Friday, August 28, 2009
New Semester at Kilns College
Well, we're only a couple of weeks away from a new semester at Kilns College. Go here to check out the brand new vimeo plug for the college. I'll be teaching a class in Critical Thinking on Monday evenings.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Creation Out of Nothing
(This post is the 5th in a series discussing John Walton's new book, The Lost World of Genesis One.)
A good friend of mine (and I mean that both in the ordinary sense and in the Proverbs 27:17 sense) interacted with my last post. He said he found some support for Walton's interpretation in the fact that his English version of the Jewish Torah reads (in Gen. 1:1)
The issue my friend raises can be used to demonstrate some of my problem with Walton's arguments... There is a debate among scholars as to whether Gen. 1:1 should be understood as a construct (as my friend's "Jewish Torah" renders it) or as an absolute (and independent of verse 2, 3, and following). Walton, who is about to advance a radical new theory all about Genesis 1, doesn't interact with this debate at all. Rather, he assumes the interpretation that will support his new view. By contrast, Copan and Craig (in their book, Creation Out of Nothing, which can only spare one chapter for the entire Old Testament) devote 13 pages to this issue, acknowledging and responding to the arguments for a construct view, and then giving half a dozen different lines of reasoning for rejecting that interpretation. Along the way, they quote other scholars who have investigated this at a level at which (at least as far as the evidence available to us in his book) Walton has not...
One exception--one exegetical issue to which Walton gives some attention--is the meaning of the Hebrew word bara, used in Genesis 1:1, 21, and 27. His third proposition (chapter) is "'Create' (Hebrew bara) Concerns Function." He looks at the 50 times in which this verb is used in the Old Testament (always with God as the subject), and concludes that
More importantly, Walton's reasoning in this particular case highlights a problem found more generally throughout his book. He repeatedly sets up the dichotomy between a functional understanding and a material view. But those who find creation ex nihilo in Genesis 1 need not find there a material understanding but instead an ontological claim. To be sure, verse 1 has always been understood to apply to the creation of the matter, energy, space, and time of the universe--the totality of the creation, which certainly includes matter. But most understand the use of create/bara in verse 21 to refer to soulishness, an entirely new, albeit immaterial, thing. Likewise, those who find creation out of nothing revealed in Genesis 1 find the bara in verse 27 to have as its object creaturely spirit, again an immaterial thing.
So a significant portion of Walton's argument--for a functional and against a material understanding--is misguided. Moreover, Walton betrays (early on, in his Proposition 1) general misunderstanding about the material/immaterial issue. His claim here is that God did not correct the 'scientific understanding' of the ancient Israelites to whom Genesis 1 was addressed:
This realization, of course, causes Walton's argument here to fall apart, but it also gives us some insight to the fact that his concern with "scientific consensus" (evidenced by the number of chapters of his book devoted to it) is fraught with fundamental problems. I'll turn my attention to some of those problems in the next post.
A good friend of mine (and I mean that both in the ordinary sense and in the Proverbs 27:17 sense) interacted with my last post. He said he found some support for Walton's interpretation in the fact that his English version of the Jewish Torah reads (in Gen. 1:1)
When God began to create heaven and earth...In other words, maybe Genesis 1:1 is not an independent clause discussing an absolute beginning but part and parcel of verse 2 (and following) that warrants a construct reading.
The issue my friend raises can be used to demonstrate some of my problem with Walton's arguments... There is a debate among scholars as to whether Gen. 1:1 should be understood as a construct (as my friend's "Jewish Torah" renders it) or as an absolute (and independent of verse 2, 3, and following). Walton, who is about to advance a radical new theory all about Genesis 1, doesn't interact with this debate at all. Rather, he assumes the interpretation that will support his new view. By contrast, Copan and Craig (in their book, Creation Out of Nothing, which can only spare one chapter for the entire Old Testament) devote 13 pages to this issue, acknowledging and responding to the arguments for a construct view, and then giving half a dozen different lines of reasoning for rejecting that interpretation. Along the way, they quote other scholars who have investigated this at a level at which (at least as far as the evidence available to us in his book) Walton has not...
After surveying the relevant scholarship, Gordon Wenham asserts that 'the majority of recent writers reject [the construct] interpretation.'
Commentators Keil and Delitzsch declare that the phrase translated 'in the beginning is used 'absolutely,' and a translation such as 'In the beginning, when...' simply cannot be a reasonable treatment of the text.'
James Barr, arguing that there is no grammatical evidence that 'beginning' is construct in Genesis 1:1, calls such a reading 'intrinsically unlikely.'
Gordon Wenham writes: "Most modern commentators agree that verse 1 is an independent clause to be translated, 'In the beginning God created...'"Copan and Craig go on to address other exegetical issues, issues in which Walton's thesis depends upon one particular rendering when scholars disagree that that rendering is correct. You see my point... In almost every case, Walton does not even do an ordinary job of addressing the relevant issues, whereas the radical conclusion to which he comes would seem to warrant an extraordinary level of support.
One exception--one exegetical issue to which Walton gives some attention--is the meaning of the Hebrew word bara, used in Genesis 1:1, 21, and 27. His third proposition (chapter) is "'Create' (Hebrew bara) Concerns Function." He looks at the 50 times in which this verb is used in the Old Testament (always with God as the subject), and concludes that
grammatical objects of the verb are not easily identified in material terms, and even when they are, it is questionable that the context is objectifying them.I have at least two problems with this line of argument. The first is that he seems to be unable to see this issue from the other side. If one does not begin by rejecting a material understanding of these objects, it is really rather easy to find such an understanding in many of these verses.
More importantly, Walton's reasoning in this particular case highlights a problem found more generally throughout his book. He repeatedly sets up the dichotomy between a functional understanding and a material view. But those who find creation ex nihilo in Genesis 1 need not find there a material understanding but instead an ontological claim. To be sure, verse 1 has always been understood to apply to the creation of the matter, energy, space, and time of the universe--the totality of the creation, which certainly includes matter. But most understand the use of create/bara in verse 21 to refer to soulishness, an entirely new, albeit immaterial, thing. Likewise, those who find creation out of nothing revealed in Genesis 1 find the bara in verse 27 to have as its object creaturely spirit, again an immaterial thing.
So a significant portion of Walton's argument--for a functional and against a material understanding--is misguided. Moreover, Walton betrays (early on, in his Proposition 1) general misunderstanding about the material/immaterial issue. His claim here is that God did not correct the 'scientific understanding' of the ancient Israelites to whom Genesis 1 was addressed:
For example, in the ancient world people believed that the seat of intelligence, emotion, and personhood was in the internal organs, particularly the heart, but also the liver, kidneys, and intestines. Many Bible translations use the English word "mind" when the Hebrew text refers to the entrails, showing the ways in which language and culture are interrelated. In modern language we still refer to the heart metaphorically as the seat of emotion. In the ancient world this was not metaphor, but physiology. Yet we must notice that when God wanted to talk to the Israelites about their intellect, emotions and will, he did not revise their ideas of physiology and feel compelled to reveal the function of the brain.Here's the problem: unless we have accepted an inaccurate metaphysical view (materialism) from some modern science (as Walton seems to have), then refering to the brain as the seat of intelligence, will, and emotion is likewise metaphorical. That is, in actual fact, thoughts, beliefs, desires, will, and emotion are mental--and thus immaterial--events, and not material or physical ones. As such, they--and our personhood--are no more accurately described (in our day) as residing in the brain than they were (in Moses' day) as residing in the liver.
This realization, of course, causes Walton's argument here to fall apart, but it also gives us some insight to the fact that his concern with "scientific consensus" (evidenced by the number of chapters of his book devoted to it) is fraught with fundamental problems. I'll turn my attention to some of those problems in the next post.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Cosmic Temple Inauguration
(This is the 4th post in a series.)
In his new book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, John Walton offers what he calls the "cosmic temple inauguration" interpretation of Genesis 1. As Walton sees it, the original readers of Genesis, like the people of other ancient Near Eastern (ANE) civilizations, saw the world in functional--and not in material--terms. Therefore, when reading the first chapter of Genesis, we ought to understand it not as describing the material origin of the universe and earth (as has always been done), but rather as God's giving function to an already-existent matter during a concrete (solar or human) 7-day week.
Some of what Walton has to share about God's purposes for the creation, about the universe as God's temple, and about God's role in creating and sustaining the universe is very good. I believe that consideration of this facet of the creation account adds a further level of depth and richness to an already rich and wonderful account. In fact, were his proposal simply that we understand functionality as an important aspect of what God sought to convey in this passage, I would agree. At some points, Walton himself seems to temporarily soften his stance, and limit his claims in this way. For example, he ends proposition 17 (which I discussed in an earlier post as the best chapter in the book) this way...
