Bruce Epperly - The Future of Process Theology

  

  

The Future of Process Theology: Personal and Planetary Meditations

article link here

Bruce Epperly

July 2, 2019

The upcoming conference focusing on the “Future of Process Theology,” to be held July 24-26 in Fairbanks, Alaska, has inspired me to articulate my own future vision for process theology as it continues to interact with our postmodern, pluralistic, and increasingly interdependent world.

I have been a process theologian, amateur and professional, for nearly fifty years. I first encountered process theology as a student at San Jose State University in Richard Keady’s and Marie Fox’s classes in 1973. Looking back, I can assert that I might not be an active Christian, indeed, a theologian and pastor, apart from the impact of process theology on my understanding of God and the relationship of Christianity with other world religions. Process theology is more than an intellectual system to me; it is a way of life that shapes my ministry, teaching, politics, marriage and family life, citizenship and spirituality. The open-spirited, possibility-oriented vision of process theology has inspired me to adventure and given me courage to face adversity, trusting a way will be made when I see no way forward. For me, process theology addresses the totality of experience and provides a life-changing vision of God, the world, Christian faith, and spiritual experience.

Once upon a time, as every good story goes, I was a novice process theologian, studying with John Cobb, Bernard Loomer, and David Ray Griffin at Claremont Graduate School and Claremont School of Theology. Now, forty years after completing my doctoral dissertation, I have become a member of the older generation of process theologians, a mentor to present and future process theologians, lay, academic, and clergy. Though my process mentors remain John Cobb and David Griffin, I have claimed my vocation as a theological and spiritual artist, shaping the contours of process theology, spirituality, and ethics as a writer, pastor, professor, and mentor. I have discovered that one of my vocations over the past few decades has been to convey the wisdom of process theology ways that are understandable and convincing to laypersons and pastors, expanding the impact of process theology beyond the academic community.

In the wake of the sixteenth century Reformation, Protestant theologians proclaimed that the reformed church is always reforming. In a similar fashion, I believe that process theology is always in process, navigating its way through a changing world, innovating and adapting, and, as Alfred North Whitehead says, initiating novelty to match the novelty of the environment. I believe that the future of process theology is evolving and widening, with no and final sure destination. Faithfulness to the insights of Whitehead, Hartshorne, Loomer, Meland, Cobb, Griffin, Ogden, and others, inspires the continuing creation of theological novelties to match the shifting novelties of our time. Not novelty for novelty’s sake, but as a reflection of the call to creative transformation as a catalyst for changing the world.

As I look at the future of process theology, my perspective is that of a North American Christian process theologian, grounded in my theological-spiritual home and open to the wisdom of other paths of faith. While process theologians are always pilgrims, journeying to new lands and learning new things, my lens is that of the church, seminary, and interactions with seekers and persons of other wisdom traditions. Though rooted in the North American church, I seek to have a global vision. Christian process theologians seek the creative transformation of the church while recognizing the importance of sharing broadly articulated visions of process thought to seekers and questioners of our time.

My vision of the future of process theology can be described by the following affirmations:

• The future of process theology is global. God is the inner energy and wisdom of all creation, the principle of creative transformation giving life and growth to all things, the reality in whom we live and move and have our being. Revelation and inspiration are everywhere. God’s presence and witness is universal, thus liberating us from the parochialism of denomination, culture, and nation. Process theology invites us to articulate theologies of stature in dialogue with other wisdom traditions and the secular world. Process theology is always emerging – new every morning – learning and sharing, growing in wisdom and stature.

• The future of process theology is integrative. Holographic in nature process theology takes us beyond opposition to contrast and will continue to break down walls of separation and isolating siloes of faith and science, religion and medicine, intellect and emotion, conscious and unconscious, Christianity and other faiths.

• The future of process theology is multi-disciplinary, inviting us to find points of contact between the various academic and professional disciplines. Connection is everything, truth is relational, and what happens in the laboratory, library, archeological dig, and church are interconnected.

• The future of process theology is interspiritual. One can be profoundly Christian, rooted in the way of Jesus, and still be evolving as we embrace the gifts of other wisdom traditions, as well as atheistic and agnostic critics. Hybrid or fluid spirituality invites us to explore the spiritual practices of other faiths as well as their visions of reality, recognizing both differences as well as commonalities, and places of personal edification. The Christian faith of future must be spiritually fluid, centered on Christ, whose wisdom embraces truth in its many manifestations and pathways. Profoundly incarnational, process theology and spirituality live out John Cobb’s affirmation that Christ is the way that excludes no way.

• The future of process theology is holistic. Relational in spirit, process theology joins mind and body, cell and soul, promoting healing and wholeness at every level of life. The heavens declare the glory of God, right whales sing praises to their Creator, and the cells of our bodies vibrate with Divine Wisdom. The whole and part are connected, and this means that we need to expand the horizons of healing and spiritual experience to embrace the environment as well as global medicines, healing practices, and unexpected cures and healings.

• The future of process theology is political and liberating, challenging us to join national affirmation with global interdependence and moving us from individual and national self-interest to world loyalty. There is no “other” as we welcome the diversity of human culture and experience. Political policy, from a process perspective, promotes relationships, beauty of experience, and expanded circles of concern. Politics is about healing and wholeness embracing the interdependence humankind and the non-human world, and balances national integrity with world loyalty.

• The future of process theology is ecological, inspiring us to love the earth, reverence the non-human world, and claim our role as God’s companions in healing the earth. Process theology inspires ecological economics focusing on sustainability, relationships, and meaning. The world is an incarnation of Divine Wisdom, the body through which the Divine Spirit flows and grows, calling us to be partners and companions with all creation, seeking to heal our planet.

