Quotes & Sayings


We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater

There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater

The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller

The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller

According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater

Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater

Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger

Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton

I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon

Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon

Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater

An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater

Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann

Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”

Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton

The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon

The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul

The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah

If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon

Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord

Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater

To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma

It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater

God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall

Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater

-----

Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write from the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Finding a Balance between Dating and Courtship


Reading this article last night brought to mind that for some, dating is considered an important step towards marriage. It was for me when I was a young man, and I suspect for many other young men coming from a conservative background like myself. However, as in all things, one must find a balance in living while attempting to discover love, life, and self-identity.

For the more serious minded, or thoughtful young man, it is best kept in mind that dating isn't courtship, and courtship isn't engagement or betrothal, even as engagement isn't marriage. Each has its own stages as a relationship proceeds from the unfamiliar to the familiar; from the isolated towards a friendship; from a friendship to a union of some kind; until reaching a nexus or plateau of personal commitment to one another based upon gathered learning experiences, disappointments, failures, and mis-starts.

The author below thoughtfully juxtaposes dating vs. courtship as important initial steps towards marriage that should not be rushed into by hastily intermixing each stage's purposes and constitutions. Dating is dating. It is not courtship. And courtship cannot proceed until one has taken the time to date either one or more persons. Here, the suggestion is to casually date more than one individual... and generally, this is a good idea. It avoids personal despair, or grief, confusion or poor judgment, when rushing one stage to another to only later discover the heart was too optimistic, or too self-deprecating, or too anxious, to allow the significant other time to love you back.

Overall, relationships need to be tempered by time, event, circumstances, and livelihood, among other pre-conditions. To not allow a relationship to evolve and mature is to not give yourself - or your girlfriend or boyfriend - the time necessary to adjust to yourself, your family, your own circumstances, needs and wants. Taking the time to develop a relationship allows necessary time with God to complete in you His plans and purposes. It provides a couple the depth, savvy, wisdom, and insights they may need to moving forward in a way that may blend their own lives, families, friendships, and livelihood, with your own.

So then, as in all things, even in conditions of the heart, be at peace with the Lord and His Spirit. Trust in God and be content with who you are. Do not try to become somebody you are not. Accept and love yourself even as the Lord loves you.

R.E. Slater
August 19, 2014


* * * * * * * * * * *






Why Courtship is Fundamentally Flawed



Igrew up as a member of the homeschool community back when we were hiding from the cops and getting our textbooks from public school dumpsters.  When I was a teenager, my friends started reading this new book called I Kissed Dating GoodbyeFor months we could talk of little else. After reading it myself, I grew into as big an opponent of dating as you could find. Dating was evil and Courtship, whatever it was, was godly, good and Biblical.
My grandparents would often ask why I wasn’t dating in high school. I explained what courtship was and quoted Joshua Harris, chapter and verse. Their response surprised me.
“I don’t think courtship is a smart idea,” my grandfather said.
“How can you tell who you want to marry if you aren’t going out on dates?” my grandmother wondered every time the topic came up. I tried to convince them but to no avail. They both obstinately held to the position that courtship was a foolish idea.
Well, what did they know? They were public schooled. I ignored their advice on relationships, preferring to listen to the young people around me who were passionate advocates of courtship.
As I grew older, I started to speak at homeschool conferences and events. I talked with homeschool parents, students and alumni all over the country and started to see some challenges with making courtship work.
Some of the specific challenges I identified were:
  • Identification (Finding that other person)
  • Interaction (Spending time with the other person)
  • Initiation (Starting the relationship)
So I founded PracticalCourtship.com. Its purpose: to instigate a national conversation about how to make courtship more practical. Visits and comments poured in from all over the country about how to make courtship work and why it did not work.
Each year I waited for courtship to start working and for my homeschool friends to start getting married. It never happened. Most of them are still single. Some have grown bitter and jaded. Then couples who did get married through courtship started getting divorced. I’m talking the kind of couples who first kissed at their wedding were filing for divorce.
This was not the deal!
The deal was that if we put up with the rules and awkwardness of courtship now we could avoid the pain of divorce later.  The whole point of courtship was to have a happy marriage, not a high divorce rate.
So I humbled myself and took my grandmother out for dinner to hear why she thought courtship was a bad idea all those years ago. She had predicted the failure of courtship back in the 90s and I wanted to understand how and why.
But first let me define what I mean by “courtship”.

