I hope all of you are having a good new year. I wish I could be there with you all, this Thursday, at least for the snacks. But I am not sure I would feel comfortable at a meeting that was openly discussing liberalism. Just doesn't seem right.
So I had a question that I genuinely am not sure of the answer to. I am wanting to better understand prayer, and would like to preach on it. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions.
Colossians 4:12 says: "Epaphras . . . is always wrestling in his prayers on your behalf, so that you may stand mature and fully assured in everything God wills."
My questions are: if we can boldly come before the throne of grace (Heb 4), why is he wrestling? Who or what is he wrestling against? What does wrestling mean in this context? Is he wrestling against God, himself, the devil, something else? Do they wrestle back? Why does he always do it?
Any insight you have on this would be greatly appreciated. I believe it is very important for our prayer lives, but am not sure how to understand it.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Postliberalism, Here We Come!
Hello all!
We will be meeting next Thursday at the Oldenburg apartment to discuss postliberalism. Alister has been hard at work collecting materials to prepare us for the discussion. I will send an email with most of the materials attached, but he also had some commentary on some of the articles and some links to which I thought it would be helpful for all of us to have access. In any case, get reading and come ready to discuss.
First, a definition from the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, by Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Postliberalism: The late-twentieth-century theological movement that refutes the reliance on human experience displayed by the older liberalism and restores the idea of a community's tradition as a controlling influence in theology. Postliberalism was initially associated with thinkers such as George Lindbeck, who rejected both the fundamentalist and liberal understandings of the nature of doctrine (as either objectively true propositions or expressions of subjective religious experience) in favor of the view that sees doctrine as the "ground rules" of a religious community.
Now I'll list the articles and links that I'll be sending by email with any of Alister's comments underneath.
1. "The Origins of Postliberalism" by Gary Dorrien
"read what you need to get a feel for what postliberalism is." -Alister
2. "Community & Relationships: A Theological Take" Interview with Stanley Grenz
3. "Discipleship as a Craft, Church as a Disciplined Community" by Stanley Hauerwas
4. "Re-Imagining the Princeton Mind: Postconservative Evangelicalism, Old Princeton, and the Rise of Neo-Fundamentalism" by Paul Kjoss Helseth
"I'm in two minds about whether or not to recommend this - On the one hand its long and may seem very narrowly focused and even perhaps to some irrelevant to the discussion, BUT on the other its probably the most likely to provoke discussion AND I think it goes right to the root of one of the reasons for the emergence of postliberalism/postconservative/narrative theology, all of which in one way or another would I think its fair to says define themselves to some extent against evangelicalism insofar as they would say it is infected by such things as 'modern' rationalism and allegiance to propositional truth. The consensus until recently amongst many has been that this rationalist bent in evangelicalism (as evidenced they would say by such doctrines as 'inerrancy') was inherited (via early 20th fundamentalism) from Old Princeton. The tack has usually been to say that Old Princeton and Reformed Scholasticism is characterised by philosophical rationalism and therefore not very Christian, hence we should get away from this and the doctrines inherited from it. This is where this article comes in - basically it argues that the thesis that Hodge/Warfield et al were so rationalistic just doesn't stand up. Hence..... postconservatism (which shares much in common with postliberalism) has been defining themselves against a position which didn't exist." -Alister
5. "Postliberalism and its Implications for Evangelical Theology" by David Arndt
"presents an open/pro position toward postliberalism" -Alister
6. "Is Propositional Theology Passé
"a cautious/contra position" -Alister
Happy reading and we'll see you next Thursday at 7:00 PM!
We will be meeting next Thursday at the Oldenburg apartment to discuss postliberalism. Alister has been hard at work collecting materials to prepare us for the discussion. I will send an email with most of the materials attached, but he also had some commentary on some of the articles and some links to which I thought it would be helpful for all of us to have access. In any case, get reading and come ready to discuss.
