and so though their persons may not debate, their ideas still collide.
“Understanding that knowledge is personal but not relativistic I think is the start of a post-critical philosophy. I think with your “pre-modern” and “post-modern” you draw a false dichotomy. There are other options available to us.”
i agree with going beyond the modernist critical stages, but they do have their worth. what dichotomy would you offer?
Great post – now this is refreshing to read – something to get us thinking and even a ‘line drawn in the sand’. My rebuttal should shake the Christian mindset.
“In an attempt to appease critics, some Christians can treat essentials of the faith as “small” issues, and thus leech Christianity of its core message” (Josh)
Or perhaps restore the core message – and if Machen was any form of biblical scholar as is mentioned in this blog – he might of checked into the fact the whole NT is written from a Jewish perspective and not from a core Christian one (and by that I mean early Christianity in the hands of Gentiles which eventually set the books in place and the dogmas – 300+ AD).
Now, we can all say this has little to do with anything – but it has everything to do with the interpretation of the ‘core message’. Most interpretation become orthodoxy – and very grounded in the traditions from 300 AD on – but we already know full well there isn’t a Jewish teacher in the whole batch anymore…not since after John died (which is a 200 year period for change in interpretation). If history is a pre-cursor of what I see being taught in many churches – the message is in need of some serious repair.
Now this isn’t liberal – but more along the Jewish tradition of prophets seeking change from mistakes made and repeated. It needs to be acknowledged that this faith does not base it’s orthodoxy on a Jewish viewpoint (who were the actual writers of all the texts) – but a supposed Jewish viewpoint that handfuls of people did not know first hand – so they filled in the gaps with their own biases.
And that’s where I start from in my own faith – acknowledging mistakes were made – and this does effect what the actual ‘core message’ is.
“Machen notes that the New Testament idea of salvation is rooted in the historical figure of Jesus, his deity, his death, and his resurrection. Therefore, to discount the Jesus of the gospels is to loose the grounds for a Biblical concept of salvation.” (Josh)
With Machen, does he go on to explain what salvation actually is in this book? Better question, what is the whole biblical concept of salvation (huge misnomer on Machen’s part)?
As for the deity of Jesus – I would say historically it makes no sense at all. But that depends what lenses we use to look back at these historical documents of many Jewish writers – a Jewish perspective or a Greco-Roman one?
If we come at it from a Gentile view – yes Jesus can be God no problem – this was a very accepted norm in parlance of the times – I do believe even Caesar played as a ‘god’ at certain times in Roman history…concept not foreign.
If we come at this from a Jewish perspective (which the writers actually were) – I am very sure there is no way Jesus could be God – that was a breaking of the commandments. Its 2000 years later from that time and the Jewish viewpoint has never wavered one iota on this – there is only One God. They are aware of the Trinity explanations and viewpoints – they don’t hold water in their textual criticism.
So which viewpoint do we use?
“If we discount the resurrection, Jesus is left a mere man” (Josh)
I am absolutely sure now that Machen is towing the line of orthodoxy – for the sake of saving face. He mentions Jesus is just a ‘mere man’ – well this is an extreme position concerning Jesus – he either is God or a mere man – nothing in between correct?
The problem is Jesus can be a mortal person like us, created by God – but also sent by God from the court of God as His messiah – and still accomplish the saving work God sent him to do. After all, this is all ordained by God and not man.
“This is a point at which unity in Christ is no longer possible because liberalism throws the Christ of the Bible out the window” (Josh)
Just who is the Christ of the bible? You sound like you are saying there is some story that runs uniform throughout the whole bible (including the Tanakh) into current orthodoxy – and this is plainly not so. Messianicly there are huge holes to be filled in – unless current Christianity revises it’s version of what the Messiah actually did do (and hasn’t done yet). There is a whole Jewish viewpoint that was swept aside for a Roman Catholic faith for the known world – including dismissal of the law, additions to God’s oneness, and what Jesus really did atone. The story isn’t as clean cut as some statement of faith makes any of us believe – there are a lot of holes.