So what is courtship anyway?

After 20 years there still is no general consensus as to what courtship is. But here are the elements most conservative communities have in common:
  • The man must ask the woman’s father’s permission before pursuing the woman romantically.
  • High accountability (chaperones, monitored correspondence, etc).
  • Rules about physical contact and purity. (The specific rules vary from community to community).
  • The purpose of the courtship is marriage
  • High relational intentionality and intensity
  • High parental involvement. Fathers typically hold a “permission and control” role rather than the traditional “advice and blessing” role held by their fathers.

The Case for Traditional Dating

My grandmother grew up in a marginally Christian community. People went to church on Sunday but that was the extent of their religious activity. They were not the Bible-reading, small-grouping, mission-tripping Christian young people common in evangelical churches today.
And yet her community of friends all got married and then stayed married for decades and decades. So what on earth were they doing that worked so well? Over dinner, my grandmother shared her story about what dating was like back in the the 30s and 40s.
When my grandmother dated in middle school (yes, middle school) her parents had only one rule for her.
The One Dating Rule: Don’t go out with the same guy twice in a row.
So if she went out for soda with Bob on Tuesday, she had to go to a movie with Bill on Thursday before she could go to the school dance with Bob on Saturday.
That sounded crazy to me. So, I asked her the rationale behind it. She explained that the lack of exclusivity helped them guard their hearts and kept things from getting too serious too quickly. The lack of exclusivity kept the interactions fun and casual. “The guys wouldn’t even want to kiss you!” She said.
The lack of exclusivity helped the girls guard their hearts and kept the boys from feeling entitled to the girl. How could a boy have a claim to her time, heart or body if she was going out with someone else later that week?
She went on to explain that by the time she graduated from high school, she had gone out on dates with over 20 different guys. This meant that by the time she was 17 years old she knew which Bob she wanted to marry. They got married and stayed married till my grandfather passed away half a century later.
“If I had only gone out with 3 or 4 guys I wouldn’t have known what I wanted in a husband,” she said.
It is not that her parents were uninvolved; it is that they played an advisory role, particularly as she entered high school and they relaxed the rules about not going steady.

The Difference Between “Dating” and “Going Steady”