• The future of process theology is mystical. We are all mystics. The “sighs too deep for words” of God’s Spirit well up from with us, though we are often unaware of this ubiquitous inspiration. Awakening to the real presence of God in all creation and ourselves is at the heart of process spirituality. Process mysticism inspires us to discern God’s call in every moment and invites us to update our spiritual practices for our setting. Mysticism is holistic, and not siloed to the monastic life: mysticism inspires contemplative social transformation and prophetic healing, challenging injustice so that all can experience the fullness of God. Mysticism experiences divinity on a summer day, observing with Mary Oliver the intricate machinations of a grasshopper eating its lunch, and launches forth in appreciation and affirmation of the Holy Here and Holy Now, embedded in every moment of life.

Process theology has a future. But, with the diminishing impact of seminaries and the marginalization of process theology on many seminary faculties, we need to imagine the future in novelty ways and discover novel ways of communicating process thought in the larger society, to lay persons and professionals alike, to those within the church and to the church of the open spaces. Not bound by seminary walls or church sanctuaries, the future of process theology lies with intellectually-lively pastors, inspired laypersons, and insightful environmentalists, economists, health care providers, and innovative theology thinkers, willing to go beyond jargon and technical language to incarnate the wisdom of process theology in daily life and the intricacies of ecology, economics, and education.

+++

About the Author

Bruce Epperly is a Cape Cod pastor, professor, and author of over 50 books in the areas process theology, scripture, healing and wholeness, pastoral excellence and well-being, and spirituality.

His books in process theology include:

• “Process Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed”
• “Praying with Process Theology: Spiritual Practices for Personal and Planetary Healing”

Energion series on Process Theology:

• “Process Theology: Embracing Adventure with God”
• “Process Spirituality: Practicing Holy Adventure”
• “Process and Ministry”
• “Process and Pastoral Care”
• “One World: The Lord’s Prayer from a Process Perspective”
• “Process Theology and Celtic Wisdom”

He is featured on the weekly progressive-process theology podcast, “Faith on the Edge: Equipping Congregations to Face Our Century.” (https://faithontheedge.org/)

My Journey Out of Inerrancy to a Broader Hermeneutic

Seeing the Son in a new Light

Relevancy22 was purposely created three years ago to debate the idea of Calvinism as the most sufficient explanation of God's free-willed universe. It does also debate the idea of inerrantism as the most proper foundation for biblical study. The following paragraphs will be hard to read - especially as it was for this author here when coming from his own inerrantist-informed Christian faith. However, as hard as it is to read these following paragraphs it must be said with as much grace and candor for those, like myself, who find themselves driven to discover a greater enlightenment of God's Word and divine will than the one provided by this line of biblical interpretation.

As such, an inerrant theology, or a hermeneutic of inerrantism, is a type of theology that occurs upon  an "inerrant" foundation where the Bible is literally read and believed. One subjected to ideas and beliefs about God, sin, man, and the bible, that are already pre-formed and classically bound, but are not coherent with contemporary science nor philosophy except to debate, criticise, and ostracize.

Weathering storms of uncertainty

Moreover, the term "intellectual" when used of the inerrant position has become a specious term used only by inerrantists of their own internally driven scholarship. More rather, the term "intellectual" outside of these conservatively dominated circles connotates the idea of a "religiously pre-informed church body" that has established its own hermeneutical rules (that is, rules of "knowing and epistemology") by conservative religious standards, preference, and prejudice. Rules based upon a set of closed systems, a closed bible, and a closed constituency unopen to contemporary theological construction. This has been spoken of in the sectional sidebar entitled "An Open Faith and Open Theology." I have also written a similar article earlier this month entitled, "The Problem of Faith and Religion in Christianity," and another a year ago entitled, "Voices of Dissent - Unfolding God's Love Within the Heart and Conscience of Humanity."

Accordingly, an inerrant study of past church history and theology, such as is done using "biblical word study" methods, or in a compendium study of systematic theology, will be arranged to support an inerrantist foundation with in-vogue subject matters. Appeal to the "outside world" of science, archaeology, church history, etc, is selective, uses nuanced circular reasoning, and is driven by systematic logicism, dogma, church folklores, and traditions. (And yes, all this has been discussed ad naseum in the past to help give  definition to what is meant by being Christianly orthodox without being inerrantly orthodox.)

Sailing the tradewinds of God's grace

As such, the inerrantist worldview construction is difficult to break from and usually cannot be accomplished by mere insiders alone. And when doing so, those wishing to break free may feel as if their God has become "unreal," while at the same time causing all church doctrine-and-theology to become similarly "untrue" as they each strained against their inerrant moorings. At once, great doubt and skepticism can arise to personally destabilize (or scandalize) the erstwhile believer burdened to move beyond time-honored Sunday School lessons and sincere biblical rhetoric by pastor or prof, family or friend, teacher or synod. This was mine own experience and it required the persistent presence of the Holy Spirit to get past so many of these fundamental barriers that had theologically-tethered my soul to its hard-fastened reef. Like a ship at anchor in safe harbor I did not expect to depart from my conditioned past to the siren shores of an unknown land. Nor to navigate across unfamiliar sea lanes on my own without a proper captain and provisions. Or to weather the storms of  fear and uncertainty so loathsome to my Christian faith but so necessary to its renewal. Especially because I would then become my own navigator which is never a very good idea to start an exploration upon when facing wreck, ruin, and foreordained apostasy.