“He read, researched, and wrote doubting for eight years. However, he delayed during this time in seeking ordination” (Josh)
He’s not really much different than any of us by no stretch – except we write blogs and he used the medium of his day – books. This is not proof of his stance being correct – many do this and come back with differing conclusions (including Ehrmann). I have done this also and came back to this faith with differing conclusions – based on study alone of the texts right in front of me. I tend to think Machen got lazy after 8 years or succumbed to the obvious pressures of faith (really wanting to be part of the system) – and he knew full well if he held differing views than faith he was ‘out’ – and worse ‘persecuted’ by the very church he loved (this is 1921 we are talking about here – not the 2000’s).
Josh,
I just wonder if it is appropriate or accurate to insinuate that Reformed orthodox Christianity and liberal Christianity are two different religions because it seems to follow that one leads to the true Christ and one an impostor, an idol. Again, I think this is a sorry mistake that will continue to be made as men are more situated in their own righteousness than humility (here to the fundamentalists).
As I understand liberal Christianity and myself as a relatively liberal Christian, it seems that here is a faith that seeks to be rooted in one’s experience of God, following Jesus, laying one’s life down at the Cross, bound to the demands and promises of Scripture, and also bound to the integrity and intellectual responsibility that one has in knowing the cultural context of the Bible firmly. Here I see no compromise, and while scholarship at large offers struggle after struggle and new eyes on a lot of things, it is in these doubts and struggles that I grow closer to God — certainty in the uncertainty…
Anyway, there’s a hack-job at a definition! I hope that clarifies a bit where I’m coming from. I would love to read at least one of Machen’s works (aside from his Greek text which apparently we’ll be using in the fall!) to see how his arguments stand the test of time toward the scholars of today. As he separated from the Princeton theologians of the day and the fundamentalists that sprung from them, I wonder if their definitions of “liberalism” differ.
much love,
chris
Also,
“I’m not sure what to do with the Jesus Seminar. Even the most liberal modern day scholars I have read discount them. I don’t’ think they are really out there for good scholarship at any rate.”
1.) If you’re talking about Burton Mack, okay.
2.) But isn’t the Jesus Seminar the most liberal modern day scholars?
3.) With all due respect, to slander a group of scholars with the insinuation that they have a fixed agenda kind of makes me cringe. How would that make you feel? How familiar are you with the Seminar? Maybe I’m just a little bit in love with Marcus Borg, but if you read his books, (although I could be radically deceived) I don’t think he’s out to carve out a ridiculous agenda in scholarship and to thwart us off the path of righteousness. Just a thought.
I’m sure these guys got their degrees with really bad scholarship, too.
Hey Chris,
“Again, I think this is a sorry mistake that will continue to be made as men are more situated in their own righteousness than humility (here to the fundamentalists).”
I agree that this can often be reached through pride, totally. However, to say that all observations with this conclusion are from pride is fallacious. For any community to have identity, there must be some kind of boundaries. Everyone cannot be “right” at the same time (pluralism). If cultural comfort is valued above the Word of God, then we are dangerously close to idolatry (if not there already). Culture must be the lens through which the Gospel is communicated, but not compromised.
Chris, I don’t know where you are coming from theologically. I wish we had hung out more at Truman, and am stoked that we get a chance to exchange ideas now. But there is solid scriptural foundations for discerning boundaries in doctrine and belief. Matthew 7: 14-23; Romans 16:17 for example. Josh is not saying “Bob is not a Christian,” that would be making a judgment only God is allowed to make. However, to say that “this doctrine/belief is idolatry (or not Christian)” is not only permissible, but necessary and called for by scripture.
Brad,
I will definitely concede that not all fundamentalists are so due to their own pride - however, in defending liberal theology, again, I’m awaiting some solid clarification. No one has yet backed up what I perceive to be glaring fallacies and judgments made without much comprehension of what we’re calling liberalism. I find this pitiful.