She went on to explain that there used to be a linguistic differentiation between “dating” and “going steady”. “Going steady” meant you were going out with the same person multiple times in a row. It often had symbols like the girl wearing the guy’s letter jacket. This telegraphed to everyone at school that she was “off the market” and that she had a “steady beau”.
It seems that my great grandparents’ rule forbidding my grandmother from going out with the same guy twice in a row was a common rule in those days.
The Greatest Generation was encouraged to date and discouraged from going steady while in middle school.
This is different from my generation, which is encouraged to “wait until you are ready to get married” before pursuing a romantic relationship. This advice, when combined with the fact that “the purpose of courtship is marriage”, makes asking a girl out for dinner the emotional equivalent of asking for her hand in marriage.
I am not convinced that anyone is ever truly ready to get married. Readiness can become a carrot on a stick, an ideal that can never be achieved. Marriage will always be a bit like jumping into a pool of cold water. A humble realization that you are not ready and in need of God’s help may be the more healthy way to start a marriage.
As the decades moved on, our language and behavior changed. We stopped using the phrase “going steady” and changed “dating” to mean “going steady”. For example, we would now say “John and Sarah have been dating for 3 months.” when the Greatest Generation would have said “John and Sarah have been going steady for 3 months.”
We then started using new pejoratives like “dating around” and “playing the field” to describe what used to just be called “dating”. Each decade added more exclusivity, intensity, and commitment to dating and saw a subsequent rise in temptation and promiscuity.
It is easier to justify promiscuity when you are exclusively committed to just one person, even if that commitment is only a week old.
In the late 80s and early 90s this promiscuous culture reached its peak. People would “go steady” for just a few weeks and then move on to the next relationship. It was this “hookup and breakup” culture that the founders of courtship were reacting to.
But their proposed solution involved adding even more commitment, exclusivity and intensity, the very things that lead to the problem in the first place. This is why courtship is fundamentally flawed.
The courtship movement eliminated dating and replaced it with nothing.
Or, put another way, they replaced dating with engagement. The only tangible difference between an engagement and a courtship is the ring and the date.
Similarities between Courtship & Engagement:
  • They both require the permission of the father.
  • They both are intended for marriage.
  • They are not “broken up” but are instead “called off”.
  • When they are called off there is an inevitable rending of a community as one of the couple no longer feel comfortable spending time with the community of their ex-future spouse.
Young people are expected to jump from interacting with each other in groups straight into “pseudo-engagement”. This is a jump very few are prepared to make. The result is that a commitment to courtship is often a commitment to lifelong singleness.

Why the Courtship Divorce Rate is So High

Recently I have seen a spike in divorces amongst couples who courted. I have a few theories as to why this is. Young people whose parents often maintain veto power on all of their decisions are then expected to make this most important decision without any experience in good decision making. They have no context of who they are, past decision making or an idea of what they are looking for in a spouse.
How can you know what personality you fit well with if you only go out with one other person? The result can be a mismatched couple and a marriage that is difficult to sustain.
Right now all we have little research to go on in terms of the courtship divorce rate. In my observations, some homeschool communities have a much higher divorce rate than others. I would be very interested in seeing some research on this phenomenon. This blog post is my call for more research on the divorce rate amongst couples who “courted” before getting married.

Advantages of Traditional Dating

Less Temptation – It is hard to fall in love with Bob on Tuesday when you know you are going out for coffee with Bill on Thursday. This lack of emotional commitment leads to less physical temptation.  Less temptation leads to less compromise. I have no idea how women are supposed to guard their hearts while in an exclusive relationship with the purpose of marriage.
More Interaction – I know many homeschool girls who are frustrated that they never get asked out on a date. It is not uncommon to find a 21 year old stay at home daughter who has never been asked out on a date. The reason for this is not because the girl is unattractive (although that may be the story she convinces herself of over time).
The real reason is that few guys are willing to ask permission from a woman’s father to marry her before being able to ask her out on a date to get to know her. Even when this permission is requested, it is unlikely to be given.
I know several godly, hardworking and attractive homeschool guys who have been rejected by as many as a dozen fathers. I respect their tenacity. Getting turned down by courtship fathers is tough on guys because the fathers are rarely gentle or kind. So if you are a courtship-minded girl wondering why the guys are not calling, you may want to ask your dad how many guys he has run off.
With Traditional Dating, asking a girl out on a date is no big deal. All the guy is asking to do is to get to know the girl better. Maybe this leads to a deeper relationship, maybe it doesn’t. Either way, the interaction is easier and more fun when it is not so intense.
Less Heartbreak – One of the promises of courtship is that it can lead to less heartbreak than dating. I laugh at this to keep myself from crying. This could not be further from the truth. Calling off a courtship can be as emotionally wrenching as calling off an engagement. It can take years to recover from a “failed courtship.” Also let’s not also forget the emotional cost for girls of not being asked out year after year and the emotional cost for guys of being rejected by father after father.
More Marriage – Let’s face it, most married people got married because they dated first. I would even submit that most homeschoolers who do get married supplemented with dating at some point in their journey. Courtship is not resulting in many marriages despite having been advocated by (sometimes unmarried) conservative leaders for nearly 20 years.
More Fun - The institution of marriage is crumbling. Of the last two generations, one won’t get married and the other won’t stay married. A smaller percentage of people are married in America than at any other time. Part of what helps perpetuate the institution of marriage is making the process of getting married fun. My grandmother made dating in her day sound really fun. Courtship on the other hand can be awkward and emotionally heartwrenching.
Dating also trains people to continue dating their spouse after they get married. It is important for married couples to be able to have fun with each other. The kind of parents who are the strongest advocates of courtship are often the ones who go on the fewest dates with each other.
More Matchmaking - Modern Courtship doesn’t really have a mechanism for matchmaking. How can there be blind dates if the man must first get permission from a father? Courtship relationships are so intense that even introductions can be awkward. I know many happily married couples who met through a blind date or an online matchmaking service like eHarmony. Matchmaking is a time-tested practice that Traditional Dating is fully compatible with. Courtship? Not so much.
More League Awareness -  Not everyone has the same level of attractiveness, character, intelligence and wealth. Parents tend to see their own children through rose-colored glasses. Homeschool communities can be a bit like Lake Wobegon where all the children are above average. It is easy for “no guy to be good enough for daddy’s little princess”. The sad result of enforcing this mindset is a daughter who becomes a spinster. With traditional dating guys learn their league by finding out what girls say “yes” to that second date. Girls learn their league by seeing what kind of guys ask them out.

