The World is Not So Compartmentalized

Before Mark left for Texas he gave me a link to a debate on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman. I hadn't read the debate but, I think, if memory serves, we agreed - Craig being a philosopher and Ehrman an historian - that the two by and large talked past one another. After some interaction about the debate I made that assessment and Mark affirmed it.

I recently had the occasion to read the debate and can now talk about it more knowledgeably. I won't completely revise my original assessment but I'll make 3 points, a few of which will alter the original significantly. Those who wish to read the debate for themselves can do so here.

Caveat: I am a huge William Lane Craig fan and consider him an outstanding debater. I admire his overall clarity and unswerving commitment to evangelical Christianity and am jealous of his intellectual rigor. His concise manner of debate and the ability to directly address issues keep a debate on focus (as far as it is in his ability to do so). Maybe I think he won the debate because I like him when, in fact, Ehrman was the clear winner. I am open to that possibility ... but I don't think it is probable.

Point 1 - I'll start with my one criticism of Craig. I mentioned above that he likes to keep a debate focussed. A few times in the debate Ehrman brought out his methodological trump card, "Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say that it probably occurred." This is a claim about historical methodology. Craig rightly pointed out that this is a methodological claim and does not directly deal with the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Ehrman talked extensively about this, time which could have been better spent dealing with the evidence. I know much more about Ehrman's methodology after the debate than about what he thinks about the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. This is not to say that he didn't deal with the evidence, but he could have done a better job.

My criticism of Craig is that he seems to have hid behind his ability to stick to the point in order to avoid dealing with a question about inerrancy that Ehrman raised. Granted, the question was loaded - Ehrman proposed that if you believe a historical document contains no errors then you have forfeited critical objectivity - but Craig could have answered it rather than ignoring it because it was off topic. We all hate debates that are unfocused but, if a question comes up, you should do your best to answer it. Ehrman's bold claim deserved at least an attempt at refutation.

Point 2 - Craig made some sharp remarks directed at Ehrman (i.e., naming his criticisms of Ehrman, "Ehrman's Egregious Error" and "Bart's Blunder") but they were nothing compared to Ehrman's personal disparagements of Craig. At one point Ehrman said, "Bill is, at heart, an evangelist who wants people to come to share his belief in Jesus, and he's trying to disguise himself as a historian as a means to that end." Ouch! That sounds like the sophisticated way of calling someone a "poser". Not very respectful, academic or accurate considering that Craig has devoted much of his career to researching the historical evidence for the resurrection. Then, in the question and answer period, Ehrman attacked Christian philosophy as a whole.

Ehrman: I am sorry. I have trouble believing that we are having a serious conversation about the statistical probability of the resurrection or the statistical probability of the existence of God. I think in any university setting in the country, if we were in front of a group of academics, we would be howled off the stage -

Craig: That's not true.

Ehrman: Well, that may not be true a the school you teach at, but at the research institution I teach at -

Craig: Well, what about Oxford University, where Professor Swinburne teaches?

Ehrman: Well, Swinburne has shown that there's a 0.97 percent probability. And how many people has he convinced of this exactly? These are the kinds of arguments that are convincing for people who want to be convinced. They're not serious arguments to be taken by people so they can actually say, "Oh yes, now I am going to believe because there's 0.97 probability factor!" In fact that's nonsense; you can't demonstrate the existence of the supernatural by statistical models.

From this exchange - the sophisticated way of calling a whole academic discipline a "poser" - we see that Ehrman thinks that no respectful university in the country would put up with an academic dialogue about the statistical probability of anything supernatural. Yet, I think it is safe to say, that it is only in an academic setting where such dialogues are taking place. It is academically embarrassing to mock a whole discipline, and those engaging in serious research in that discipline, just because you don't happen to know anything about it or because it doesn't fit into the confines of your own discipline.

From these two examples, I propose that one of the reasons Ehrman lost the debate is because he had to resort to name calling, albeit in a sophisticated form. If you refute an argument by demeaning the arguer (ad hominem) you at least leave open the possibility that you can't deal with the argument itself.

Point 3 - This one is simple, but it is my main point. Throughout the debate, Ehrman basically made distinctions between what we can know historically and what we can know theologically. This distinction fuels his idea stated above that we can't know if a miracle happened historically because history deals with probability and thus miracles, being improbable, can't be known historically. Similarly, God, being supernatural, cannot be addressed by the historian because history deals only with the natural. These are all reasons whey Ehrman believes that the resurrection is not historical. It may be true theologically but, it can't be true historically.

All I'll say is that our world is just too interconnected for that. To decide the parameters of a discipline is one thing. To say that I can't know something (no matter how much relevance, influence, evidence and interconnectedness there might happen to be between that thing and a discipline) because my particularly defined version of the discipline methodologically won't allow for it is a sign that a methodological revolution is in order. "The resurrection isn't historically true because I have methodologically ruled it out a priori." If I weren't trying to be so sophisticated, I think I might be inclined to use the "p" word.

Church and State cont.