This being said, I would be hard-pressed to hold back when criticizing fundamentalist Christianity. I think that by-and-large the camp is hostile to scholarship, anti-intellectual, and thus narrow-minded theologically and culturally.
In addition, if you’d allow me to make a bit of an assumption, it seems to me in my brief experience that this field of theology (and especially seminarians) is full of the best of intentions, especially when it comes to upholding tradition and the authority of Scripture. I affirm these, however I would press that more specific and critical attention is necessary in the areas where one is led to say that “we are defending Christianity form a corrupting culture.” The same fear, I charge, is what leads fundamentalists to distrust scholarship because, apparently, it is full of secular human beings who don’t care about doing a good job. Is that a fair assessment? Again, in my experience, No.
As to the solid Scriptural foundations you have set out, is it your point that liberal scholars are wolves in sheep’s clothing? Are these the false prophets of today? Do these hard-working men and women who bear good fruit in their multiple churches and organizations that serve the poor and needy — are they the wolves you wish to condemn?
I could very well ask the same questions to myself and celebrate that some of the most passionate, God-fearing and loving individuals I know are strict fundamentalists. It is ours to embrace the fruits of one another and to encourage that we keep firm in our devotion to Christ. But it will always behoove us to think critically about what methods we are using and what people we are discrediting without any useful analysis. This is my charge to the fundamentalists, one that I have yet to receive a good answer: Why disregard the work of archaeology, history, linguistics, and the like, for the insistence that no authority but the Bible should be allowed? I embrace your single-mindedness in authority, but I reject the ignorance and anti-intellectualism of your practice, which often has terrible consequences.
To Brad and Josh,
Listen, regardless of whether or not you say “Bob is not a Christian,” what follows is obvious, and honestly I don’t care for the rhetoric that says, “One is the Christ of the Bible, and the other….” not because you are making a truth-claim, but because you haven’t coherently demonstrated what it is you are talking about that is the idol and impostor. Are you saying that Marcus Borg’s understanding of Christ is unbiblical? If so, clearly say why — that’s okay, most Christians would agree with you. But you have to do the hard work of showing us how. Otherwise, the same uncritical work and laziness of calling the Jesus Seminar a bunch of quacks persists, and I’ll have to ask you to tell me which ones you are talking about. The worst thing for Christian scholarship is unqualified claims about other scholars and camps of believers. It’s easy to bash and insult without critical analysis. But we’re not called to do what’s easy here.
I don’t want to create dissensions but to urge that less of a caricature is made of liberal Christianity in efforts of better coming to understand one another.
To aim - what doctrine or belief is idolatrous according to Machen that you think is significant given the conversations and debates over historicity and biblical criticism today?
If you could, since your field is history, I see that Machen is to distinguished from Hodge and the fundamentalists of the day theologically — how and why is that?
And for Brad, what specifically are you talking about when you say (quite rightly, and I agree) that the Gospel cannot be compromised by our culture? You seem to be talking about the authority of Scripture, but I am not sure if that’s where you are going or not. Again, with the liberal scholars, I don’t know if you feel as though liberal theology is steered and controlled by a need to appease the culture or what — but if you could clarify I would sincerely appreciate it. If it is indeed the authority of Scripture, to what are you specifically looking at?
much love,
chris
I must point out that the fundamentalism of today is not the same as “fundamentalism” of its early years. There is an anachronism in combining the two. Also, to discredit an idea because the people supporting it are not agreeable is a fallacy.
Some definition of “fundamentalism” is in order. The term was first used around 1900 in a Baptist news paper as “those willing to do battle royal for the Bible.” Historiography has many ways of classifying the movement, and it is always separate from the Fundamentalist Controversy (Scopes Trial). Usually inspiration of the Bible (in the sense the Westminster Confession means it), and the historical reliability of the Bible were are at the heart of the definitions historians lay down. On the issue of there being a distrust of scholarship in the “fundamentalist camp,” I must point out that when liberalism arose in the US in the 1900s, fundamentalism (of the early 1900s) originated in the universities of New England. It continued to have a stronghold there for some time.