Responding to Common Questions & Objections to Traditional Dating

Why Not Just Spend Time in Groups?

If you talk with advocates of modern courtship they speak highly of single people spending time in groups. Group settings reduce the intensity, commitment and exclusivity and thus protect the hearts of single people.
The problem with group settings is that not all personality types open up in group settings. Many married couples include one spouse who is more comfortable in group settings than the other. These couples may have never found each other if they were limited to “group dating.”
In group activities, it can be hard for the wallflowers to be discovered for the flowers that they really are. They need a less intense 1-on-1 setting in which to bloom. Group settings are particularly rough on women who grew up in communities where they were trained to value submissiveness, meekness and quietness.
The other challenge with group settings is that they are logistically complex. The more people you add to the group, the harder coordination becomes. Where is a stay-at-home daughter who attends a small family integrated church supposed to find groups of young people to hang out with? The result of limiting interaction to group settings is many lonely nights interacting with no one.

But Isn’t Courtship Biblical?

When applying Scripture, particularly the Old Testament, to our lives, it is important to differentiate between Biblical precedent, principle and precept. Just because Jacob had two wives and a seven-year engagement does not mean that God wants all men to have two wives and seven-year engagements.
What we have in the Old Testament is a lot of precedent: each story is different from the last.
For precedents we have:
  • the woman as the protagonist in the romance (Ruth & Boaz)
  • the man as the protagonist in the romance (Jacob & Rachel)
  • the romance arranged by a third party (Isaac & Rebekah)
  • the woman entering the man’s harem (David & Abigail, Micah, Bathsheba etc.)
There are some good Scriptural precepts about sexual purity in the New Testament, and there are some principles about the benefits of marrying young and that sort of thing.
But the Bible is surprisingly quiet when it comes to laying out a system of courtship. Courtship Systems are cultural, and the Bible rarely advocates one cultural approach over another. God’s heart is that every tribe and tongue come worship him without having to surrender their food, language or other cultural distinctives in the process.
Most of the moral arguments for courtship are actually arguments for arranged marriage. The arguments for the strong involvement of parents fit arranged marriage much better than they fit courtship.
When I started PracticalCourtship.com, one of my goals was to never use the site to criticize arranged marriage. In countries like India, that have both arranged marriages and “love marriages,” the arranged marriages have the lower divorce rate. Arranged marriage has been used by many cultures for many years with good results.
The problem is that arranged marriage is not a good fit for western culture. Many Americans value individual liberty more than life itself. Giving this most important decision to someone else is not something many of us are comfortable with. Also, parents are often hesitant to arrange marriages lest their child resent them if the marriage turns out to be an unhappy one.
I don’t see Arranged Marriage taking off in Western Culture.
We need a system to help young people make good decisions. Fortunately, we have one: Traditional Dating.
Traditional Dating fits our culture like a glove. Most of Americans already intuitively know how it works because it is part of who we are as a people. If you don’t know how it works, ask your grandparents and they will tell you of the glory days when men were free. Watch the twinkle in their eye when they tell you of a time when men and women could fall in love and pick their own spouses.