However, the Lord continued to burden me without respite or relief. Who caused me to set sail and explore the oft neglected (or is it oft forgotten?), but very orthodox church doctrine, of Arminianism (think, basic Wesleyanism)... which is the polar opposite to the Calvinism I grew up within (note: Jacob Arminius was a contemporary of John Calvin). At once, when prayerfully coming across this doctrine, I could feel the inner release of the epistemological anchors that cabled mind-and-soul straining to break free of their more comfortable shore-bound moorings. And then, with the unlooked for help of science and process theology, the all-knowing (and much revered) philosophical notion of inerrantism had begun to be released from within to put me underway through newly discovered non-inerrantist philosophies (I will tell of these in a moment). One of the first was the approach of continental philosophy that proved most helpful in providing the foundational elements necessary for a theology known as process-relational thought. A philosophy that was opposed to the analytic thought that I grew up with in my Reformed tradition (think formulaic creeds and confessions). One that stressed existential thought and questioned all personal, social, and institutional motives, values, and beliefs. Even those of the authors of the sacred biblical text and leaders of the church.

But there were other epistemological drivers that helped to continue my journey across the turbulent seas of doubt and fear. One was the idea of  postmodernism that helped to "deconstruct" 19th century church enlightenment while providing a much needed antipathy for 20th century secular modernism which gripped my evangelical past. Though this idea of postmodernism had been much maligned within my fellowship for the past decade or two, I found the elements within postmodernism especially helpful in breaking free of the dogmatic certainty an inerrantist would feel to his or her's unquestioning (dogmatic) beliefs. Specifically, it helped to externalize my personal sense of self-awareness, group-awareness, and basic belief structures. And when once done, could re-position all within a post-modern, post-structural, post-foundational, framework. This was not an insignificant task especially as each area relates to specific personal beliefs and descriptors of one's confidences, assurances, values, and philosophies.

Discovering new Streams of Living Water

To these many areas I next approached the subject of God and man relationally through God's love as a theologically sufficient basis in which to throw off the last mooring lines of inerrantism. The idea of an open future (rather than a closed future of wrath and judgement) as a sufficient eschatological teleology found its home in open theism (while not denying the former, but simply altering its emphasis upon all of theology). And all the while I labored to constructively criticise inerrantism's self-contained system by  pointing out its basic weaknesses and deficiencies that would hold its faithful participants back by fear and uncertainty, divine wrath and condemnation, self-doubt and distrust, including a withering sense of personal retribution to any who may hold to a wider, broader, more relative world of post-foundational theology.

Hence, my seafaring journey over these past three years has been done sympathetically in knowledge of other similarly burdened wayfarers struggling with their own personal inerrantist positions. Who, perhaps, may not knowing which sea lanes to navigate upon to break free of its chaining bonds, nor may be able to find a more adequate sense of self-release (or personal respite) against past theological positions. Thus it is that I write of mine own discoveries by journaling of its theologic progress. In place of a inerrantist hermeneutic I now hold both an anthropologic - and relational - hermeneutic. One that must be Jesus-centered in all things. The one uses existential thought to interpret both the Bible and the would-be interpreters of the Bible of any era or time period. While the other focuses on God's grace and love as the primary passion and reason for His divine relationship with creation (remember the slogan, "Love Wins!?" Eh, verily!). It took many years to accomplish this task with any kind of sufficient theological argument or authentic biblical support against the austere religious background I was immersed in. And was done with great personal difficulty and struggle as core centers and foundations moved. But at the last, when the torrent broke I found myself writing feverishly (not perfectly, nor with full knowledge) by "journaling" of my steady progress out of the lands of conservative fundamentalism and evangelicalism, unto the broader planes of freedom's lands which held more promising - and theologically relevant - Jesus-centeredness. Jesus missional witness. And, Jesus-based pathos and service. One that was not centered upon its own theologies but upon a theology that could appropriately question itself as to its motives, values, and basic social drivers. For a theology that cannot question itself is a theology not worth knowing.

It was if my Pauline-driven doctrines had to be completely reset and re-orientated around Jesus and not simply God's Word (curious as that may sound!). And when once done, would find their Lord and Savior in greater proportion to the Pauline theology I had learned to apply and believe. Not one orientated around the church, but very God Himself. Not one orientated around man's preferences, but around the dissettling missional witness and pathos of Jesus. Nor one centered around my own enculturated values, but one having a shared sense of appreciation for other social values and mores beyond mine own culture. And it was wonderful. For there were the new lands of discovery thriving with freedom, living, and joy. Which were full of new hope and bright promise. For myself, this surprised discovery made under so difficult a process helped soften the blow I had experienced for so many long years by my inerrantist position - especially my previously tightened construction of the world. It opened everything up and I was glad to do it with great thanksgiving and praise to the Lord, our Saviour and Redeemer. Thus Relevancy22 was born as an online resource and reference site to help move similarly estranged wayfarers from a world of inerrant evangelicalism to a post-evangelical view of God, man, and the world, with an openness to our future and missional responsibility. One that might be known as post-Reformed (or postmodern) orthodoxy but not neo-Calvinistic nor neo-Reformed (see the next article below for further explanation). One that hearkens to the age-old rhythms of the Reformation itself that deeply understood the pathos of the church to be always reforming: "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda" ("the church reformed and always reforming"). Amen!

Peace,

R.E. Slater

May 22, 2014
updated May 27, 2014

"Yes, Virginia, newer is better."

Continue to -

Index to past articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"

* * * * * * * * * *

John Calvin

The Troubling Trends in America's 'Calvinist Revival'

http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/05/20/troubling-trends-americas-calvinist-revival/

by Jonathan Merrit
[select additional comments by R.E. Slater]

May 20, 2014

Comments

When Mark Oppenheimer declared that “evangelicalism is in the midst of a Calvinist revival” in The New York Times earlier this year, he was only partially correct.

According to a 2010 Barna poll, roughly three out of 10 Protestant leaders describe their church as “Calvinist or Reformed,” a proportion statistically unchanged from a decade earlier. According to the research group, “there is no discernible evidence from this research that there is a Reformed shift among U.S. congregation leaders over the last decade.”

