Although I’ve been too busy to write much, I could not help but make a couple comments in the great discussion going on over at Michael’s blog Parchment and Pen where Dr. Dan Wallace began by lamenting the treatment some of his students received when seeking to study under more liberal professors at secular schools. Well, this caused so much traffic that the blog was down for a few minutes yesterday. So far, there are over 200 comments, with mine at 196 and 231. If you are interested in academics and scholarship as it relates to Christianity and biblical studies, check it out!
Great Blog by Dr. Wallace over at Parchment and Pen
Pelikan on the Creedal Nature of the Community of Faith
I just had to post this quote from Jaroslav Pelikan’s article “The Will to Beleive and the Need for Creed.” It can (and should) be read in its entirety here.
Shema
But when personal religious faith has exhausted its allotted supply of “the courage to be,” when the only Psalm it can remember is not the one that begins “The Lord is my shepherd” (Ps 23.1) but the one immediately preceding it, which begins “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” (Ps 22.1), then, precisely then, we are not thrown on our own individual and feeble resources of believing or speculating or explaining (or even “experiencing”), such as that may be. Rather, though perhaps in a sense that he may not have intended, it is then that the admission of William James comes through and rings true: “Our faith is faith in some one else’s faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case.” For then it is time to confess: However much or however little I may be able to believe on my own, existentially, as of this precise moment, I affirm myself to stand, trembling, in the continuity and heritage of that community which has been confessing without interruption for entire millennia, “Shema Yisroel, Adonoi Elohenu, Adonoi Echod; Credo in unum Deum.”
The Danger of Distintives
“There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution (the Church) that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years. Its experience naturally covers nearly all experiences; and especially nearly all errors. The result is a map in which all the blind alleys and bad roads are clearly marked, all the ways that have been shown to be worthless by the best of all evidence: the evidence of those who have gone down them.” G.K. Chesterton This is my second post about the Nicaean Creed leading up to the conference at Beeson next month. Chesterton, in the quote above, gives a brilliant argument for the practice of historical theology. His illustration of a map is a good one, especially noting the blind alleys and back roads being clearly marked. A large part of this task was done in the fourth century through the work of the ecumenical councils. This work took several councils and much discussion and debate. First in 325 the initial structure of the creed was delivered, then in 381 some additions were made, importantly the mention of the Holy Spirit. After this period the councils refused all requests, even from emperors, to change the Creed. However, in 451 a very important elaboration of the creed called the “Definition of Chalcedon” provided the church with an official description of the nature of Christ as the God-Man. For those unfamilar, here is the text:
“Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.“
This has been a central tenant of Christianity from the beginning, which was carefully explicated at Chalcedon in order that people have a better understanding of the God who is, both for proper relationship and worship and to refute heresy. Needless to say this is an essential belief of the Church. Therefore it must be taught, believed, defended and held to the highest levels of regard in Christian institutions.
N.B. Unless otherwise noted, when I refer to the creed, I mean the conciliar work from 325 to 451.
Now here is the danger we face when we elevate our preferences for worship style or some minor point of theology over these, the essentials that make us actually Christian, as opposed to something else. First, it unnecessarily divides, and second, it minimized the standard for orthodoxy, which is like opening a window to the swarm of heretics just waiting outside, no, more like opening the front door and inviting them into your Church, or school or other ministry.
Here is a prime example. Some of our free Church evangelical tradition here in America, have placed an undue focus on things like “Premillennial eschatology.” and a “Premil-Rapture.” In the history of the church these are distinctives, not essentials. Yes, it is essential that Christ will return in the flesh, that there will be a resurrection of the dead and a judgement and eternal reign. But the timing of these events have been debated and disputed and are in fact NOT essential. (Be clear, I’m saying the TIMING is not essential.)
So when you see a church interviewing a pastor, or a school a teacher, and they spend an inordinate amount of time and effort making sure the person really feels good about their preferred order of end time events, but then they mention that they don’t care much for the definition of Chalcedon, and this gets a pass, then my friend, we have a problem. What the church just did was to elevate a preference, a distinctive, OVER Christological orthodoxy. The nature of Jesus Christ. Problem? Yes.
We all have our understandings of areas that are important and often debated, and that is great. If your school only wants to hire amil teachers, cudos…do that. But, do not , repete, DO NOT place your institutions preferences over the essentials of the faith of the Church. You do not have the right to do that. Your church is only a small part of the Church. The Creed helps us to do the main thing which is keeping the main thing the main thing. Yea, let’s do that.
Historical Orthodoxy According to Jesus in Mark 7 (WARNING: Preaching)
I always like to find a namesake. Recently I came across in reading, another Mr. Howell. We have more in common than just our last name. We both spent alot of time in Texas, and both have a passion for the study of scripture. His ability as a student of scripture far surpassed mine however. He knew large chunks of the bible by heart, memorized much of it by the time he was 12. He was a walking concordance that would put most of our pastors to shame with his comprehensive knowledge of scripture. When he taught, He encouraged his students to check everything that he taught against scripture. He had a problem with his interpretation though, because it was based on a False Authority – his own. His practice then, was not grounded on God’s precepts. False traditions slowly developed over time, and were “based on scripture” so they felt right to those who listened to this learned bible teacher. We should do what feels right, right? Some still follow his teachings today, though they do not call him Vernon Wayne Howell, they prefer to call him David Koresh. They prefer to call him their messiah.
In several ways our contemporary evangelical Christian culture has infected our hearts and minds with the traditions of men. Yes, (shock) this is true even in “Bible” churches. When we focus on our exegesis to the point that it leads to private interpretation, we have set aside the tradition of God for the tradition of men. When we “buy” into the “prosperity ecclesiology” which over-emphasizes church growth and programs, likewise, when we accept and adopt a pastoral theology based more on business models than on soul care, we set aside the tradition of God for the traditions of men. This should not be. We need to listen to the tradition of the apostles and the prophets, to valid sources of tradition to ground our understanding of scripture and ground our practice on Gods precepts.
In the opening verses of Mark 7 we see that Israel had Accepted False Tradition from False Authority (7:1-7:4). Now these Scribes and Pharisees were false authorities in that they did not have the appointment by God as Prophet, that is to deliver God’s requirements to his people, nor the appointment by God as Priest, to lead the people before God in worship. Yet the understanding of these ‘interpreters of the Law” was passed on as if it was holy writ, slowly adding to and eventually setting aside the traditions of God for the traditions of men. Read more…
Peanut Butter Christianity
by Michael J. Svigel
One day my wife sent me to the store to buy peanut butter—specifically, natural peanut butter. In other words, no fake stuff. This seemed simple enough . . . until I arrived in the peanut butter wing of the grocery store. The options overwhelmed me—creamy, chunky, extra chucky, honey-flavored, jelly-filled, low fat, organic, and countless sizes, shapes, brands, and prices! George Washington Carver himself would have shaken his head in despair. I’m sure that managing that isle alone must be a full time job.
So there I stood, paralyzed with indecision, wanting nothing more than to just grab the cheapest jar of peanut butter and dash for the checkout. Instead, showing due diligence, I searched for “natural peanut butter” amidst the flashy brand names that virtually called out from the shelf like brochure-pushers on the Vegas Strip: “Pick me! Pick me! Don’t you remember all those commercials you saw as a kid? All those smiling faces? Those cool special effects showing golden roasted peanuts magically spread into smooth, creamy Jif [or Peter Pan . . . or Skippy]?”
Lured by the flashy labels, my eyes landed on “Skippy” paired with the keyword “Natural”! How convenient!
I snatched it off the shelf. Read more…