As for a definition of liberalism, that is also tricky. It originated in Germany in the 1850s within the ranks of high-criticism, which called into question the truthfulness of the Bible, authorship of the Bible, and the authority of the Bible. It applied modernistic epistemology to the study of scripture. Neo-orthodoxy picked up on the distruction of “religion” by higher-criticism and tried to save it by merging it with existentialism (1920s in Europe, 1950 in North America). The result was that Christianity was severed from its historical background. It was no longer even important if Jesus even really lived, just as long as we believe he did. There are various forms of liberalism, so I will not try to define them all.
“Why disregard the work of archaeology, history, linguistics, and the like, for the insistence that no authority but the Bible should be allowed?”
My answer simply: I don’t disregard the work of archaeology, history, linguistics, and the like for an insistence that no authority but the Bible should be allowed. I am not a foundationalist in my epistemology. Such an insistence is absurd. However, I do not believe that when we properly understand the Bible (and that is really key!) and submit to its authority we are forced to throw away our scholarship. I regard the Bible as a series of historical documents which use languages that are not common today. Thus in order to understand the Bible I must rely upon history and linguistics from the start.
On the issue taking Machen and applying his debate to ours. This is where history gets tricky because application is tricky. Its like when you read a book, and you can come to understand what it says, but you and your buddy might differ as to how it applies today. Machen argued that where the Bible spoke of miracles, miracles took place- supernaturally. This opposed liberalism in his day which said they were either metaphorical, or naturally explainable. Specifically Machen argued for the virgin birth (this was the biggie he struggled with). The historical reliability of the supernatural claims of the Bible remain an important issue today. You have mentioned Ehrman, who argues very similarly to the people Machen debated with.
Chris,
I have been just barely keeping tabs on the conversation, so I apologize if this is an interruption to the flow of the convo, but I have noticed you comment on the Jesus Seminar and NT Wright. I have read some from both Wright and several authors involved in the Jesus seminar, and I would say that Wright does a really good job of taking some of the most inventive and representative claims of the scholars in the Seminar (most notably Crossan) and shown how their conclusions are contrived. I am assuming you have read Jesus and the Victory of God by Wright, so I am curious what your take was on his analysis of the Seminar’s work.
Josh,
Thanks for a good response. I absolutely agree that these terms are anachronistic, that’s why I was asking for a bit of redefinition in the first place. And to be clear, I am not calling YOU out on denying historical criticism, but rather those who do so overtly and often passionately in “the name of the authority of the Word of God.” Again, I agree wholeheartedly with you that when we really understand salvation history and how to read the Bible in context, then we can properly use linguistics and every other tool of criticism (AND vice-versa). This is important in several instances today - especially, as you’ve noted - when dealing with the issue of metaphor and symbol. It is difficult, for instance, given the archaeology of today, to conceive of an exodus including millions of people through the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds. Anyhow…
Mike, YES! N.T. Wright is my favorite combatant of the Jesus Seminar because unlike the scholars from conservative camps that caricaturize their arguments, he understands them and often deepens them even as he rejects their theories. His sensitivity to Second Temple Judaism is some of the best reading out there. It is this sensitivity that I think is more compelling, convincing, and coherent than his counter-part Borg in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions….
gotta go - more later!
lovins,
chris
Chris,
In Re: to the definition fo liberalism…
As with any use of words, certain meanings are assumed, yet not always apparent. You are right to point this out. I was not necessarily saying that ” all liberals” are “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” I know that a common critique of liberal Christianity is the conservative emphasis on doctrine. I was merely trying to root that aspect in biblical justification, and introduce (if it was not already apparent) the possibility that there are those who claim to be Christian who may not be. I FIRMLY believe that this is the case on BOTH ends of the spectrum: both fundamentalists and liberals (not all of course, but some). Both are due to failures in truly understanding the gospel of love and justice, but are expressed quite differently.
“Do these hard-working men and women who bear good fruit in their multiple churches and organizations that serve the poor and needy — are they the wolves you wish to condemn?”