First, a definition from the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, by Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Postliberalism: The late-twentieth-century theological movement that refutes the reliance on human experience displayed by the older liberalism and restores the idea of a community's tradition as a controlling influence in theology. Postliberalism was initially associated with thinkers such as George Lindbeck, who rejected both the fundamentalist and liberal understandings of the nature of doctrine (as either objectively true propositions or expressions of subjective religious experience) in favor of the view that sees doctrine as the "ground rules" of a religious community.
Now I'll list the articles and links that I'll be sending by email with any of Alister's comments underneath.
1. "The Origins of Postliberalism" by Gary Dorrien
"read what you need to get a feel for what postliberalism is." -Alister
2. "Community & Relationships: A Theological Take" Interview with Stanley Grenz
3. "Discipleship as a Craft, Church as a Disciplined Community" by Stanley Hauerwas
4. "Re-Imagining the Princeton Mind: Postconservative Evangelicalism, Old Princeton, and the Rise of Neo-Fundamentalism" by Paul Kjoss Helseth
"I'm in two minds about whether or not to recommend this - On the one hand its long and may seem very narrowly focused and even perhaps to some irrelevant to the discussion, BUT on the other its probably the most likely to provoke discussion AND I think it goes right to the root of one of the reasons for the emergence of postliberalism/postconservative/narrative theology, all of which in one way or another would I think its fair to says define themselves to some extent against evangelicalism insofar as they would say it is infected by such things as 'modern' rationalism and allegiance to propositional truth. The consensus until recently amongst many has been that this rationalist bent in evangelicalism (as evidenced they would say by such doctrines as 'inerrancy') was inherited (via early 20th fundamentalism) from Old Princeton. The tack has usually been to say that Old Princeton and Reformed Scholasticism is characterised by philosophical rationalism and therefore not very Christian, hence we should get away from this and the doctrines inherited from it. This is where this article comes in - basically it argues that the thesis that Hodge/Warfield et al were so rationalistic just doesn't stand up. Hence..... postconservatism (which shares much in common with postliberalism) has been defining themselves against a position which didn't exist." -Alister
5. "Postliberalism and its Implications for Evangelical Theology" by David Arndt
"presents an open/pro position toward postliberalism" -Alister
6. "Is Propositional Theology Passé
"a cautious/contra position" -Alister
Happy reading and we'll see you next Thursday at 7:00 PM!
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Is Post-modernism dying?
Hey, everyone. I appreciated the words on the Psalter. I have been doing my own explorations and was thrilled to see a canonical approach in the articles. I would love to have participated in that discussion.
Well, I tend to look at various blogs, many of them from atheists. I saw an article (check it out here) that I thought might be interesting because of the theme of post-modernism. He asks the question as to whether P-m may have run its course. Obviously he is speaking only in certain circles, such as some areas of academia. Just like with all philosophy, the trends in academia are not felt in society until much later. But it seems like an interesting possibility. At the very least it shows that not all non-believers are post-modernists.
I sincerely hope that you all enjoy the closeness of the Lord's presence and grace in the new year.
Well, I tend to look at various blogs, many of them from atheists. I saw an article (check it out here) that I thought might be interesting because of the theme of post-modernism. He asks the question as to whether P-m may have run its course. Obviously he is speaking only in certain circles, such as some areas of academia. Just like with all philosophy, the trends in academia are not felt in society until much later. But it seems like an interesting possibility. At the very least it shows that not all non-believers are post-modernists.
I sincerely hope that you all enjoy the closeness of the Lord's presence and grace in the new year.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The Riches of the Psalter
We had an excellent evening of discussion last Thursday with a record setting four of us present. We've added one person per month since the start of this academic year, which means that by May we should have 9 participants (we're skipping a December meeting)! I don't know where they'll all come from, however, with so many of you in the States. No matter the final tally, we're growing and the discussion is more and more lively the more people we add.
Seriously though, Andy, Denis, Alister and I spent the whole time trying to get a good handle on the canonical approach to the Psalter. Denis is well-versed in recent Psalms studies and most of the time was spent listening to his clear and convincing proposals. We didn't discuss the Leslie McFall article that I sent out mostly because Denis didn't like it as it was counter to his theories. Alister added insights from the academy, being the most recent of us to have graduated from seminary. Andy and I listened and asked clarification questions, being the least familiar with the canonical approach. It would have been nice to have Jon and Rick with us as they are in-the-know — Jon especially when it comes to the Psalms.