1) The truth of God's revelation transcends the understanding of its original readers (and even of the rest of us).
2) Jews, Christians, and Muslims have throughout the ages found in Genesis 1 the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.
2a) In fact, historians recognize a view of time as having a beginning and proceeding linearly as one of the most important contributions of early Judaism to civilization.
2b) Ironically, it was partly their finding creation ex nihilo in Genesis 1 that gave the founders of modern science the logical justification for doing science in the first place.
3) A good deal of effective apologetic material is lost if one denies that Genesis 1 claims a material beginning to the universe. With the discovery of evidence for that beginning (the empirical validation of Einstein's theories of relativity and of a big bang model for the origin of the universe), many astronomers, physicists, and others have turned to Christ, recognizing in the conclusions of their science support for the opening claim (understood in a material sense) of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
4) Walton's thesis depends upon downplaying the much greater differences between Genesis 1 and other ANE cosmologies and focusing only on the rather superficial similarities between them.
5) If creation ex nihilo is found in Scripture at all (and Walton grants that it is), it would necessarily have involved revelation of scientific truth that falsifies Walton's exegetical claims. That is, scientific evidence for a beginning to the material universe did not come until the past century, though monotheists have continued to proclaim it all along by appealing to God's revelation in Genesis 1.
6) Given all this, Walton's denial of a material component to the Genesis account is a radical view. Such a radical view warrants an extraordinary level of supporting argumentation. Instead, Walton's argumentation is brief and superficial relative to the arguments offered by those with opposing interpretations.
Walton's position is further undermined by gross misunderstandings that surface in his subsequent propositions. These include...
7) Walton is wrongly concerned (in his attacks on what he calls 'concordism') with 'scientific consensus.' In my understanding, concordists (and anyone seeking to defend Scripture's inspiration and inerrancy) are concerned with reconciling Scripture with the unchanging reality of the universe--not with the admittedly changing consensus among scientists.
8) Walton betrays himself as completely unqualified to discuss the issues that make up his propositions 13, 15, 16, and 18. That is, he is wrong in his understanding of what science is and of who is qualified to define science. As a result, he misses the point at every turn, whether discussing science per se, intelligent design theory, evolution, or public science education. (I suspect I'll take the time to flesh this problem out in a future post, as this is the sort of thing that really gets my blood boiling.)
Again, I appreciate Walton's understanding of the Genesis 1 account as having a distinctly functional component to it. This view adds richness to an understanding of what God has revealed to us in this creation account. As such, the 'cosmic temple inauguration' view is not incompatible with other interpretations of Genesis 1. That is, one can find simultaneous validity to, say, this view and the framework interpretation and the progressive (or old-earth) creation view; they are not mutually exclusive. But I part company with Walton at the point at which he seeks to claim the contrary--that any view that finds in Genesis 1 an account of the origin of the matter of the universe is wrong.
We now have overwhelming evidence from the creation itself ('scientific' evidence, if you will) that the matter, energy, space, and time of this universe had a finite beginning whose Cause transcends that universe. Lacking that evidence, monotheists throughout the ages have nonetheless proclaimed it to be true, having found in Genesis 1 a clear declaration that God created everything out of nothing. Walton's repudiation of that idea (that Gen. 1 declares creation ex nihilo) is a radical view, acceptance of which would require a much greater set of supporting arguments than that which he offers.
In his new book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, John Walton offers what he calls the "cosmic temple inauguration" interpretation of Genesis 1. As Walton sees it, the original readers of Genesis, like the people of other ancient Near Eastern (ANE) civilizations, saw the world in functional--and not in material--terms. Therefore, when reading the first chapter of Genesis, we ought to understand it not as describing the material origin of the universe and earth (as has always been done), but rather as God's giving function to an already-existent matter during a concrete (solar or human) 7-day week.
Some of what Walton has to share about God's purposes for the creation, about the universe as God's temple, and about God's role in creating and sustaining the universe is very good. I believe that consideration of this facet of the creation account adds a further level of depth and richness to an already rich and wonderful account. In fact, were his proposal simply that we understand functionality as an important aspect of what God sought to convey in this passage, I would agree. At some points, Walton himself seems to temporarily soften his stance, and limit his claims in this way. For example, he ends proposition 17 (which I discussed in an earlier post as the best chapter in the book) this way...
So what affirmations does the proposed interpretation of Genesis 1 expect of us?You'll get no argument from me on any of that. I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that Walton elsewhere claims that his functional interpretation is the exclusively accurate understanding of Genesis 1, that this account makes no reference to the material creation of the universe (that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is not found in Genesis 1), and that God did not reveal to Israel any new scientific content. Walton:
1) The world operates by Yahweh's design and under his supervision to accomplish his purposes.
2) The cosmos is his temple.
3) Everything in the cosmos was given its role and function by God.
4) Everything in the cosmos functions on behalf of people who are in his image.
This creation account did not concern the material shape of the cosmos, but rather its functions.Again (the italics are Walton's),
At this point a very clear statement must be made: Viewing Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as temple does not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material origins--it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story.And,
As mentioned in chapter one, there is not a single instance in the Old Testament of God giving scientific information that transcended the understanding of the Israelite audience.I strongly (but respectfully) disagree with each of these three claims. Here's an outline of my response (I'll be happy to support these contentions in a future post)...
1) The truth of God's revelation transcends the understanding of its original readers (and even of the rest of us).
2) Jews, Christians, and Muslims have throughout the ages found in Genesis 1 the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.
2a) In fact, historians recognize a view of time as having a beginning and proceeding linearly as one of the most important contributions of early Judaism to civilization.
2b) Ironically, it was partly their finding creation ex nihilo in Genesis 1 that gave the founders of modern science the logical justification for doing science in the first place.
3) A good deal of effective apologetic material is lost if one denies that Genesis 1 claims a material beginning to the universe. With the discovery of evidence for that beginning (the empirical validation of Einstein's theories of relativity and of a big bang model for the origin of the universe), many astronomers, physicists, and others have turned to Christ, recognizing in the conclusions of their science support for the opening claim (understood in a material sense) of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
4) Walton's thesis depends upon downplaying the much greater differences between Genesis 1 and other ANE cosmologies and focusing only on the rather superficial similarities between them.
5) If creation ex nihilo is found in Scripture at all (and Walton grants that it is), it would necessarily have involved revelation of scientific truth that falsifies Walton's exegetical claims. That is, scientific evidence for a beginning to the material universe did not come until the past century, though monotheists have continued to proclaim it all along by appealing to God's revelation in Genesis 1.
6) Given all this, Walton's denial of a material component to the Genesis account is a radical view. Such a radical view warrants an extraordinary level of supporting argumentation. Instead, Walton's argumentation is brief and superficial relative to the arguments offered by those with opposing interpretations.
Walton's position is further undermined by gross misunderstandings that surface in his subsequent propositions. These include...
7) Walton is wrongly concerned (in his attacks on what he calls 'concordism') with 'scientific consensus.' In my understanding, concordists (and anyone seeking to defend Scripture's inspiration and inerrancy) are concerned with reconciling Scripture with the unchanging reality of the universe--not with the admittedly changing consensus among scientists.
8) Walton betrays himself as completely unqualified to discuss the issues that make up his propositions 13, 15, 16, and 18. That is, he is wrong in his understanding of what science is and of who is qualified to define science. As a result, he misses the point at every turn, whether discussing science per se, intelligent design theory, evolution, or public science education. (I suspect I'll take the time to flesh this problem out in a future post, as this is the sort of thing that really gets my blood boiling.)
Again, I appreciate Walton's understanding of the Genesis 1 account as having a distinctly functional component to it. This view adds richness to an understanding of what God has revealed to us in this creation account. As such, the 'cosmic temple inauguration' view is not incompatible with other interpretations of Genesis 1. That is, one can find simultaneous validity to, say, this view and the framework interpretation and the progressive (or old-earth) creation view; they are not mutually exclusive. But I part company with Walton at the point at which he seeks to claim the contrary--that any view that finds in Genesis 1 an account of the origin of the matter of the universe is wrong.
We now have overwhelming evidence from the creation itself ('scientific' evidence, if you will) that the matter, energy, space, and time of this universe had a finite beginning whose Cause transcends that universe. Lacking that evidence, monotheists throughout the ages have nonetheless proclaimed it to be true, having found in Genesis 1 a clear declaration that God created everything out of nothing. Walton's repudiation of that idea (that Gen. 1 declares creation ex nihilo) is a radical view, acceptance of which would require a much greater set of supporting arguments than that which he offers.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Walton's Theology
(This is the third post in a series about John Walton's new book The Lost World of Genesis One.)