Hasn’t Our Sexualized Culture Ruined Dating?

There is no denying that the media is far more sexually charged than it was when my grandparents were dating in junior high. Now while some of that is the media following culture (The Beatles sang about hand holding while hippies swapped STDs in the 60s), I do believe that media affects the culture. The question is how do we best respond to that culture.
The commitment, exclusivity and intensity of dating is what lead to temptation and compromise in the first place. Courtship makes the problem worse by increasing the commitment which intensifies the temptation. The advocates of courtship know this, which is why chaperones are so critical to the system.
The other problem with courtship is that it often delays marriage. Courtship communities expect young people to live celibate lives in a sexually charged culture for a decade or more before they get married. The Bible instructs us to flee temptation and to marry lest you burn with lust. Courtship teaches instead to delay marriage until you are ready.
I recently heard a local pastor complaining about a rash of older 20 something women in his church who had given up on finding prince charming. They started making physical compromises in an effort to attract a man. Once they gave up on courtship they just grabbed whatever the world was offering.
The benefit of traditional dating is that the lack of exclusivity reduces temptation. It also helps young people find out who they are and who they are looking for faster.  Early marriage reduces the number of years a young person must resist sexual temptation through celibacy.
Finally, I should say this: Where sin abounds, grace abounds more. I understand Grace to be the power of God to do the will of God. The power of God is greater than the power of our sexualized culture. There is nothing new under the sun and no new temptation that is not already common to man. This is not the first time Christians have lived in a sexualized culture.
If you study history, you will find that this actually happens often. In each of those generations God provided a way out. I believe that for our generation that way is Traditional Dating.

Now Let’s Talk Some Specifics

Suggestions For Single Women

If you are a single woman, realize that the reason guys are not asking you out is NOT because you are unattractive. It is because you live in a system where he must want to marry you before he can get to know you. It is the system that is broken, not you. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Somewhere out there is a guy who will see you as the most beautiful woman in the world. The more guys you meet, the faster you will find him.
  • If a Christian guy asks you out for dinner, say “yes”. You don’t need to love him to say yes to a first date.
  • Be friendly. Give the guy hope that he has a chance with you. Coyness is not as attractive as the media makes it out to be.
  • Don’t make him run a gauntlet before he can get to know you. Realize he is not asking to marry you when he asks if he can buy you dinner.
  • Some guys are hidden gems and are more than meets the eye. Give him a chance to win your attention and to earn that second date.
  • If you are not interested in a guy, let him down gently. There is a way to give a firm “no” to a guy without making him feel like a worm.
  • Don’t call in your dad to scare him off unless he won’t take the hint. Your dad and his shotgun should be the last resort.
  • Let the guy pay for dinner.

Suggestions for Single Men

  • Start asking girls out. Most girls would love to be asked out and will say “yes” if you would just ask them.
  • Realize that asking a girl out for dinner is not the same as proposing marriage.
  • If she says you need to talk to her dad first, just move on to the next girl. Don’t let the fact that some women have controlling fathers keep you from dating the girls with more normal families. There are a lot of fish in the sea and some dads are nicer than others.  Remember that this man would have become your father-in-law, and controlling people tend to control everything they can. So avoiding women with those kinds of fathers can save you a lot of heartache down the road.
  • If you have been browbeaten by harsh courtship fathers, I feel your pain. Ask God to heal your heart and to give you the courage to try again. The tide is shifting. The leaders that those men used to justify their actions are quickly fading into the past. We are entering a kinder, gentler age. Who knows. Maybe the next girl you ask out could be the one.
  • Get a job. Money makes you more attractive.
  • Pay for dinner.