I must admit that my question is still unanswered. Being that the Psalter, as we have it, was ordered after the Psalms were composed (soon or long after does not matter), how exactly are we supposed to apply the results of the canonical approach when we study, teach and preach the Psalms? I'm especially concerned with this for two reasons. Firstly, it seems that Denis' presentation of the canonical approach, McFall's article, which contradicts the canonical approach in a number of ways and the admission that canonical theologians don't all agree with one another leaves us with a certain degree of uncertainty regarding the purpose of the order of the Psalter, as we have it. [Aside: I apologize for my misuse of terminology on Thursday. I made it seem like there was uncertainty about the order of the Psalms. Of course there isn't. The canonical order is the order we have. The uncertainty exists in determining the intent of the complier(s).] If there is such uncertainty, I find it hard to apply the fruits of the approach in my hermeneutics and exposition, especially in light of the fact that we're not even dealing with the Psalms themselves, only their order.
Which leads to my second concern. Denis, and apparently others in the canonical school (if I'm understanding them correctly) seem to propose that we can know very little ("next to nothing") of the historical setting of the individual Psalms, thus making it necessary to focus on each Psalm's place in the Canon to determine how we should study, interpret and preach it. This seems to fly in the face of the authorial intent that we've been placing a high priority on in this blog and that I consider crucial to any legitimate hermeneutic. Now we're talking about compiler intent and I have a much harder time applying my own understanding of the inspiration, inerrancy, clarity and authority of Scripture to a compiler. I'd like to hear a little more on this issue before I could embrace the canonical approach in my own research.
But now to the point. No matter which view one takes, we all come away with true and deep riches from the Psalms that are divinely used to encourage, challenge, rebuke and comfort us. This doesn't mean that we should become relativists as far as the Psalms are concerned. By no means! I think we'd all agree that we should continue to strive for truth and integrity in our Psalms study. But in that striving God is gracious and patient with us simpletons as we humbly try to find the truth that He intends for us, His people.
Seriously though, Andy, Denis, Alister and I spent the whole time trying to get a good handle on the canonical approach to the Psalter. Denis is well-versed in recent Psalms studies and most of the time was spent listening to his clear and convincing proposals. We didn't discuss the Leslie McFall article that I sent out mostly because Denis didn't like it as it was counter to his theories. Alister added insights from the academy, being the most recent of us to have graduated from seminary. Andy and I listened and asked clarification questions, being the least familiar with the canonical approach. It would have been nice to have Jon and Rick with us as they are in-the-know — Jon especially when it comes to the Psalms.
I must admit that my question is still unanswered. Being that the Psalter, as we have it, was ordered after the Psalms were composed (soon or long after does not matter), how exactly are we supposed to apply the results of the canonical approach when we study, teach and preach the Psalms? I'm especially concerned with this for two reasons. Firstly, it seems that Denis' presentation of the canonical approach, McFall's article, which contradicts the canonical approach in a number of ways and the admission that canonical theologians don't all agree with one another leaves us with a certain degree of uncertainty regarding the purpose of the order of the Psalter, as we have it. [Aside: I apologize for my misuse of terminology on Thursday. I made it seem like there was uncertainty about the order of the Psalms. Of course there isn't. The canonical order is the order we have. The uncertainty exists in determining the intent of the complier(s).] If there is such uncertainty, I find it hard to apply the fruits of the approach in my hermeneutics and exposition, especially in light of the fact that we're not even dealing with the Psalms themselves, only their order.
Which leads to my second concern. Denis, and apparently others in the canonical school (if I'm understanding them correctly) seem to propose that we can know very little ("next to nothing") of the historical setting of the individual Psalms, thus making it necessary to focus on each Psalm's place in the Canon to determine how we should study, interpret and preach it. This seems to fly in the face of the authorial intent that we've been placing a high priority on in this blog and that I consider crucial to any legitimate hermeneutic. Now we're talking about compiler intent and I have a much harder time applying my own understanding of the inspiration, inerrancy, clarity and authority of Scripture to a compiler. I'd like to hear a little more on this issue before I could embrace the canonical approach in my own research.