Before critiquing (in a subsequent post) John Walton's main theses about Genesis 1, I want to further affirm some of the conclusions to which his way of viewing creation has led him.
For me, the best chapter in Walton's book is "Proposition 17: Resulting Theology in This View of Genesis 1 is Stronger, Not Weaker." In it, he discusses God's power, sovereignty, and goodness, and how one's interpretation of Genesis 1 affects one's understanding of these things. Please note that while I agree with the theological conclusions Walton shares here, I arrive at them quite independently of his interpretation of Genesis 1. That is, I largely reject his main theses and yet agree with him on these points that he finds flowing out of them. That we can arrive at this theology with different interpretations of Genesis 1 is acknowledged by Walton (in the most humble passage in the book, which comes toward the end of the chapter in view):
Implicit to the discussion in this chapter of God's power, sovereignty, and goodness is the fact that Walton's new and different interpretation of Genesis 1 does not demand the conclusion that the universe and earth are only thousands of years old. But while that (young earth) conclusion has become quite popular within the conservative American church in the last 60 years, there are at least 10 other interpretations of Genesis 1 (each of them more traditional and with a greater historical record than Walton's) that likewise allow for the ancient universe attested to by the creation itself. Nonetheless, Walton is correct when he writes,
Again, I am unconvinced of Walton's new interpretation of Genesis 1, but find important areas of agreement in our respective theologies. And so I find reading--and thinking about-- his perspectives a worthwhile endeavor. More importantly, I believe God is honored when we have these sorts of thoughtful discussions--even when we disagree in some of our conclusions.
Before critiquing (in a subsequent post) John Walton's main theses about Genesis 1, I want to further affirm some of the conclusions to which his way of viewing creation has led him.
For me, the best chapter in Walton's book is "Proposition 17: Resulting Theology in This View of Genesis 1 is Stronger, Not Weaker." In it, he discusses God's power, sovereignty, and goodness, and how one's interpretation of Genesis 1 affects one's understanding of these things. Please note that while I agree with the theological conclusions Walton shares here, I arrive at them quite independently of his interpretation of Genesis 1. That is, I largely reject his main theses and yet agree with him on these points that he finds flowing out of them. That we can arrive at this theology with different interpretations of Genesis 1 is acknowledged by Walton (in the most humble passage in the book, which comes toward the end of the chapter in view):
...even if the reader is not inclined to adopt the proposed interpretation of Genesis 1, his or her theology could still be greatly enhanced by the observations offered here by embracing a renewed and informed commitment to God's intimate involvement in the operation of the cosmos from its incipience and into eternity. We all need to strengthen our theology of creation and Creator whatever our view of the Genesis account of origins.Amen to that!
Implicit to the discussion in this chapter of God's power, sovereignty, and goodness is the fact that Walton's new and different interpretation of Genesis 1 does not demand the conclusion that the universe and earth are only thousands of years old. But while that (young earth) conclusion has become quite popular within the conservative American church in the last 60 years, there are at least 10 other interpretations of Genesis 1 (each of them more traditional and with a greater historical record than Walton's) that likewise allow for the ancient universe attested to by the creation itself. Nonetheless, Walton is correct when he writes,
...the suggestion that some of God's work of creation may have taken place over a long period of time rather than instantaneously does not reduce God's power. God can create any way he sees fit, and it is no less an act of his sovereign power if he chooses to do it over extended billions of years. It is still accomplished by his word. Some would see the great span of time as further indication of God's majesty. If nothing is taken away from God's works and his sovereignty is not reduced, then there is no theological threat regarding God's person or deeds.Absolutely. But I was even happier to read the following regarding God's sovereignty in His work of sustaining creation...
If God's work of creation is considered only a historical act that took place in the past, it is easy to imagine how people might not think in terms of God being active today. We have lost the view that nature does not operate independently from God. He is still creating with each baby that is born, with each plant that grows, with each cell that divides, with each nebula that forms. We might find it easy to look at some majestic view like a glorious sunset or the grandeur of the mountains and ponder the magnificence of God's handiwork. But this sense needs to extend beyond the "wow" moments to encompass all of our experience of his world. We have the same problem when we only recognize God in some incredible occurrence in our lives and forget that he provides for us, cares for us and protects us moment by moment, day after day. God did not just create at some time in the past; he is the Creator--past, present, and future.Wholehearted agreement from this quarter. But then comes the issue of God's goodness. For most conservative American Christians, the idea that creation took place billions of years ago impinges upon God's moral character, since that means millions of years of animal death, something we in our modern, urban comfort find unpalatable. And so Walton addresses this issue as well. He doesn't necessarily do a great job of this (the best treatment of this of which I am aware is the book-length response by Mark Whorton, Peril in Paradise, which I highly recommend), but he is correct when he writes that
...we don't have to explain how predation can be a part of a morally good world.(As an ecologist with a biblical worldview, I find it rather easy to explain predation, but we can do that another time.)
Again, I am unconvinced of Walton's new interpretation of Genesis 1, but find important areas of agreement in our respective theologies. And so I find reading--and thinking about-- his perspectives a worthwhile endeavor. More importantly, I believe God is honored when we have these sorts of thoughtful discussions--even when we disagree in some of our conclusions.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Walton's New Thesis
(This is the second post in a series discussing John Walton's new book The Lost World of Genesis One.)
Walton's book is a series of propositions--eighteen of them in fact--with each one given a chapter. The number of propositions is a problem: in order to get to the implications of his theses, he does a rather poor and hurried job of supporting those main theses. Moreover, he ventures far outside his area of expertise (Old Testament) in the later chapters, and this becomes quite obvious (especially) when he discusses science and public education.
In this post, let me just tell you what Walton's main theses are (without further comment) and then highlight one of the tangential points about which I agree with him. His main theses are:
1) That Genesis 1 is an ancient cosmology and that we can better understand it by looking at other cosmologies contemporaneous to it.
2) That Genesis 1 is function-oriented and not an account of the material creation of the universe. What God is doing during the seven 'days' of creation is inaugurating the cosmos (already in existence) as His functional temple.
One of the propositions with which I agree--and which I think is a discussion that needs to be had--is this... "God's Roles as Creator and Sustainer Are Less Different Than We Have Thought" (Proposition--and thus chapter--14). In this chapter, Walton seeks to avoid two extremes, seeing creation as a finished act of the past (on the one hand) and a form of micromanagement that denies God's use of natural process at all (on the other). His contention is that
The problem--for Walton's more central theses--is that it does not require acceptance of his view of Genesis 1 (that the account concerns function only and does not treat material creation) to arrive at this conclusion. I--along with Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers throughout history--see Genesis 1 as dealing with the material creation of the universe (which is what Walton denies), and yet am in lock-step with him that God's creative activity is ongoing and that natural laws do not operate independently of His sustaining work. He is wrong, then, when he claims that (italics mine)
In the next post, I'll highlight another area in which I find Walton's thinking accurate in important ways.
Walton's book is a series of propositions--eighteen of them in fact--with each one given a chapter. The number of propositions is a problem: in order to get to the implications of his theses, he does a rather poor and hurried job of supporting those main theses. Moreover, he ventures far outside his area of expertise (Old Testament) in the later chapters, and this becomes quite obvious (especially) when he discusses science and public education.
In this post, let me just tell you what Walton's main theses are (without further comment) and then highlight one of the tangential points about which I agree with him. His main theses are:
1) That Genesis 1 is an ancient cosmology and that we can better understand it by looking at other cosmologies contemporaneous to it.
2) That Genesis 1 is function-oriented and not an account of the material creation of the universe. What God is doing during the seven 'days' of creation is inaugurating the cosmos (already in existence) as His functional temple.
One of the propositions with which I agree--and which I think is a discussion that needs to be had--is this... "God's Roles as Creator and Sustainer Are Less Different Than We Have Thought" (Proposition--and thus chapter--14). In this chapter, Walton seeks to avoid two extremes, seeing creation as a finished act of the past (on the one hand) and a form of micromanagement that denies God's use of natural process at all (on the other). His contention is that
The Bible to some extent offers the idea that creation is ongoing and dynamic.The chapter itself bogs down a bit, but Walton elsewhere makes important points that relate to this proposition. In particular,
In chapter one we pointed out that the common dichotomy drawn today between "natural" and "supernatural" did not exist in the ancient world. I would also propose that it is not theologically sound. God cannot be removed or distanced from those occurrences that we so glibly label "natural." When we so label phenomena, it is an indication that we understand (at least to some extent) the laws and causes that explain it. Be that as it may, that does not mean that God does not control that process. What we identify as natural laws only take on their law-like quality because God acts so consistently in the operations of the cosmos. He has made the cosmos intelligible and has given us minds that can penetrate some of its mysteries.He is, of course, right about this, and his subsequent illustration and discussion constitute some of the best writing in the book. Earlier (in Proposition 1), he appeals to Richard Bube (The Human Quest) for an explicit statement that I frequently make myself, that...
if God were to unplug himself in that way from the cosmos, we and everything else in the cosmos would simply cease to exist.I agree. We understand (in part) what gravity is, but we cannot explain why it works. Nor can we expect it (or the strong nuclear force, for that matter) to continue its operations were God to cease His work of sustaining creation. Indeed, on a biblical understanding, we would expect everything to cease without God's continuing sustaining of it.