And yet, Oppenheimer is correct that something is stirring among American Calvinists (those who adhere to a theological system centering on human sinfulness and God’s sovereignty that stems from 16th century reformer John Calvin). While Calvinist Protestants—including Presbyterians, some Baptists, and the Dutch Reformed—have been a part of the American religious fabric since the beginning, Oppenheimer points to a more vocal and visible strain that has risen to prominence in recent years.

They’ve been called the “young, restless, and reformed” or neo-Calvinists, and they are highly mobilized and increasingly influential. Their books perform well in the marketplace (see John Piper or Paul David Tripp), their leaders pepper the lists of the most popular Christian bloggers (see The Gospel Coalition and Resurgence), and they’ve created vibrant training grounds for raising new recruits (see Reformed Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary).

This brand of Calvinists are a force with which to reckon. But as with any movement, America’s Calvinist revival is a mixed bag. None can deny that many have come to faith as a result of these churches and leaders. The movement is rigorously theological* [think, inerrant theology, or a hermenuetic of inerrantism here - res] which is surely one of its greatest contributions. Just as Quakers teach us much about silence, Mennonites teach us much about peace, and Anglicans teach us much about liturgy, so Calvinists spur us on with their intellectual rigor* [as debated at this website here, "intellectual" has become a specious term used only by inerrantists of their own scholarship - res]. And yet, from where I sit, there are several troubling trends that must be addressed if this faithful faction hopes to move from a niche Christian cadre to a sustainable and more mainstream movement. (*See my opening comments above - res)

ISOLATIONISM

One of the markers of the neo-Calvinist movement is isolationism. My Reformed friends consume Calvinist blogs and Calvinist books, attend Calvinist conferences, and join Calvinist churches with Calvinist preachers. They rarely learn from, or engage, with those outside their tradition. (My feeling is that this trend is less prevalent among leaders than the average followers.)

The most sustainable religious movements, however, are those which are willing to ask hard, full-blooded questions while interacting with more than caricatures of other traditions. When neo-Calvinists insulate and isolate, they hyper-focus on those doctrines their tradition emphasizes and relegate other aspects to the status of afterthought. The Christian faith is meant to be lived and not merely intellectually appropriated. This requires mingling with others who follow Jesus, are rooted in Scripture, and are working toward a restored creation.

Gregory Alan Thornbury is a Calvinist Christian and president
of The King’s College in New York City. He encourages his
students to “read promiscuously.”
– Photo credit: New Southern Photography

Gregory Thornbury, a Calvinist and president of The King’s College in New York City, told me, “I think the ‘young, restless, and reformed” are different than the Dutch stream in that they tend to stay with authors and leaders that they know. It does run the risk of being provincial, but I don’t think it is intentional. There are universes where people stay, and they read the things they know.” [I tend to agree with this observation. I came from this same tradition and it takes some doing to read "outside" of one's comfort zone. - res]

To guard against this, Thornbury says he encourages King’s College’s students to be “intellectually gregarious” and to “read promiscuously.”

“People need to read outside of the tradition,” Thornbury says. “We say we want to have contact with people outside of our culture, but we ghettoize so easily.”

His words remind me of Yale theologian Miroslav Volf, who speaks of “thin” and “thick” expressions of religion:

“[Thin religion is] religiosity reduced to a single symbolic gesture. And once you reduce religion to that . . . you can project everything that you want onto that . . . [Thin religion] isn’t textured. It doesn’t have depth. It doesn’t have relief. It doesn’t rely on a long history of that religion with all the varieties of reflections that have gone on in the religion.”

Co-inhabitation with other Christians guards a movement against “thin” expressions of religion.

TRIBALISM

Another troubling trend I see in the movement is tribalism. This is the kinship tendency within a group to protect insiders while combating outsiders.

Several prominent Calvinists, for example, declined the opportunity to comment on this story due to fear that their words might be used to disparage the movement. Said one well-known leader via email, “I don’t want to be a brick in a wall that’s used against the tradition/movement I identify with.”

To be sure, neo-calvinists don’t shy away from controversy and aren’t reticent to critique those outside of the movement. (One might refer to some Calvinist’s blistering responses to Donald Miller’s announcement that he doesn’t attend church.) Yet these same leaders are often resistant, delayed, and then tempered with their critiques of other Calvinists who seem to stray.

An illuminating example of this might be the recent glut of Mark Driscoll controversies—from sexist comments to charges of plagiarism to proof that he bought his way onto the New York Times bestsellers list using ministry monies. Leaders in the movement were effectively mum until a select few broke the silence of late. The first accusations of Driscoll plagiarizing were revealed on November 21st, but the first truly critical response posted by neo-Calvinist mega-blog, The Gospel Coalition, trickles out on December 18th. One might compare this with the response to Rob Bell’s book “Love Wins” that was in full bloom before the YouTube trailer finished buffering.

Even those who were brave enough to critique Driscoll were mostly moderate. And several Calvinists told me off-the-record that many who offered full-throated criticisms of Driscoll—like Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary—have been relegated to the margins as a result.

Tullian Tchividjian is pastor and blogger at The Gospel Coalition who has been challenging neo-Calvinists from within the ranks. He announced just this morning that what he calls “the powers that be” were forcing him to take his blog elsewhere. The decision was less than ideal, he said, and is a result of having “some differences with some of the other contributors.” Tchividjian said the decision was “probably over due” since “the messaging of The Gospel Coalition has morphed over the last seven years.”

Tim Keller is a leading Calvinist pastor
and New York Times bestselling author.