But now to the point. No matter which view one takes, we all come away with true and deep riches from the Psalms that are divinely used to encourage, challenge, rebuke and comfort us. This doesn't mean that we should become relativists as far as the Psalms are concerned. By no means! I think we'd all agree that we should continue to strive for truth and integrity in our Psalms study. But in that striving God is gracious and patient with us simpletons as we humbly try to find the truth that He intends for us, His people.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
From the Shroud to the Psalms
The three of us who met last month had a great time discussing the merits of the Shroud of Turin, the merits of the arguments put forth by Habermas and the Basingers as well as the merits of several criticisms of the Shroud's authenticity. We also watched an intriguing film on the Shroud that Jason conveniently had in his collection. Way to go Jason!
[side note 1: You get tons of extra credit for Theological Discussion Group if you can bring video to go with the discussion. However, if you bring video and it is boring then you have to bring the snacks to the following meeting. Choose carefully!]
In any case, the articles, film and discussion left me hungry for more, albeit with no time to spend feasting on all of the relevant materials. I find myself fairly convinced of the Shroud's authenticity but I am still uncertain as to how I would go about integrating it into any sort of apologetic presentation. We all seemed to have a little different take on whether and how to do so.
For anyone wanting more to chew on regarding the Shroud, you must visit this site. For anyone familiar with the common objections to the Shroud's authenticity, you should read this article specifically. I was floored by how much material is on this site and I was thoroughly impressed by how reasonable Sorensen's article is and by how convincing his answers are to the many objections that have been raised against the Shroud. If you prefer the "inference to the best explanation" approach to defending Christianity, this article will appeal to you.
[side note 2: You will be surprised at how widely accepted and promoted the popular criticisms of the Shroud are when, in fact, many of them have been revealed to be based on false claims. Shroud "experts" put forth bad evidence against the Shroud that actual Shroud experts dismissed 20 years ago or more.]
But now we move to the Psalms. My teaching gig in L'vov last week and the American Thanksgiving holiday this week require that we meet on Thursday, November 29. You all should have Denis' article on the Psalms to read for that meeting. It is still my goal to get another article out for us to consider. Look for it in the next few days. In the meantime practice your Russian on Denis' article, I'm sure it will require the best from each of us (except for the native speakers, of course). And we can never study the Psalms too much so, if you find something that you want to add to the discussion, get it to me to pass out or simply bring it with you next Thursday. May the result be that we are as honest and honoring as are the Psalmists when we converse with our amazing God.
[side note 1: You get tons of extra credit for Theological Discussion Group if you can bring video to go with the discussion. However, if you bring video and it is boring then you have to bring the snacks to the following meeting. Choose carefully!]
In any case, the articles, film and discussion left me hungry for more, albeit with no time to spend feasting on all of the relevant materials. I find myself fairly convinced of the Shroud's authenticity but I am still uncertain as to how I would go about integrating it into any sort of apologetic presentation. We all seemed to have a little different take on whether and how to do so.
For anyone wanting more to chew on regarding the Shroud, you must visit this site. For anyone familiar with the common objections to the Shroud's authenticity, you should read this article specifically. I was floored by how much material is on this site and I was thoroughly impressed by how reasonable Sorensen's article is and by how convincing his answers are to the many objections that have been raised against the Shroud. If you prefer the "inference to the best explanation" approach to defending Christianity, this article will appeal to you.
[side note 2: You will be surprised at how widely accepted and promoted the popular criticisms of the Shroud are when, in fact, many of them have been revealed to be based on false claims. Shroud "experts" put forth bad evidence against the Shroud that actual Shroud experts dismissed 20 years ago or more.]