The problem--for Walton's more central theses--is that it does not require acceptance of his view of Genesis 1 (that the account concerns function only and does not treat material creation) to arrive at this conclusion. I--along with Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers throughout history--see Genesis 1 as dealing with the material creation of the universe (which is what Walton denies), and yet am in lock-step with him that God's creative activity is ongoing and that natural laws do not operate independently of His sustaining work. He is wrong, then, when he claims that (italics mine)
In the position of this book, the idea that Genesis 1 deals with functional origins opens up a new possibility for seeing both continuity and a dynamic aspect in God's work as Creator...So, I disagree that one need accept Walton's more radical thesis about Genesis 1 to arrive at a biblical understanding of God's work as Creator/Sustainer. Nonetheless, I appreciated his statement and discussion of this understanding.
In the next post, I'll highlight another area in which I find Walton's thinking accurate in important ways.
Friday, August 7, 2009
New Interpretation of Genesis One
So there's a new book out, one proposing what I take to be a new interpretation of the creation narrative in Genesis one. It's by John H. Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, and is titled The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. I'll probably take a few posts to blog on it, since it provides fodder for good discussion.
Not counting this one, I'm aware of about a dozen different views on the correct interpretation of Genesis one. A couple of those are no longer live options: I don't know of anyone today who holds the view (believed by some to be that of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) that each of the creation days was a period of 1000 years. Likewise, you'd have difficulty finding anyone today defending the view of Augustine and Origen that the creation 'days' are merely figurative (that is, that they do not involve any time at all), but that the account conveys spiritual truths. [Of the existing views, Walton's new interpretation is perhaps closest to this one, though he would almost surely deny it.]
Of the remaining 10 views, perhaps the rarest now is the Gap Theory, which was popularized by Scofield in his study Bible, and enjoyed a good following for some time. Most folks today recognize overwhelming exegetical and scientific problems with this view.
Another fringe idea (that is, one without a vocal defense today) is that the six days are merely a theological statement, a polemic against the pagan cosmologies of Moses' time. This idea was advanced by Karl Barth and others, and if it has proponents today, they don't seem to take a very active part in the discussion. Walton seeks to distance himself from this view, but it is (as I see it) the next nearest idea to that which he is himself advocating.
Walton's interpretation has this in common with most (at least 10) of the other views... acceptance of it makes it possible to reconcile Genesis one with the findings of modern astronomy, physics, geology, and chemistry. Only the two young-earth approaches lead to the rejection of virtually all of science, those being the plain-day view (defended by the late Henry Morris and by Ken Ham and others, and taught as "what the Bible says" in the majority of conservative American churches) and the Relativity-Day view (of Derek Humphreys and Gerald Schroeder), which at least seeks to come to grips with the plain evidence from astronomy that the stars have been around a good deal longer than 6,000 years.
But whereas this new interpretation allows for the ancient universe and earth attested to by the creation itself, Walton makes it clear that this was not a consideration for him--that instead he had only the goal of doing justice to the text itself in light of the cosmology of the Israelites and other ancient Near Eastern cultures. Indeed, he has nasty things to say about concordists (or his straw-man version of them)--those who seek to reconcile Genesis one with modern scientific understanding.
I think there is a good deal of merit to some of what is argued in this new book, and I'll hope to highlight those points in coming posts. But I also see significant problems with important parts of Walton's theses, and I'll be happy to discuss those as well. Stay tuned for those posts, but better yet, pick up a copy and read it, so that you, too, can be in on the discussion. (It's really a rather small book, the chapters are short, and it's easily read in a few short sittings.)
Though I ultimately disagree strongly with some of Walton's conclusions (and with some of his starting points as well), I welcome this new infusion into the discussion. I believe that God is honored when we take His Word seriously, especially if our disputations are carried out with humility and respect, as befitting Christ-followers.
Not counting this one, I'm aware of about a dozen different views on the correct interpretation of Genesis one. A couple of those are no longer live options: I don't know of anyone today who holds the view (believed by some to be that of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) that each of the creation days was a period of 1000 years. Likewise, you'd have difficulty finding anyone today defending the view of Augustine and Origen that the creation 'days' are merely figurative (that is, that they do not involve any time at all), but that the account conveys spiritual truths. [Of the existing views, Walton's new interpretation is perhaps closest to this one, though he would almost surely deny it.]
Of the remaining 10 views, perhaps the rarest now is the Gap Theory, which was popularized by Scofield in his study Bible, and enjoyed a good following for some time. Most folks today recognize overwhelming exegetical and scientific problems with this view.
Another fringe idea (that is, one without a vocal defense today) is that the six days are merely a theological statement, a polemic against the pagan cosmologies of Moses' time. This idea was advanced by Karl Barth and others, and if it has proponents today, they don't seem to take a very active part in the discussion. Walton seeks to distance himself from this view, but it is (as I see it) the next nearest idea to that which he is himself advocating.
Walton's interpretation has this in common with most (at least 10) of the other views... acceptance of it makes it possible to reconcile Genesis one with the findings of modern astronomy, physics, geology, and chemistry. Only the two young-earth approaches lead to the rejection of virtually all of science, those being the plain-day view (defended by the late Henry Morris and by Ken Ham and others, and taught as "what the Bible says" in the majority of conservative American churches) and the Relativity-Day view (of Derek Humphreys and Gerald Schroeder), which at least seeks to come to grips with the plain evidence from astronomy that the stars have been around a good deal longer than 6,000 years.
But whereas this new interpretation allows for the ancient universe and earth attested to by the creation itself, Walton makes it clear that this was not a consideration for him--that instead he had only the goal of doing justice to the text itself in light of the cosmology of the Israelites and other ancient Near Eastern cultures. Indeed, he has nasty things to say about concordists (or his straw-man version of them)--those who seek to reconcile Genesis one with modern scientific understanding.
I think there is a good deal of merit to some of what is argued in this new book, and I'll hope to highlight those points in coming posts. But I also see significant problems with important parts of Walton's theses, and I'll be happy to discuss those as well. Stay tuned for those posts, but better yet, pick up a copy and read it, so that you, too, can be in on the discussion. (It's really a rather small book, the chapters are short, and it's easily read in a few short sittings.)
Though I ultimately disagree strongly with some of Walton's conclusions (and with some of his starting points as well), I welcome this new infusion into the discussion. I believe that God is honored when we take His Word seriously, especially if our disputations are carried out with humility and respect, as befitting Christ-followers.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Blog Recommendations
It's time for me to alert you to some other blogs worth reading...
I've added a blog to my favorites list (at right). It's called Darwin's God and is by Cornelius Hunter. This blog (like Hunter's several books) makes obvious the fact that modern evolutionary arguments--like those of Darwin himself--are religious in nature and not supported by empirical evidence. That is, that while branding evolution's naysayers as religious (no matter how much those naysayers are in fact sticking to scientific evidence), the evolutionist is the one depending upon religious arguments to make his case. Check out the link at right to see how this irony plays out every day in the debate about evolution.
I also want to offer a shout-out to my friend Bob Perry, whose widely diverse posts never fail to impress me. The link to his blog, True Horizon, can also be found at right, and I recommend you check out his actual history of the issue of ESCR (to correct the misimpressions you will have gotten from Mr. Obama and his worshippers in the media); that would be the post of August 3rd.
Finally, I left my oldest son Nathan behind in Romania, and he is blogging about his further adventures in eastern Europe. You can check those posts out at Viva Adventure.
I've added a blog to my favorites list (at right). It's called Darwin's God and is by Cornelius Hunter. This blog (like Hunter's several books) makes obvious the fact that modern evolutionary arguments--like those of Darwin himself--are religious in nature and not supported by empirical evidence. That is, that while branding evolution's naysayers as religious (no matter how much those naysayers are in fact sticking to scientific evidence), the evolutionist is the one depending upon religious arguments to make his case. Check out the link at right to see how this irony plays out every day in the debate about evolution.