We might also make mention of Tim Keller, a paragon among neo-Calvinists if there ever was one. Keller is a part of Francis Collins’ Biologos and a theistic evolutionist. He holds many of the same views that triggered the forced resignation of Old Testament professor Bruce Waltke from Reformed Theological Seminary. Another Calvinist leader, Southern Baptist Seminary president Albert Mohler, has called theistic evolution “a biblical and theological disaster” and said that Biologos leaders were “throwing the Bible under the bus” with “ridiculous” logic.

Because Tim Keller has become something of a prize hen for Calvinists—New York Magazine called him “the most successful Christian evangelist in the city”—you won’t likely hear other neo-Calvinists mention Keller’s views. Tribalists attempt to “clean house” when it comes to outsiders but “sweep under the rug” when it comes to insiders.

As Roger Olson, Baylor University professor and author of “Against Calvinism“, told me, “[Neo-Calvinist's are] a tribe, and they’ve closed ranks. Somehow they’ve formed a mentality that they have to support each other because they are a minority on a crusade. Any criticism hurts the cause. I’ve seen the same thing among feminists and black theologians.”

Olson says that when he speaks to Calvinist leaders, they will often critique the movement and its other leaders in private, but never in public. My experience has been identical.

“There is a fundamentalist ethos in [neo-Calvinism],” Olson says. “You get pats on the back and merits for criticizing outsiders, but not for criticizing insiders. There is a system where if you are young coming up in the ranks, you get points for criticizing or exposing those outside the movement but it’s not your place to criticize those who are above you in the movement itself.”

This tendency is more curious given that neo-Calvinists claim to be rooted in the ancient rallying cry, “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda” or “The church is always to be reformed.” You can’t maintain a constant state of reformation when you refuse to self-reflect, when you preserve for preservation’s sake, [when] your modus operandi is both “circle the wagons” and “fire the canons.”

Let me be clear: I’m not arguing that Calvinists should criticize themselves more harshly. Rather, I wish they might extend the same grace to others that they give to themselves.

EGOTISM

A final troubling trend I believe plagues America’s “Calvinist revival” is egotism. This one may sound like ad hominem at first blush, but I mean it more as an observation of the movement’s predominant tone. Talking so much of sovereignty and salvation and atonement can inflate the ego. It is the type of thing described in Helmut Thielicke’s book, “A Little Lesson for Young Theologians.” Attaining theological knowledge often leads to the idea that one is in a better place to understand God or more in tune with God.

As the ego inflates, the body rises and one begins to speak from above rather than from across. This is often seen in the way neo-Calvinists speak as if they are the arbiters of the term “gospel.” Search the term “gospel” on the web site of the Reformed publisher Crossway and you’ll see what I mean. Or listen to the way some neo-Calvinist leaders frame every ethical issue of the day, not as a difference of opinion among Christians of mutual goodwill, but rather an affront to the gospel itself.

“The perspective of many today is that if you aren’t a Calvinist, you don’t really have a grasp of the gospel,” Olson says.

Sometimes it seems as if Calvinists view themselves as judge, jury, and executioner of the Christian movement at large—determining who is faithful and not, who believes the gospel and who doesn’t, who is in and who is out. (One might call to mind John Piper’s iconic and infamous “Farewell, Rob Bell” tweet.) Some within the movement talk of God’s sovereignty while seeking to control the destinies of other Christians and often speak of man’s depravity with a haughtiness that undermines it.

As Scot McKnight, professor at Northern Seminary told me, “Calvinists can give really strong impressions that those who disagree with them are both unfaithful and that they theologically and intellectually lack courage. And that trend is relatively new.”

A large ego often precedes a harsh tone—an surefire influence limiter. Scholar Martin Marty says the religious world isn’t divided into liberal and conservative, but rather “mean and non-mean.” Those who opt for a mean or arrogant tenor—whether real or perceived—have a short-shelf life in the span of history.

Bethany Jenkins, director of The Gospel Coalition’s faith and work initiative, thinks some of her fellow Calvinists’ tonal problems may be unintentional: “I think some Calvinists have come to think that in order to be faithful you have to be strident, but you don’t need to be. As Tim Keller has said, ‘We are a chosen people, but we are not a choice people.’”

I reflect on the Apostle Paul’s observation that “Knowledge puffs up.” Which is to say, egotism is a human problem rather than a Calvinist one. Yet, the vice seems to afflict this movement with consistency. If neo-Calvinists don’t get a rapid infusion of humility—and quickly—then perceptions of egotism will be an albatross around their necks.

Though these problems are serious, I am for any movement that lifts up Jesus and proclaims the Christian good news. I have many friends within the neo-Calvinist movement that challenge me with their commitment to scriptural fidelity and the supremacy of Christ. If America’s “Calvinist revival” turns out to be a resurgence, I hope they abound in grace–both inside and out.

Ah yes, grace. Another cherished Reformed virtue.

---

Jonathan Merritt is senior columnist for Religion News Service and has published more than 1000 articles in outlets like USA Today, The Atlantic, and National Journal. He is author of "Jesus is Better Than You Imagined" and "A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars." He resides in Brooklyn.

"The Calvinist," by John Piper

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

      

How Are We to Read the Bible? As a Divine Product or Human? Part 2 of 2

What Does the Bible “Mean?” Is the Holy Spirit Necessary for Biblical Interpretation?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/01/what-does-the-bible-mean-is-the-holy-spirit-necessary-for-biblical-interpretation/

by Roger Olson

January 26, 2014

Comments

Introduction - Two Kinds of Interpretation

I know two kinds of Christians—those who think what the Bible “really means” is necessarily illuminated by the Holy Spirit such that ordinary, scholarly, rational exegesis alone does not yield its “true meaning;” and those who think the “true meaning” of the Bible is discovered exegetically such that anything going beyond that is not its true meaning but its “significance” or application.