Again, I do not intend to make such a sweeping generalization, and would never condemn. But non-Christians also serve the poor and needy, and bear good fruit as well, but all of this is due to the grace of God, not because they are “good people” (or possibly “good Christians” with your example). I’m not saying it is or isn’t the case, just that the possibility exists, and that doctrinal discernment stems from the biblical command to be wary and guarded, and not necessarily from pride. Does that help clarify?
And for the record, I would not consider myself a “fundamentalist” in the modern connotation. Legalism, verbal abuse, and close-mindedness are not my style. However, in the literal sense of the word (ironic, is it not?) I consider myself a “fundamentalist” in the sense of emphasizing the “fundamentals” of the gospel: justification by faith through the prue unmerited grace of God. Period. To me, this puts the “fun” back into “fundamentalism.”
Chris, I find it pretty ironic that you (rightly) advocate for critical analysis, yet when the methods themselves are critically analyzed, you seem to push back. Be careful that you don’t assume that because I (or anyone else here) focus on doctrine, scriptural authority, or whatever, we are fundamentalists. We hold our Bible firmly, but culture loosely, and we are constantly working to be humbly aware of the difference between the two (i.e. our opinion versus the Bible’s opinion).
“Again, with the liberal scholars, I don’t know if you feel as though liberal theology is steered and controlled by a need to appease the culture or what — but if you could clarify I would sincerely appreciate it.”
Hrmm…. good question. I’d say that’s mostly accurate. But I think that statement transcends the way it is normally used. It is most often used by moralists arguing against drinking alchohol, dancing, or some other restriction that the Bible doesn’t apply. It isn’t that liberal scholars are influenced by pop culture, popular opinion, or whatever else, but they carry certain assumptions to their analysis that is VERY much influenced by culture (yet seem unaware). And this is not to say that non-liberal scholars DON’T carry assumptions, but that their analysis is generally more aware of their assumptions (and to be more sepcific, I am referring mostly to reformed theology, as that is the only “stream” I have enough experience to speak about in an informed way).
For example, when the Jesus seminar coded Jesus’ words on their accuracy, they had very little actual evidence, and was mostly based on several key assumptions (like the existence of the Q Document). Those assumptions are culturally influenced by a default of skepticism.
I hesitate to comment further on that example, as I am mostly unfamiliar with the Jesus Seminar, and would rather not make my own false assumptions. But does that help clarify where I’m coming from?
Brad,
That clarifies quite a bit. I really appreciate it.
Let me pull back if I was accusatory — in no way did I mean to imply that what you are representing is fundamentalism in the generic understanding of the word (I do appreciate the fun you are putting back into the word, tho!).
I am all for the critical analysis of our own methods when doing exegesis, and I welcome the critique of liberal scholarship, especially as much of it must indeed be guided by some carefully woven assumptions as we see how many arguments are crafted (here noting Wright again) when skewing material so that it fits the agenda of a current day issue. My main beef with those ULTRA (and I mean ULTRA) conservatives is that their pretext is with all good intention, but the historicity of the Bible is not a clean and simple field - the ’stick and fork in it and call it a day because God says it’s all true’ mentality isn’t so easy when considering what we’ve uncovered in archaeology. From what I’ve studied in the archaeology of the Middle East and the Biblical frontier, there are several challenges to the notion that the Bible is a history book (at least in the modern sense, which shouldn’t surprise us!). Unless the wool is being pulled over me on this, I don’t think the mass of archaeologists are trying to deceive us about the Egyptians’ records of the exodus. The best and most fascinating stuff we’ve got comes from the Armana tablets/letters, and yet every other year Christians publish REMARKABLE NEWS about Noah’s Ark and chariot wheels from the 14th Centruy BC uncovered on the banks of the Red Sea. To me, as you’ve noted, blame goes on both sides for assuming too much.