I also want to offer a shout-out to my friend Bob Perry, whose widely diverse posts never fail to impress me. The link to his blog, True Horizon, can also be found at right, and I recommend you check out his actual history of the issue of ESCR (to correct the misimpressions you will have gotten from Mr. Obama and his worshippers in the media); that would be the post of August 3rd.
Finally, I left my oldest son Nathan behind in Romania, and he is blogging about his further adventures in eastern Europe. You can check those posts out at Viva Adventure.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Back in the Saddle
Arrived safely back in Oregon after 'vacation' in Romania. Easier to adjust to the time difference when going east to west than the other way. Had kinda a baptism by fire, as I had to resume field work right away and the temps are near 100 every day.
Finally going to relax this weekend, as we're heading to the woods and Antioch (third annual) Family Camp. Looking forward to just taking it easy, doing a little trout fishing, reading, lying around. About the most exercise I expect is maybe a bit of volleyball or frisbee golf, but if it's hotter there than usual, I may even pass on those.
Finally going to relax this weekend, as we're heading to the woods and Antioch (third annual) Family Camp. Looking forward to just taking it easy, doing a little trout fishing, reading, lying around. About the most exercise I expect is maybe a bit of volleyball or frisbee golf, but if it's hotter there than usual, I may even pass on those.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Ciao, Romania
It's 3 am in Bucharest, and we're headed for the airport. Going to Portland via Frankfurt.
Our team from Antioch has already diverged, with Nate, Jason, and Megan staying behind with Emi and Vio. They'll travel to Budapest, Hungary, then Vienna and Prague before Nate and Jason go to Athens. We'll leave Kesh in Frankfurt, as he'll be flying to Paris to visit his sister for a couple of weeks.
It's been a great trip; we learned a good deal, taught quite a bit, had loads of fun, and made some lasting (even some eternal) relationships. It'll be good to get back to home and family, however.
Ciao, Romania
Our team from Antioch has already diverged, with Nate, Jason, and Megan staying behind with Emi and Vio. They'll travel to Budapest, Hungary, then Vienna and Prague before Nate and Jason go to Athens. We'll leave Kesh in Frankfurt, as he'll be flying to Paris to visit his sister for a couple of weeks.
It's been a great trip; we learned a good deal, taught quite a bit, had loads of fun, and made some lasting (even some eternal) relationships. It'll be good to get back to home and family, however.
Ciao, Romania
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Camp Romania-Style
We're winding down our week of putting on a youth evangelistic camp near Lake Surduc in Timis, Romania. There are 140 campers, and our American team is participating alongside the Romanians. Kristin is singing with the worship team, with Kesh and Collin playing bongoes and digital drums and Nate playing some guitar. Collin heads up the sports events, Megan and some of the girls offer crafts, and most of us lead small discussion groups morning and evening. I delivered the messages each evening.
It was, apparently, a rather diverse group of Romanian churches and pastors, and I've come to realize that there was a good deal of skepticism--as to whether camp would even work with the Americanos so involved and about my different (apologetic) approach to the talks.
And then, if I'd have told them beforehand about the theme skit, they'd have certainly said 'no way!' The theme of the camp--The Quest for Truth--was carried to extremes of absurdity by Louisiana Jones (my son Nate) and Georgia Jones (Kesh Phillips) and their enemies Count Vladimir (Alex Hardin) and his apprentice vampire Fido (my son Jasper). Their antics had everyone in stitches, but did serve to set up each of my talks, which tackled (in turn) the existence of truth, what science and reason really tell us about the universe (that only the three monotheistic faiths come close to describing it accurately), how fulfilled prophecy and the reliability of the New Testament separate Christianity from Judaism and Islam, the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and its implications, and, finally, what occurred at the crucifixion (what it means to us and what should be our response).
In the end, it all came together in a powerful, supernatural way, and everyone at camp was deeply affected. I know that our team will remember this week for years to come, and I trust that the Holy Spirit is still moving in the lives of many from both of the cultures that shared this exciting week at camp.
It was, apparently, a rather diverse group of Romanian churches and pastors, and I've come to realize that there was a good deal of skepticism--as to whether camp would even work with the Americanos so involved and about my different (apologetic) approach to the talks.
And then, if I'd have told them beforehand about the theme skit, they'd have certainly said 'no way!' The theme of the camp--The Quest for Truth--was carried to extremes of absurdity by Louisiana Jones (my son Nate) and Georgia Jones (Kesh Phillips) and their enemies Count Vladimir (Alex Hardin) and his apprentice vampire Fido (my son Jasper). Their antics had everyone in stitches, but did serve to set up each of my talks, which tackled (in turn) the existence of truth, what science and reason really tell us about the universe (that only the three monotheistic faiths come close to describing it accurately), how fulfilled prophecy and the reliability of the New Testament separate Christianity from Judaism and Islam, the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and its implications, and, finally, what occurred at the crucifixion (what it means to us and what should be our response).
In the end, it all came together in a powerful, supernatural way, and everyone at camp was deeply affected. I know that our team will remember this week for years to come, and I trust that the Holy Spirit is still moving in the lives of many from both of the cultures that shared this exciting week at camp.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Apologetics Conference
Well, I wore out 3 different interpreters, but I survived 5 lectures and a Q&A session over two days here in Arad. I spoke on postmodernism, the credibility of miracles, worldview thinking, a critique of naturalism, and the problem of evil and suffering. The conference was attended by folks from much of western Romania, and I received some great questions and had some interesting discussions. I ate meals with the attendees rather than with my team from Antioch.
That team, meanwhile, was doing a variety of things... street ministry with gypsy kids, visits to the orphanage sponsored by our host church, and completely tearing down and rebuilding the play structure at the church. Some of them really have a gift with kids.
We'll participate in the church services tomorrow (one in the morning and one in the evening); in each, our whole team will sing one song (with Nate and Jazz on guitar and keyboard) and then Kristin Jones will sing a solo (accompanied by Nate on guitar). I'll preach, and that means two different sermons, as if I haven't had enough trouble keeping ahead of the game so far. When Emi asked me to do these things, it was all in the nearly-hypothetical future; if I had known then what I know now... well, I'd still have probably said yes.
We went to a nearby farm tonight for a barbecue. There we celebrated Jim Kone's birthday, and Nate caught a fish ("Crappe Grindo"?) in one of the ponds. That was all cut short by thundershowers, which caused us to scurry back to the church in a variety of vehicles (some barely road-worthy). The storm continues a couple hours later as I type this.
Sounds like we may have internet access even at the camp next week, so I'll try to keep posting.
That team, meanwhile, was doing a variety of things... street ministry with gypsy kids, visits to the orphanage sponsored by our host church, and completely tearing down and rebuilding the play structure at the church. Some of them really have a gift with kids.
We'll participate in the church services tomorrow (one in the morning and one in the evening); in each, our whole team will sing one song (with Nate and Jazz on guitar and keyboard) and then Kristin Jones will sing a solo (accompanied by Nate on guitar). I'll preach, and that means two different sermons, as if I haven't had enough trouble keeping ahead of the game so far. When Emi asked me to do these things, it was all in the nearly-hypothetical future; if I had known then what I know now... well, I'd still have probably said yes.
We went to a nearby farm tonight for a barbecue. There we celebrated Jim Kone's birthday, and Nate caught a fish ("Crappe Grindo"?) in one of the ponds. That was all cut short by thundershowers, which caused us to scurry back to the church in a variety of vehicles (some barely road-worthy). The storm continues a couple hours later as I type this.
Sounds like we may have internet access even at the camp next week, so I'll try to keep posting.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
This and That, Romania-Style
Much to report from our trip to Romania, and too full a schedule to find time to report it all... In addition, my schedule separates me from the rest of the team at times, so what I have to share is biased towards my own doings.
Tuesday, I had opportunity to speak to the department heads at the University in Arad. This was conducted entirely in English (that is, without translation), as these professors were all proficient in it (despite this talk being the most technical of all those that I will share on this trip). The topic was a critique of naturalism within science. In it, I made several points...
1) The university system and nearly all universities were established by Christians. The term itself means "from many, one." The diversity refers to the various areas of human endeavor, from poetry and music, to economics and politics, to chemistry and philosophy. And the unifying principle that held all these diverse disciplines together was the lordship of Jesus Christ. On this understanding of the history of the university system, it is a contradiction in terms (an oxymoron) to talk about a 'secular university,' though that is what we now have all around us.
2) The reason the university has come to teach without reference to God or to Jesus is the mistaken belief that modern science has somehow disproved His existence.