To the former I ask “How do you answer someone who discovers a ‘true meaning’ of the Bible that blatantly contradicts basic Christian doctrine and/or basic reason?” I point to sects and cults that claim to be Christian but teach esoteric meanings of Scripture that blatantly contradict what Christians have always believed about God, Jesus Christ, and salvation. (One such group even has its own Bible dictionary without which the Bible cannot properly be understood. The “true meanings” of many biblical passages are, according to the dictionary, esoteric, allegorical and contrary to sound doctrine.)

To the latter I ask “What is it that you think the preacher is communicating on Sunday mornings when he or she preaches from a text and God speaks through the sermon to afflict the comfortable or comfort the afflicted (or both)? Would you say the message of the sermon is not the true meaning of Scripture if it goes beyond what exegesis alone discovers?”


The Subject of Inspiration Itself

Let’s look into Scripture itself to see if it sheds some light on this disagreement over the “meaning” of Scripture.

Dt 25.4 "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain."

1 Co 9.8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses,“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?

1 Tm 5.17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

An obvious example is the Apostle Paul’s use of “pesher exegesis”—especially in 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5—interpreting Deuteronomy 25 as applying to his own rights as an apostle. My question about this isn’t whether we, today, are permitted to do what Paul did (viz., practice pesher exegesis) but whether what Paul did was wrong when he did it.

It simply won’t do to say that Paul was just “using an Old Testament passage to illustrate a point.” That’s clearly not what he was doing. He found meaning in Deuteronomy that applied to his situation that nobody could have guessed just from exegeting that passage.

Sure, we might say Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit so that was part of the meaning of Deuteronomy 25. The Holy Spirit inspired that, too, so the Holy Spirit can invest meaning in it. But, of course, this simply raises the question of why the Holy Spirit could not invest any Scripture passage with meaning undetected by exegesis alone?

One traditional solution is to distinguish between “inspiration” and “illumination” - inspiration is past; illumination is continuing. When a preacher proclaims the message of a text and expresses its significance for the congregation he or she is at best only expressing illumination. Only the biblical authors’ statements were inspired.

I’m not dismissing this distinction as wrong, but I do want to cast some doubt on it. The line between inspiration and illumination seems fuzzy when we are talking about what a Scripture passage “means.” Can we really limit a passage’s meaning to original authorial intent and what objective exegesis discovers or can “meaning” extend beyond that to what the Holy Spirit says to a person or congregation through the application of the passage to them?


The Question of Interpretation

Scenario 1

Underlying that question is a deeper one: Is the interpretation of a biblical passage’s meaning discovered by a person devoid of spiritual life given by the Holy Spirit, devoid of faith in God and Jesus, really trustworthy? Can we trust it to deliver the fullness of truth in the text? Imagine two exegetes—one a scholar devoid of faith in God through Jesus, not under the influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit [(a heathen)], and the other a faith-filled scholar devoted to Jesus and the gospel filled with the Holy Spirit [(a believer)]. They are equally knowledgeable in biblical languages, culture and exegetical techniques. Neither one is a sheer naturalist or a fanatic looking for exotic meanings in biblical texts or claiming some “gift” that gives him (or her) esoteric insight. Which one’s commentary would you be more likely to trust to deliver the better meaning?

(Please don’t go into side issues such as “How would we know their spiritual state?” etc. I’m asking you to imagine that you could and do know.)

I propose that even those Christian exegetes who insist on “objective interpretation” would favor the commentary of the born again Christian scholar over the one by the non-Christian scholar. This demonstrates their belief that spiritual illumination does give a person an “edge,” so to speak, in discovering the “real meaning” of biblical texts.

Scenario 2

Now imagine another hypothetical scenario. Imagine two Christian preachers—one who delivers sermons that only communicate what is believed to be the biblical author’s original, intended meaning then—when he or she wrote it. Now imagine another preacher of equal scholarship and spirituality who goes beyond that in sermons and communicates also the significance of the text for today’s audience (e.g., twenty-first century urban Americans). The latter’s sermons comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable and draw on sound exegesis to communicate the meaning for today. Who would say that the second preacher did not communicate the “meaning” of the text while the first one did?

Well, some scholastics will argue that the first preacher communicated the passage’s meaning while the second communicated its significance. That seems to me a distinction without a difference. I would prefer to distinguish between Spirit-inspired “authorial intent” (difficult as that is to pin down) and “Spirit-inspired” (or if you prefer “Spirit-illumined”) application for today. Both are ingredients (to use an inelegant word) in the passages “meaning.”


The Meaning of a Passage

I think it is possible for a person to discover and repeat a biblical passage’s “authorial intent” without any special help from the Holy Spirit—if by “authorial intent” is meant the bare, historical meaning of the words. But surely that is not the main meaning of Scripture—for us, sinners intended to hear the Word of God and [to] respond [to it] today. The latter must not be uprooted entirely from the former and allowed to float away into fanciful nonsense. However, the former is just a dead letter, mere datum, possibly interesting but lacking spiritual nourishment, without the latter.


Without the Spirit the Bible is just literature

I am well aware of some potential objections to this view of the Bible’s meaning. I will try to answer them in advance.

The Charismatic View

First, someone may object that I have endorsed the distinction between “logos” and “rhema” commonly found among “Word of Faith” charismatics—opening the door to “new truths” that go beyond anything in Scripture and even supersede it. I am not opening that door—I have held it shut tightly by emphasizing that Scripture’s meaning can never be divorced from sound exegesis that discovers original authors’ intent.