But now we move to the Psalms. My teaching gig in L'vov last week and the American Thanksgiving holiday this week require that we meet on Thursday, November 29. You all should have Denis' article on the Psalms to read for that meeting. It is still my goal to get another article out for us to consider. Look for it in the next few days. In the meantime practice your Russian on Denis' article, I'm sure it will require the best from each of us (except for the native speakers, of course). And we can never study the Psalms too much so, if you find something that you want to add to the discussion, get it to me to pass out or simply bring it with you next Thursday. May the result be that we are as honest and honoring as are the Psalmists when we converse with our amazing God.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Thoughts on the Scriptorium Daily
Evening all!
Eric awhile back recommended the Scriptorium Daily as a good blog, and one related to Biola. So I have looked at it occasionally. There are some good articles, interesting thoughts. I wanted to react to two articles briefly. First, by John Mark Reynolds regarding J. K. Rowlings revelation that Dumbledor in the Harry Potter books was gay.
The first comment I would make was my surprise about how Christian he felt like the books are in overall structure and theme. I have not read the books, but know people who have. And the ending of the seventh book especially has some strong Christian parallels. It's just that, after hearing the books so demonized, to have him say that was surprising. I do not necessarily disagree, and this is in no way a protest. I am just saying I was surprised.
However, another comment he made was about the relationship between J. K. Rowling and her books at the present time caught my attention. Reynolds said this:
Now, the second article I wanted to comment on is the article called "Faith is Nothing," by Matt Jenson. I disagree. I think faith is something. I see his argument as a futile philosophical reduction that ignores both the Biblical text (see all of Romans 4, not just the beginning) and the theology of what the goal of salvation actually is. I think faith is something, and that it's being something is no way a threat to God's work, sovereignty or anything else. And I think that Luther, Calvin and Edwards (not to mention Paul) would agree with me.
Eric awhile back recommended the Scriptorium Daily as a good blog, and one related to Biola. So I have looked at it occasionally. There are some good articles, interesting thoughts. I wanted to react to two articles briefly. First, by John Mark Reynolds regarding J. K. Rowlings revelation that Dumbledor in the Harry Potter books was gay.
The first comment I would make was my surprise about how Christian he felt like the books are in overall structure and theme. I have not read the books, but know people who have. And the ending of the seventh book especially has some strong Christian parallels. It's just that, after hearing the books so demonized, to have him say that was surprising. I do not necessarily disagree, and this is in no way a protest. I am just saying I was surprised.
However, another comment he made was about the relationship between J. K. Rowling and her books at the present time caught my attention. Reynolds said this:
"No offense to an excellent author, but Dumbledore no longer belongs only to Rowling. He also belongs to her readers who have been given a series of books in which Rowling was free to say what she wanted to say. She wrote about Christianity openly by Book Seven, but if Dumbledore was gay, she decided to hide it. She hid it so well that there is no evidence of it."Reynolds goes on to talk briefly about the obvious implications for Scriptural interpretation and authorial intent, but I don't think he addresses fully the problems that he is creating. To simply say that because there is no explicit evidence of Dumbledore's homosexuality in the books, therefore it doesn't matter what the author now says, to me overlooks the inherent ambiguity in many texts. It is simply a fact that some texts can be read from two very different perspectives, and in fact it is only the clearly expressed authorial intent that can settle it. For instance, we don't know against whom Paul was writing in his letters to the Romans, the Colossians, or in the Pastorals. There are verses where a better understanding of the enemy could better inform us as to his meaning and emphasis. I feel like the lack of clear evidence in a text one way or the other leaves options open rather than closing them. And authorial intent leaves them certain. I say that books still belong to Rowling, just like Paul's still belong to him. And yes, I am against homosexuality.
Now, the second article I wanted to comment on is the article called "Faith is Nothing," by Matt Jenson. I disagree. I think faith is something. I see his argument as a futile philosophical reduction that ignores both the Biblical text (see all of Romans 4, not just the beginning) and the theology of what the goal of salvation actually is. I think faith is something, and that it's being something is no way a threat to God's work, sovereignty or anything else. And I think that Luther, Calvin and Edwards (not to mention Paul) would agree with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)