3) Like the university system, modern science uniquely arose within a Christian worldview. It was Christian men and women, studying the pages of Scripture, that came to believe that the study of the universe in which we live was a worthwhile endeavor. Thus there is no historical justification for approaching science from a naturalist worldview (which says that the universe is the whole show and that there is no God behind it).
4) That science was uniquely birthed by Christians is because the many assumptions that make science feasible come from a Christian worldview. Though there are some twenty such assumptions that could be discussed (such as that the laws of logic and mathematics really apply to the universe in which we live), a couple of the most important ones are these...
5) If we do not artificially constrain ourselves to strictly natural explanations, then all of the latest scientific discoveries are rightly seen as supporting a theistic--not a naturalistic--understanding of the world in which we live. For example, the discovery that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago provides powerful scientific confirmation of the cosmological argument for God's existence (as well as for the Biblical statements--many of them made 5,000 years ago--that the eternal God created the universe transcendentally). Likewise, the teleological (design) argument for God's existence (and care) has received stunning scientific confirmation from astrophysics (the discoveries that led to the 'anthropic principle,' the recognition that the universe, galaxy, solar system, and earth exhibit incredibly fine tuning that has as its goal intelligent life in this one place in the universe), biochemistry (the discovery of the awesome complexity of living cells and the consequent recognition of the vastness of the gap between non-living chemicals and the simplest life), and genetics (the discovery of the universal genetic code, the information contained therein and the incredible efficiency of it), to name just a few.
To put it another way, although Darwin provided a hypothetical naturalistic explanation for one thing--the diversity of life on earth (an explanation which itself fails the test of evidential support, but that's an entirely different series of posts)--all of the other big things that science ought to be able to explain--the origin of the universe, the order in the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life on Earth, the origin of the first life, the Cambrian explosion (the 'big bang of biology'), the information in the genetic code, the origin of consciousness) are amenable to explanation within a theistic, but not within a naturalistic, worldview.
6) Thus, it's high time we abandon the naturalistic approach by which science is currently operating and return to the more powerful and objective approach that characterized the first several centuries of scientific progress.
--------
My new friend, Vlad Criznic, who is the Eastern European staff for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, was so impressed by the argument I shared with this faculty that yesterday morning he interviewed me about this topic for his weekly half-hour apologetics-oriented radio program.
The team and I spent most of the day yesterday sight-seeing; we visited Timisoara, a city of 400,000 about 30 miles from here, where the 1989 revolution against communism began. We were guided by Doru Popa, Emi's father and one who was involved in the events of that historic week when the revolution spilled over into Arad. It was thrilling to me to hear the accounts of these events while standing where they took place. It reached a humid 100 degrees there yesterday.
We ended the day with two hours of indoor soccer, our American team playing short games (10 minutes or to two goals) against (alternately) a team of Romanian pastors and leaders (Emi's team) and another team of local fellows. Suffice it to say for this report that we easily held our own, and shattered any local idea that Americans are inferior at the 'world's game.'
Tuesday, I had opportunity to speak to the department heads at the University in Arad. This was conducted entirely in English (that is, without translation), as these professors were all proficient in it (despite this talk being the most technical of all those that I will share on this trip). The topic was a critique of naturalism within science. In it, I made several points...
1) The university system and nearly all universities were established by Christians. The term itself means "from many, one." The diversity refers to the various areas of human endeavor, from poetry and music, to economics and politics, to chemistry and philosophy. And the unifying principle that held all these diverse disciplines together was the lordship of Jesus Christ. On this understanding of the history of the university system, it is a contradiction in terms (an oxymoron) to talk about a 'secular university,' though that is what we now have all around us.
2) The reason the university has come to teach without reference to God or to Jesus is the mistaken belief that modern science has somehow disproved His existence.
3) Like the university system, modern science uniquely arose within a Christian worldview. It was Christian men and women, studying the pages of Scripture, that came to believe that the study of the universe in which we live was a worthwhile endeavor. Thus there is no historical justification for approaching science from a naturalist worldview (which says that the universe is the whole show and that there is no God behind it).
4) That science was uniquely birthed by Christians is because the many assumptions that make science feasible come from a Christian worldview. Though there are some twenty such assumptions that could be discussed (such as that the laws of logic and mathematics really apply to the universe in which we live), a couple of the most important ones are these...
Since the universe is created (as opposed to illusory or eternal), we expect to find design and order in it, as it is a reflection of the rational mind of God.These and others of the necessary assumptions of science remain either contrary to a naturalist metaphysic or at the least unexplained by naturalism. The naturalist scientist depends upon the order in the universe (reflected in predictable, law-like processes) but cannot account for where that order comes from. Thus, there is no logical justification for--and a whole lot of logical justification against--taking a naturalistic approach to science.
Since we are created in the image of God, our reasoning and senses are reliable for discerning that order and design.
5) If we do not artificially constrain ourselves to strictly natural explanations, then all of the latest scientific discoveries are rightly seen as supporting a theistic--not a naturalistic--understanding of the world in which we live. For example, the discovery that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago provides powerful scientific confirmation of the cosmological argument for God's existence (as well as for the Biblical statements--many of them made 5,000 years ago--that the eternal God created the universe transcendentally). Likewise, the teleological (design) argument for God's existence (and care) has received stunning scientific confirmation from astrophysics (the discoveries that led to the 'anthropic principle,' the recognition that the universe, galaxy, solar system, and earth exhibit incredibly fine tuning that has as its goal intelligent life in this one place in the universe), biochemistry (the discovery of the awesome complexity of living cells and the consequent recognition of the vastness of the gap between non-living chemicals and the simplest life), and genetics (the discovery of the universal genetic code, the information contained therein and the incredible efficiency of it), to name just a few.
To put it another way, although Darwin provided a hypothetical naturalistic explanation for one thing--the diversity of life on earth (an explanation which itself fails the test of evidential support, but that's an entirely different series of posts)--all of the other big things that science ought to be able to explain--the origin of the universe, the order in the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life on Earth, the origin of the first life, the Cambrian explosion (the 'big bang of biology'), the information in the genetic code, the origin of consciousness) are amenable to explanation within a theistic, but not within a naturalistic, worldview.
6) Thus, it's high time we abandon the naturalistic approach by which science is currently operating and return to the more powerful and objective approach that characterized the first several centuries of scientific progress.
--------
My new friend, Vlad Criznic, who is the Eastern European staff for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, was so impressed by the argument I shared with this faculty that yesterday morning he interviewed me about this topic for his weekly half-hour apologetics-oriented radio program.
The team and I spent most of the day yesterday sight-seeing; we visited Timisoara, a city of 400,000 about 30 miles from here, where the 1989 revolution against communism began. We were guided by Doru Popa, Emi's father and one who was involved in the events of that historic week when the revolution spilled over into Arad. It was thrilling to me to hear the accounts of these events while standing where they took place. It reached a humid 100 degrees there yesterday.
We ended the day with two hours of indoor soccer, our American team playing short games (10 minutes or to two goals) against (alternately) a team of Romanian pastors and leaders (Emi's team) and another team of local fellows. Suffice it to say for this report that we easily held our own, and shattered any local idea that Americans are inferior at the 'world's game.'
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Romania
Delivered the sermon Saturday evening at an exciting church plant in Bucharest (pictured below is Adiel Bonescu translating for me). They meet for their regular service on Saturday evening because of the availability and reasonable cost of the place they rent for that. They meet in 4 smaller, regional missional communities on Sunday mornings.
It rained all night Saturday and most all day Sunday. While most of our team took a day trip into the mountains, Nate, Jazz, Kesh, and I relaxed most of the day, I preparing my talk for the science faculty at the university in Arad. From 5 to 7 pm, during a break in the rain, we played 6 v 6 soccer on a small, wet, concrete field. We held our own against the Romanians, were leading by two late, and when they tied it up and the rains returned, the game was called. We spent the evening with our entire and extended host family, part of the time singing while Nate played guitar and Kesh played bongos. Dinner and much of the family time were by candlelight, as the electricity was out.
We leave early today (Monday) for a 10-hour van trip to Arad, where we will remain for the rest of our stay. Tuesday, I will speak to the science faculty at the university there (from 10 to 1); feel free to pray for that event.
It rained all night Saturday and most all day Sunday. While most of our team took a day trip into the mountains, Nate, Jazz, Kesh, and I relaxed most of the day, I preparing my talk for the science faculty at the university in Arad. From 5 to 7 pm, during a break in the rain, we played 6 v 6 soccer on a small, wet, concrete field. We held our own against the Romanians, were leading by two late, and when they tied it up and the rains returned, the game was called. We spent the evening with our entire and extended host family, part of the time singing while Nate played guitar and Kesh played bongos. Dinner and much of the family time were by candlelight, as the electricity was out.