I will use a word picture to illustrate my view and show how it is different from that held by many charismatics in the “Word Faith” movement. A kite is no good if it is not anchored to the ground (by someone holding it). It becomes useless if it is allowed to fly free into the wind. On the other hand, a kite is also no good if it is not allowed to fly and float in the wind above the ground. The ground (person standing on it holding the kite) is, of course, sound biblical exegesis. The wind, of course, is the Spirit bringing Scripture “to life,” so to speak, in contemporary proclamation. In my opinion, too often people who talk about the “rhema” or “Word of God for today” (in the “Word Faith” movement) do allow the kite to float away from its anchor. Then it becomes useless for sound proclamation of the Word of God. On the other hand, too many conservative biblical scholars insist on keeping the kite on the ground in which case it is also useless.

The Conservative View

Second, someone may object that I have endorsed the “neo-orthodox” view that Scripture is not the Word of God but “becomes the Word of God.” Whether that is really the neo-orthodox view is debatable, but that’s how it has come to be described and I think there is some truth in that description. That is not my view. I believe Scripture is always already the Word of God because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, I also think there is some truth in what is commonly called the neo-orthodox view. It should not be rejected entirely. Unfortunately, many conservative biblical scholars, theologians and preachers reject it too quickly and go to the opposite extreme—expelling the Holy Spirit from any close connection with the Word of God except in its actual writing [biblical literalism, bibliotry, etc - re slater].

I agree with Donald Bloesch’s “sacramental view” of the relationship between the Bible and the Word of God. The Word of God, God’s truth-telling and life-transforming activity, is always already in, wit, and under the Bible. It is inseparable from it. The Bible is its unique medium. But it is the Word of God in this sense because of the Holy Spirit, not just as [it is as] literature (which it is).

Both Book and Spirit Must Go Together -
Neither is to be Unattended by the Other

Again, I’ll use a word picture to illustrate this view. Imagine there is only one light bulb in the world. (There probably was a time when that was the case!) Now imagine it’s connected to a rheostat such that electricity is always flowing into it and its filament is always already energized by that electricity. But people cannot see that energy, that light, unless the rheostat is turned up. An electrician can detect the energy, the light, playing on the filament, but even he or she cannot see anything by it yet. As soon as the rheostat is activated, turned up, the light begins to shine brighter and illumine life. The energy that causes the light never leaps out of the bulb! But the light shines out from it. Faith-filled proclamation of the biblical message is the rheostat being turned up by the Holy Spirit. There is no “new light” in the physics sense, but there is “new light” in the sense of its intensity and illumination. The light always was the Word of God and the bulb always was its unique medium, but through the Holy Spirit the light in the bulb is being intensified so that it can be transforming of the darkness (dispelling it). But without the bulb and its filament (etc.) the light would not be present and transforming.


Conclusion

So, it is true both that the Bible “becomes the word of God” and that it “already always was the word of God.” It is also true that Scripture’s “meaning” lies in the Spirit-inspired authorial intent and in the Spirit-illumined proclamation that is faithful to the authorial intent but goes beyond it in transforming application.

Continue to - 

How Are We to Read the Bible? As a Divine Product or Human?

Part 1 of 2

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-are-we-to-read-bible.html

How Are We to Read the Bible? As a Divine Product or Human? Part 1 of 2

Paul didn’t have a BACKSPACE button
http://toddrisser.com/2014/03/07/paul-didnt-have-a-backspace-button/

by Rev. Todd A. Risser
March 7, 2014

I went down to Hagerstown, Maryland, yesterday to have lunch with a blisteringly smart and gifted colleague who also used to happen to be one of my protégées. We were riffing back and forth on the subject of inspiration and how evangelicalism has a strong feel for the ‘divine’ part in Biblical inspiration, but we don’t have a very robust sense of what it means that the human writers were involved. As a result, many folks end up with an operationally Qur’anic view of Scripture (the words falling directly from God’s lips – the human hardly involved at all except as a typewriter). In contrast to this, my friend says “It’s not like Paul had a backspace button.”

In fact, it appears Paul didn’t have his laptop with him a lot of the time – he can’t even look up (nor remember) who all he baptized. And that faulty memory… is part… of Holy Scripture (1 Corinthians 1: 14-16).

And so here’s Paul, pacing back and forth, ripping off a letter (with his secretary writing as fast as he can to keep up), dealing  with whatever church issue he was responding to, ranting at times, and he makes a side comment to further illustrate the point he’s making. He makes it on the fly, not sitting around wordsmithing at a computer screen. We preachers  do this all the time in sermons. Add a line or two spontaneously that we think helps further illuminate what we are saying from a different angle. But after the sermon, if pushed, we might say “Wait, no – that one comment wasn’t the point of the sermon – I was just adding that – don’t try to make that one example carry too much water – it only works if you look at it this way…”

If this is the case, we have a problem when we get a Qur’anic view of Scripture lodged in our heads, (all divine – virtually no human influence) and as a result start acting like all verses are equal. So you end up with Luther grabbing a sentence or two from Paul (made on the fly?) and concluding that the Mosaic law was a bad thing. Later you have Calvin come along, take a much broader look at what the whole New Testament  –including Paul – has to say on the subject, and conclude that the Law was a good thing.