I had a fairly sleepless night after our discussion (no, I do not think the two were related; it was more likely related to the Detroit Tigers slaughtering my Anaheim Angels 12-0) so I did some reading on the question. I came across the following series of blog posts by John Mark Reynolds that I think are outstanding. They center around the upcoming U.S. presidential primaries (if you can consider something still so far in the future, "upcoming") but he addresses many of the things we touched on. I find a lot of commonalities between Mark's position that the government's job is to manage and Reynolds position that the government's job is to administer justice and uphold freedom. I'm certain that there are many dissimilarities between their positions but as you read you will see what I mean. If it is safe to say, as Mark himself did last night, that his position maintains a distinction between Christian personal ethics and a broader citizen ethic, Reynolds' position maintains a closer connection between the two that I am more comfortable with and, in fact, agree with wholeheartedly. Although we just touched the surface last night, my initial reaction to Mark's position is that the line of demarcation between Christian and citizen ethics is too strong. And I don't think it allows general revelation and natural theology (and hence, natural law) enough of a place. But that is a discussion for another time. Here I am intending to give you access to Reynolds' thoughts. The posts are long but quite interesting, even for our Slavic brothers who may be bored by U.S. politics. To such bothers, I suggest reading them due to the fact that Reynolds, a member of an Orthodox Church and quite familiar with Slavic history, makes several comments on these topics that broaden the discussion beyond the U.S. context. Happy reading ...

This Next Presidential Election 1 of 6:
Voting as We Pray

This Next Presidential Election 2 of 6:
Direct and Dispose the Hearts of all Christian Rulers

This Next Presidential Election 3 of 6:
Truly and Impartially Administer Justice
(or Why Mitt Romney Should Never Be King of England!)

This Next Presidential Election 4 of 6:
The Punishment of Wickedness and Vice

This Next Presidential Election 5 of 6:
Maintenance of True Religion and Virtue

This Next Presidential Election 6 of 6:
Peace in Our Time- Looking for Lincoln and Reagan

Worship on Thursday Night

I decided to open up the blog because some folks were having trouble viewing it. I am not certain that many people are looking at the blog anyway, so the chances of anyone else looking at it are probably slim. But if anyone wants me to change it back, we can. I have made the other authors for the blog administrators who can make changes, so I am not the only one.
I wanted to quote something from Kevin Vanhoozer's Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible on "Worship" (p. 857), under the heading "Corporate Gatherings":

There is every reason to understand the theological dynamic of "whole-life worship" as intrinsic to the regular, corporate and public gatherings of the church. To hold that mutual edification was the piviotal center of such gatherings in the NT (Richardson) is unconvincing (Thompson; Campbell). These occasions - in both OT and NT - are best interpreted as events when "whole-life" worship is concentrated in relation to God in a conscious and directed way, when the people of God are realigned with God and his purposes, and through this realignment, with each other. More fully, in Christian terms, the church faces and engages with God directly, being built up as a fellowship by sharing in the worship of Christ through the Spirit's endwelling.

I would want to say, as I tried to say Thursday night, that what makes this "concentrated" form of worship a sub-species of the "whole-life" worship is not the fact that it is a corporate gathering. There is private "concentrated" worship. Rather the distinctive aspect of it is it's "direct" nature; that the people of God are concentrating on God in a direct way, facing and engaging directly with God in a way that is not typical of daily life. I would be interested in any thoughts on his words.

Christology 101

This question is directed more toward our Slavic brothers. I will be teaching Christology in the fall and am trying to figure out which Russian texts would be good to assign the students. Could a few of you recommend some solid texts that might be available beyond the standard chapters in the systematics? Unfortunately, I'm not fluent enough to read Russian in a timely manner so, it would need to be something that is also available in English. I'm not simply asking for a list of books that have been translated from English into Russian, rather, for books that address issues relevant to the Ukrainian culture and context. Your help here will be greatly appreciated.

As a motivator for discussion (since asking for book recommendations is not really a discussion initiator) what are the Christological issues that the Church faces here. Is there such a transcendent focus on Christ's divinity that He isn't seen as one of us. Or do they so emphasize His manhood that He is not thought of or related to as fully God? Because there are questions that have confronted the Church since Its early centuries, I will not accept that answer that these are "western" questions. Что вы думаете?

Getting Started

Well friends, I want to welcome you to our theology blog. I have set things up a certain way, and if we don't like the way it has been done we can change it. At this point, only we can contribute or even see the blog. A password is required, as I understand it, to even read the blog. Some had concerns about students or others reading about some of our ramblings. This is a place where we can discuss issues and interact in a way we wouldn't normally in our classrooms or churches. We can change that if it is not an issue. But we are wanting on a blog to try to capture some of what we have been so blessed to enjoy at the (sometimes) once a month gatherings.

Please any of you feel free to post at any time on any topic. I have started the blog, but I do not intend to do any great monitering or editing, unless absolutely necessary. We can discuss topics we spoke about on Thursday nights, or you can introduce new topics. Hopefully enough of us will have a few moments to respond and interact. The blog will obviously help especially those who want to participate, but who are not in Kiev at the moment.

We will also try to post articles that will be used as the basis for future discussions. So welcome, everyone, and enjoy!