I passionately agree with pretty much everything you’ve written, and this helps a ton. Thanks for making my night — I miss being able to have these types of conversation, and now that schools is out, I’m stuck waiting tables and mowing the lawn. Hope this all finds you well.
much lovin
(in Christ),
chris
Chris,
SWEET. That’s good to hear, bro. I would also agree with you in the skepticism of ultra conservative types who, as you point out, are moving out of good intentions, but are nevertheless doing sloppy scholarship. In Re: to archaeology and the exodus, you DEFINITELY need to hit up Tolliver… he’s the man in that area and has a strong interest in it.
Have you had a chance to pick up Tim Keller’s “The Reason For God”? His use of logic and reason to pick apart the faith assumptions (both secular and religious) behind out belief statements (”I believe that _____ ” ) is just mind-blowing. I feel so much more aware of the “stuff” I bring to the table of every conversation, and much more able to critically listen to and analyze the truth claims of others… it is a very enjoyable read. It may help exercise your brain some while you are waiting tables.
BTW, where are you starting seminary in the fall?
Hey brother,
I have seen Keller’s name on a couple different books at the library and Borders, I think, recently. I had never heard of him until a few weeks ago, but with your suggestion I will pick the book up by the end of the week!
TOLLIVER — hit me up with some exodus archaeology! (I’ll implore elsewhere, but since you mentioned it…) How does your research compare to Silberman and Finkelstein?
I’m headed off to Princeton Theological Seminary in September for some more Appold!
lovins in bunchins,
chris
Brad,
I have been watching Dr. Keller’s talk at UC Berkeley on Youtube and it is fascinating. Thank you for the recommendation.
He just said, “I’ll tell you what we need in this world: people who make exclusive truth claims that humble them.” Perfect.
I am learning a lot, and I’m beginning to suspect that there is something profound to my most sincere doubts when faced with Keller’s reasoning. That is, I wonder if my hesitance to be exclusive is a symptom of my own false humility - my unwillingness to let go of the Jesus I’ve carved in my own comfortable image. This really has me stirring…
There are still several difficulties — one being the issue of symbol and metaphor and biblical criticism at large. It will be good to engage these at school. I can’t wait.
As discussed in another thread - there is so much truth in the other faith traditions, but the distinctiveness of Christ is something that is difficult to communicate sometimes in a pluralistic world. Keller is compelling — I was expecting more of an apologist, more of the same old argumentation — but this was fresh and insightful. I’ll get the book soon.
A tremendous thanks, brother.
…shalom…
chris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9fmKSwuoDE
(Maybe you all have seen this — exceptional)
Chris,
AWESOME, bro! Keller is really rocking my world as well. He blows away the tired old model of faith and explains so many of our struggles through cultural influences and worldview. It’s insanely freeing, is it not?
And yeah, humility is often difficult to find with proclamation of exclusive truth. It is compounded in our culture because exclusivity itself is seen as closeminded and disrespectful (thus adding to the perception of pride).
As you may remember, I was in ROTC. I commissioned and branched military police, but have since transfered to the Chaplain Corps. As a Chaplain Candidate, I cannot tell you how both fascinating and challenging it is to work in such a pluralistic environment. My supervisor is a Wesleyan pluralist that has been burned by “young zealous evangelicals.” To espouse anything that sounds like his experience brings up… very interesting challenges! But it is the wrestling, as Jacob wrestled with God, that most honors God. Keller also says in his book that doubt should not be dismissed until one has struggled long and hard with all its aspects and effects. Only then can our faith attain any sort of depth and meaning.
Seriously, you will eat his book up. On topics of symbolism and mataphor, a great “reformed” example would be C. John Collins’ commentary on Genesis 1-4. He tackles many of the literalism v. metaphorical arguments in regards to the creation story with an insane amount of intelligence and clarity. He’s also a prof at Covenant.
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-4-Linguistic-Theological-Commentary/dp/0875526195
And yeah, I’ve seen Keller’s talk @ Veritas. AWESOME stuff. You may also like the following audio he sponsored at a recent church planting conference:
http://www.acts29network.org/series/2008-new-york-city-dwell-conference
It is AMAZING! Enjoy, bro!