Paul didn’t have a backspace button. And it looks very much like he was ranting in some of his letters – moving fast, making his point, falling into poor grammar and mile-long sentences. In everyday human life we give people the benefit of the doubt and say “Well, he didn’t mean that the way you are taking it. He was just making his point. Don’t take that with the same level of seriousness as when he is calmly, carefully stating his point…”

Is there a way for us to accommodate the human factor in Scripture as well? Paul’s memory in 1 Corinthians 1 isn’t the only place we come across indications there is more to the human aspect of inspiration than simply being flesh-and-blood keyboards. Luke states unapologetically that he did a bunch of research  in order to get the story straight about Jesus (Luke 1: 1-4). The Psalms express a range of very human emotions, including the desire to kill an enemy nations’  infants by smashing them on rocks (Psalm 137:9). Anyone ever heard of the phrase ‘noncombatants’? Whatever we are going to do, it seems we ought to be thinking carefully  how to deal with the very human aspect of what we mean by ‘Divine Inspiration.’ What sort of metric can we use to factor this in?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Supplemental Rejoinder

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

As an aside, rather than look at the human factor in a distinctly negative fashion, I would pose that we also look at it from a multifaceted (more positive) view formed of many lips speaking God. Not from just one or two attenuating authors; or from an institution whether Jewish or church, temple or sanctuary, abbey or lobby; or from an era-specific redoubt in retracting to the thinking of its day. But from the many lips that are speaking God to one another from many different nationalities, experiences, backgrounds, thoughts, feelings, understanding, and eras. This is what fascinates me. Not so much that there is an implied "slip of tongue" from the authors of Scripture - which I heavily weight not so much as a "slip" but as a cultural departure of description, ends, and means.

That is, the burden of the Scripture is upon me to understand its meaning, not to subjectify whether it is a "slip" or not. But whether my era-specific understanding meshes with its sense of antiquity. And whether I and its author are even on the same theological page concerning desperately different implications of philosophical understanding between them and myself. That like myself, the biblical soothsayer is himself (or herself) in the same position of speaking God to his/her generation's of adamants given what we know and think (along with its consequential shortcomings) into the public ranks of workers, house moms, traders, officials, rulers, beggarmen, and thieves. That the inspiration of God must mix with the passionate inspiration of (holy?) men and women in order to be spoken, remembered, and written into the general composite and digest of what we now call today the Scriptures.

That the Scripture's work best - not from an artificial platform of pointing out its errors and fallacies - so much as to think of its narratives forming a greater composite or mosaic of God through its many testimonies, acts, and events. That one man's "slip" is another man's (mine own perhaps) inspiration to see into the frailties (or inadequacies) of those author's humble backgrounds and preformative judgments requiring redemptive narration and divine resourcing. That every man - including the humble biblical speaker - is in the transformative stages of becoming conformed by the grace and love of God. Of being confronted with God's great mercy and forgiveness in the face of death, ruin, and judgment. Of discovering hope where none exists. Of finding humanity in all places bereft of it. And not simply in the hallowed halls of our own feeble judgments or sanctimonious sanctuaries.

For me, this is the beauty of Scripture. To read of it warts-and-all with an open heart seeking God from the greater testimony of all men and women - both past and present. Rather than critically critiquing its pages we are critically digesting its harmonies, becoming informed by what it says - or doesn't say and omit - or by how it says it and understands God. It is in this postmodern sense that the Bible is both a divine work of the Holy Spirit and human product written by the hands of very earthy men and women. Who enounce God in their generations backwards to when the first convicted penitent began to speak God to family and friends. A literal reading of the Bible cannot do this. But a forming (and informing) reading of the Bible from a multifaceted polyplural, multi-interpretive, anthropologic hermeneutic can. It throws out the attitude that the Bible is full or errors or slips and infills its pages with the dusty remains of the human spirit in tattered communion to God and all that it may portend for that generation as for us ourselves. It sees both the divine and the human in necessary communion each with the other. Whose pages bear the elemental marks of torn human hearts with the divine Spirit whithing itself in tears.

Such a reading asks us first our own beliefs, prejudices, and anathemas, even as it asks us to lay them down to re-consider another's point of view different from our own. It is an anthropologic reading of the Bible. Or an existential - phenomenological reading of the Bible as Paul Ricoeur would say. An interpretive hermeneutic that would ask why the very questions we ask (or the very demands we seek to place on God and His people) must be so primal in our private interpretations of the Bible. According to the book of Proverbs, this is the beginning of wisdom. A book itself composed from a composite, and eclectic mix, of popular sayings, insights, and rejoinders, as it critiques its symbionts to critique themselves. The work of their hands and lips. While all the while asking the question, "Hath God said?" to our enfeebled hearts seeking  to embrace God through our human simplicities and folklorish observations or proverbs.

Hence, to see the Word of God as a wholly divine product would be in error no more than to read the Word of God as a product of holy (or unholy?) men and women. I would prefer to read the Word of God as a collection of God's embodied work through the testament and life works of His people as they grapple with the very real issues of their day using all their knowledge and experience and societal understanding of God to speak of their Lord and Saviour, Creator and Judge. Who would testify to God in an "I-Thou" relationship and not as a principle, power, or thing objectified by their wishes, hopes, and dreams. But as a very real divine presence seeking to transform men and women and their societies into the holy thing of His divine grace and good will.

A redemptive fellowship filled with the presence of His Holy Spirit in transformative living, graces, and forgiveness. Which stand as testaments to the wickedness of man, the cruel ingenuities of his heart, and the base imaginations that only sin and death may bring with such devotees of hell, devil, and hate. A society of men and women who bless one another and who seek to withstand the evil of their day against the stout goodness, presence, power, and strength of the Almighty. A God who delivers and protects His children in the day of fastness and coming judgment. This is the God of the Bible. Who speaks His word through men and women filled with His Spirit - shortcomings and all - to their generations needing spiritual leadership and communal bonding. A God who heals and binds up the wounds suffered by the curse of the Fall and the works of evil men. A God who will redeem. Who will judge our works. And who will bring all to His holy ends in its time.

R.E. Slater

March 11, 2014

continue to -

How Are We to Read the Bible? As a Divine Product or Human?

Part 2 of 2

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-are-we-to-read-bible-as-divine.html