We leave early today (Monday) for a 10-hour van trip to Arad, where we will remain for the rest of our stay. Tuesday, I will speak to the science faculty at the university there (from 10 to 1); feel free to pray for that event.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Bucuresti
So, we're in Bucharest, each of us living with a host family and enjoying Romanian meals. We're experiencing a late-afternoon summer storm right now, though the weather has been delightful otherwise (quite warm during the day, but cooling each evening).
We have been spending time with the young people who make up a church plant (of less than a year) here in the capitol city, and it has been great to see that they are experiencing some of the same blessings and difficulties as we at Antioch. I have so far shared with the guys about three apologetics issues--postmodernism, the reliability of the gospel accounts, and the problem of evil and suffering. This evening I will preach on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and the centrality of these events to church history, to human history, and to cosmic history.
Having a great time, wish you were here...
We have been spending time with the young people who make up a church plant (of less than a year) here in the capitol city, and it has been great to see that they are experiencing some of the same blessings and difficulties as we at Antioch. I have so far shared with the guys about three apologetics issues--postmodernism, the reliability of the gospel accounts, and the problem of evil and suffering. This evening I will preach on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and the centrality of these events to church history, to human history, and to cosmic history.
Having a great time, wish you were here...
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Romania Bound
Tomorrow's the big day! With a team of 17 from Antioch, my boys and I are headed to Romania. It will be a varied experience; we'll hope to serve and love and help and teach and share, but I expect we'll learn a great deal as well.
As for me, I'm scheduled to teach and preach, to be involved in an apologetics conference (that's my main gig after all) and to share the good news at a youth camp. I'll also have an opportunity to speak to the science faculty of a Romanian university. I'd appreciate your prayers throughout.
As for blogging, we'll have to see. I expect to have the time (moreso than of late), but am uncertain of the availability of internet access in the places we'll be staying. By all means, though, keep checking!
As for me, I'm scheduled to teach and preach, to be involved in an apologetics conference (that's my main gig after all) and to share the good news at a youth camp. I'll also have an opportunity to speak to the science faculty of a Romanian university. I'd appreciate your prayers throughout.
As for blogging, we'll have to see. I expect to have the time (moreso than of late), but am uncertain of the availability of internet access in the places we'll be staying. By all means, though, keep checking!
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wright on the Spirit
Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense is a relatively recent book by N.T. (Tom) Wright. It's one of the current all-church reads at my home church, Antioch. Billed as a modern Mere Christianity, this book succeeds in offering what C.S. Lewis' classic did--a sensible articulation of basic Christianity free of church-speak and accessible to the man or woman on the street.
I highly recommend it (though I'm not yet finished). For now, though, let me just offer a paragraph on the Holy Spirit...
I highly recommend it (though I'm not yet finished). For now, though, let me just offer a paragraph on the Holy Spirit...
The Holy Spirit and the task of the church. The two walk together, hand in hand. We can't talk about them apart. Despite what you might think from some excitement in the previous generation about new spiritual experiences, God doesn't give people the Holy Spirit in order to let them enjoy the spiritual equivalent of a day at Disneyland. Of course, if you're downcast and gloomy, the fresh wind of God's Spirit can and often does give you a new perspective on everything, and above all grants a sense of God's presence, love, comfort, and even joy. But the point of the Spirit is to enble those who follow Jesus to take into all the world the news that he is Lord, that he has won the victory over the forces of evil, that a new world has opened up, and that we are to help make it happen.
Monday, June 22, 2009
On Sharing Christianity
I'm too busy to blog most days. This is the main season for most of the field work I do, and I'm burning the candle at both ends to keep up. Add to that the fact that I have to get it all done before heading to Romania for three weeks in July. And then there's the little matter of preparing for the speaking engagements for which I'm slated once in Romania...
I'm scheduled to preach, speak, or hold a Q & A session a total of 22 times in Romania. That includes being the keynote speaker at an Apologetics Conference and the main speaker at a week-long evangelism camp for youth. I also have one engagement with the science faculty at a Romanian university--I'm looking forward to that one!
Much of the goal will be to strengthen the faith of Romanians who already follow Christ--helping them to realize how reason and evidence combine to make the Christian worldview the uniquely accurate understanding of the universe in which we live. But some of my time (at the university and the youth camp) will involve sharing the Christian message with those who are currently skeptical about it. I'll be "sharing the gospel" or "evangelizing."
Which reminds me of a claim made several years back by an elderly lady friend of mine, someone whose opinions and thoughts on most other subjects I had come to respect...
We were in a small group, and another gal was talking favorably (apparently as a fellow-believer) of some missionary friends who were helping members of a South American tribe leave their superstition and animism and embrace Christianity. My elderly friend remarked,
The first is that my friend could only say this because she didn't take Christianity seriously or believe it to be true. If, as the Bible claims, the only hope for human beings--for this life and for eternity--is being made right with their Creator through the work on the Cross of His eternal Son Jesus, then we who know this should be sharing it with those who don't at every opportunity. My friend was not able to fairly enter into the discussion by assuming for the moment that the missionaries' worldview might be true.
But there's a more basic problem with my friend's claim--a logical flaw, an error in thinking. And that is that her claim is....
[At this point, regular readers of my blog ought to be able to supply the hyphenated word that completes my sentence.]
That's right! Her statement is SELF-REFUTING, or self-referentially absurd.
To anyone who truly seeks to follow Christ, the call to share the good news about the reconciliation available only through Him is itself one of the most fundamental "religious" convictions. So when she said that it is wrong to seek to change another person's religious convictions, my friend was guilty of trying to do just that. She was sawing off the branch upon which she was sitting, disqualified by her own criterion, run through by her own spear. Her making the statement put her at odds with the content of the proposition she was seeking to convey. And she, of course, didn't realize it.
But you, dear reader, have by now learned to avoid making self-refuting statements yourself (they are, after all, necessarily false) and have finely-tuned your baloney detector to spot such absurdity from a mile off. Keep up the good work!
I'm scheduled to preach, speak, or hold a Q & A session a total of 22 times in Romania. That includes being the keynote speaker at an Apologetics Conference and the main speaker at a week-long evangelism camp for youth. I also have one engagement with the science faculty at a Romanian university--I'm looking forward to that one!
Much of the goal will be to strengthen the faith of Romanians who already follow Christ--helping them to realize how reason and evidence combine to make the Christian worldview the uniquely accurate understanding of the universe in which we live. But some of my time (at the university and the youth camp) will involve sharing the Christian message with those who are currently skeptical about it. I'll be "sharing the gospel" or "evangelizing."
Which reminds me of a claim made several years back by an elderly lady friend of mine, someone whose opinions and thoughts on most other subjects I had come to respect...
We were in a small group, and another gal was talking favorably (apparently as a fellow-believer) of some missionary friends who were helping members of a South American tribe leave their superstition and animism and embrace Christianity. My elderly friend remarked,
I would never do that. It's wrong to try to change someone else's religious convictions.Now, there are several problems with this claim, of which I'll mention just two.
The first is that my friend could only say this because she didn't take Christianity seriously or believe it to be true. If, as the Bible claims, the only hope for human beings--for this life and for eternity--is being made right with their Creator through the work on the Cross of His eternal Son Jesus, then we who know this should be sharing it with those who don't at every opportunity. My friend was not able to fairly enter into the discussion by assuming for the moment that the missionaries' worldview might be true.
But there's a more basic problem with my friend's claim--a logical flaw, an error in thinking. And that is that her claim is....
[At this point, regular readers of my blog ought to be able to supply the hyphenated word that completes my sentence.]
That's right! Her statement is SELF-REFUTING, or self-referentially absurd.
To anyone who truly seeks to follow Christ, the call to share the good news about the reconciliation available only through Him is itself one of the most fundamental "religious" convictions. So when she said that it is wrong to seek to change another person's religious convictions, my friend was guilty of trying to do just that. She was sawing off the branch upon which she was sitting, disqualified by her own criterion, run through by her own spear. Her making the statement put her at odds with the content of the proposition she was seeking to convey. And she, of course, didn't realize it.
But you, dear reader, have by now learned to avoid making self-refuting statements yourself (they are, after all, necessarily false) and have finely-tuned your baloney detector to spot such absurdity from a mile off. Keep up the good work!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Variants in the NT
In a few weeks from now, I'll teach a couple of classes (Sunday mornings at Antioch) on New Testament textual criticism, the science that allows us to ascertain what the original New Testament writings said. As I began to think about that issue, I thought it might be a good idea to post a bit of what I'll cover.
I'll begin by asserting that there is overwhelming reason to conclude that the New Testament was reliably transmitted from the original writings to the copies (the Greek manuscripts) that still exist. I will be quick to acknowledge, however, that the thousands of manuscripts available to us do contain variants, places where they disagree with one another. Indeed, there are literally tens of thousands of such variants among these copies. That being the case, isn't the charge of tainted transmission a valid one?
No, not at all. For one thing, the vast majority of these variants are completely insignificant. They amount to nothing more than an alternate spelling or the fact that a single place or person was known by two different names. So the issue of the reliability of the copying comes down to approximately 2,000 places where variant readings that are not insignificant can be found among the manuscripts. Most of these will be identified (by footnotes or marginal notes) in any good study Bible.
Let me share two examples of significant variants, one accidental and one likely intentional. In Romans 5:1, the Greek word εχομεν or εχωμεν appears in the different ancient copies. The difference is the third letter--did the original contain an omega or an omicron (the two different Greek 'o's)? In English, the verse reads
There's an example of an intentional error in the second verse of Mark's gospel. Some copies read, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." This is followed by an Old Testament quote, a quote which can be found not only in Isaiah but also in Malachi. So other copies read, "As it is written in the prophets..." It would seem that some first or second century scribe, in copying Mark's written account of the events of Jesus' life, decided that Mark hadn't been on his game when he wrote "in Isaiah the prophet." The scribe 'improved' the text by changing it to "the prophets." Both variants, of course, are correct, but the first is likely what Mark actually wrote.
There is, therefore, an entire field of scholarship called New Testament textual criticism that seeks to recover the autographs by careful scrutiny of the wealth of copies in existence. Scholars in this field examine external evidence (including the dates and locations of the variants in the Greek manuscripts, in the early Latin, Coptic, and Syriac translations, and in the citations from the early church fathers) and internal evidence (such as 'which variant best explains how the other arose?'). The result is a level of certainty about the originals that exceeds 99% accuracy.
It is important to note that no Christian doctrine is undermined by any of the variant readings. If we were to ignore all of the passages in which variants are found--and use only those passages in which all the relevant copies agree completely--what would be the result? We would have the very same picture of Jesus--a miracle-working, divine Son of God who died by crucifixion and three days later was raised in a glorified physical body.
The existence of errors in copying--some of them significant--should cause us no concern with regard to the reliability of the New Testament. We do need to recognize, though, that the referent of the biblical doctrine of inspiration (and of the implied doctrine of inerrancy) is not a particular set of copies--much less a particular English translation--but the autographs. These we don't have, but--through the reasoned application of New Testament textual criticism--we have a great deal of certainty about what these originals contained.
I'll begin by asserting that there is overwhelming reason to conclude that the New Testament was reliably transmitted from the original writings to the copies (the Greek manuscripts) that still exist. I will be quick to acknowledge, however, that the thousands of manuscripts available to us do contain variants, places where they disagree with one another. Indeed, there are literally tens of thousands of such variants among these copies. That being the case, isn't the charge of tainted transmission a valid one?
No, not at all. For one thing, the vast majority of these variants are completely insignificant. They amount to nothing more than an alternate spelling or the fact that a single place or person was known by two different names. So the issue of the reliability of the copying comes down to approximately 2,000 places where variant readings that are not insignificant can be found among the manuscripts. Most of these will be identified (by footnotes or marginal notes) in any good study Bible.
Let me share two examples of significant variants, one accidental and one likely intentional. In Romans 5:1, the Greek word εχομεν or εχωμεν appears in the different ancient copies. The difference is the third letter--did the original contain an omega or an omicron (the two different Greek 'o's)? In English, the verse reads
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.Or..
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.Is Paul telling us that peace is an accomplished fact or something that we should be striving to appropriate? In this case we have a very minor alteration that leads to a rather significant difference in meaning. The incorrect insertion of the wrong 'o' would have been an easy mistake to make, especially if the scribe were listening to someone else dictate the letter.
There's an example of an intentional error in the second verse of Mark's gospel. Some copies read, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." This is followed by an Old Testament quote, a quote which can be found not only in Isaiah but also in Malachi. So other copies read, "As it is written in the prophets..." It would seem that some first or second century scribe, in copying Mark's written account of the events of Jesus' life, decided that Mark hadn't been on his game when he wrote "in Isaiah the prophet." The scribe 'improved' the text by changing it to "the prophets." Both variants, of course, are correct, but the first is likely what Mark actually wrote.
There is, therefore, an entire field of scholarship called New Testament textual criticism that seeks to recover the autographs by careful scrutiny of the wealth of copies in existence. Scholars in this field examine external evidence (including the dates and locations of the variants in the Greek manuscripts, in the early Latin, Coptic, and Syriac translations, and in the citations from the early church fathers) and internal evidence (such as 'which variant best explains how the other arose?'). The result is a level of certainty about the originals that exceeds 99% accuracy.
It is important to note that no Christian doctrine is undermined by any of the variant readings. If we were to ignore all of the passages in which variants are found--and use only those passages in which all the relevant copies agree completely--what would be the result? We would have the very same picture of Jesus--a miracle-working, divine Son of God who died by crucifixion and three days later was raised in a glorified physical body.
The existence of errors in copying--some of them significant--should cause us no concern with regard to the reliability of the New Testament. We do need to recognize, though, that the referent of the biblical doctrine of inspiration (and of the implied doctrine of inerrancy) is not a particular set of copies--much less a particular English translation--but the autographs. These we don't have, but--through the reasoned application of New Testament textual criticism--we have a great deal of certainty about what these originals contained.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
High Intrigue
Last week, there was high intrigue in a little commune near our house. Indeed, what occurred was the culmination of days and weeks of mutinous plotting, the carrying out of a betrayal that left a kingdom (queendom, actually) divided.
It seems that some of the ladies-in-waiting, the monarch's most trusted and loyal subjects, grew tired of her ladyship or of the size of the castle (or whatever, I hadn't the chance to ask any of them). At any rate, they elected, secreted away, and groomed a replacement. Then one day last week, they revolted, openly declaring their change of allegiance.
Fortunately, it was all very non-violent. No blood was shed; in fact, the reigning queen was allowed to keep not only her life and wealth (mostly gold) but also her castle. Her only loss was half of her former subjects and army, as they chose to flee the castle altogether. The mutineers with their new queen were discovered (as pictured below) by our next-door neighbor. I called a friend who agreed to offer them amnesty, and toward nightfall we installed them in a new castle and drove them across town to his place.
It was undoubtedly a traumatic event for all concerned, but by nightfall peace reigned in both castles and everyone could look back on a good day's work.
It seems that some of the ladies-in-waiting, the monarch's most trusted and loyal subjects, grew tired of her ladyship or of the size of the castle (or whatever, I hadn't the chance to ask any of them). At any rate, they elected, secreted away, and groomed a replacement. Then one day last week, they revolted, openly declaring their change of allegiance.
Fortunately, it was all very non-violent. No blood was shed; in fact, the reigning queen was allowed to keep not only her life and wealth (mostly gold) but also her castle. Her only loss was half of her former subjects and army, as they chose to flee the castle altogether. The mutineers with their new queen were discovered (as pictured below) by our next-door neighbor. I called a friend who agreed to offer them amnesty, and toward nightfall we installed them in a new castle and drove them across town to his place.
It was undoubtedly a traumatic event for all concerned, but by nightfall peace reigned in both castles and everyone could look back on a good day's work.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Nate in Mexico
Our oldest son, Nathan, is in Mexico, playing in soccer tournaments with the Southern California Seahorses. The Seahorses are a Christian ministry that uses sport--specifically the "beautiful game"--as a vehicle for sharing Christ. Nate's giftedness in and passion for soccer will be put to good use, and he's also to lead worship (they realized at the last minute--and after he'd flown to L.A. without his--that he was the only one on the team who plays guitar).
Their tournaments are in fairly remote villages; as a consequence, he's been totally incommunicado since he left LAX.
It's not an apologetics mission per se, but it is an opportunity to share the central reality about the world in which we live... that God loves us and has provided reconciliation for us through His eternal Son, Jesus Christ. If a guy has to go to warmer climes to score a few goals or get kicked in the shins a couple of times to earn the right to share that wonderful truth, well then, Nate's the guy that's willing to do it. Pray for him if you have a moment.
Their tournaments are in fairly remote villages; as a consequence, he's been totally incommunicado since he left LAX.
It's not an apologetics mission per se, but it is an opportunity to share the central reality about the world in which we live... that God loves us and has provided reconciliation for us through His eternal Son, Jesus Christ. If a guy has to go to warmer climes to score a few goals or get kicked in the shins a couple of times to earn the right to share that wonderful truth, well then, Nate's the guy that's willing to do it. Pray for him if you have a moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)