Suggestions for Both Single Men and Single Women

  • Do what your grandparents did and go out on dates with lots of different people before going steady with any of them.
  • Don’t marry the first person you have feelings for.
  • Keep an eye out for public places where you can have private conversations.
  • Find a church with lots of single people. There are still churches out there with a healthy culture of traditional dating. If no one in your church got married last year, don’t expect to break that trend. You can always move back to your parent’s church after you find your sweetheart.
  • Have fun.
  • Fear God.

Suggestions For Parents

  • Try to make marriage attractive to your children by loving and respecting your spouse the best you can. One reason that your children may not be getting married is because they don’t want what you have in your marriage.
  • Start dating your spouse again. Do whatever you can to make your marriage a happy one.
  • Encourage your sons to ask girls out on dates.
  • Allow your daughters to say yes to first dates from Christian guys you don’t know.
  • As your children become adults, give advice instead of commands. Being a parent does not make you a Pope for another adult.
  • The gentler you are in giving advice, the more it will be sought.
  • Take a step back and trust God to guide your child directly.
  • Pray earnestly and persistently for your child.
  • Encourage your children to find their way to places where they can meet other single people.
  • Don’t force your daughters to stay at home. Let them get out into the world where they can meet godly men. If you want to catch a fish you must first walk to the pond.
  • Remember that gentleness and kindness are fruits of the Spirit.
  • Treat the person interested in your child as a fellow brother or sister in Christ.

How to Talk With Your Folks About Courtship

Share this post with your parents and talk to with them about why courtship is flawed and why you are going to start going out on dates.
The older you are, the easier this conversation will be. I find that even the most controlling parents start to mellow out as their single daughters start entering their 30s. That biological clock waits for no man, even Prince Charming. It will help when their friends start bragging about their grandchildren.
Listen to them as they share the mistakes they made while dating. Listen to their story of how they fell in love. Just remember that every romance is different and your story will be different. Just because your parents got divorced or live in an unhappy marriage does not doom you to their fate.
Realize that many of their rules were created out of fear. They are afraid that you will suffer the same way they did when they were your age.
Don’t forget that they love you. Explain to them that you all want the same thing: for you to be happily married.
Explain that courtship is not helping you become happily married. Courtship leads to singleness more often than it leads to marriage.
If all else fails, play the grandchildren card. Most parents want grandchildren. Try to explain that if they want grandchildren you need to get married and courtship is not helping you do that.

Where do we go from here?

Share this post with your community on Facebook and Google+ to continue the conversation. My hope is that as single people start embracing traditional dating we can restore the fun first date to our culture. The more people who read this post the more guys that will start asking girls out and the more girls who will say “yes” to that first date.
Tweetables:
  • The Greatest Generation was encouraged to date and discouraged from going steady in middle school. (Click to Tweet)
  • The courtship movement eliminated dating and replaced it with nothing. (Click to Tweet)
  • The only tangible difference between an engagement and a courtship is the ring and the date. (Click to Tweet)
  • A commitment to courtship is often a commitment to lifelong singleness. (Click to Tweet)
  • Most of the moral arguments for courtship are actually arguments for arranged marriage. (Click to Tweet)
  • Being a parent does not make you a Pope for another adult. (Click to Tweet)
  • The benefit of traditional dating is that the lack of exclusivity reduces temptation. (Click to Tweet)
  • When applying Scripture, it is important to differentiate between precedent, principle and precept. (Click to Tweet)

What do you think?

If I have learned one thing running PracticalCourtship.com, it is that courtship is very controversial. Even the definition of the word sparks a debate. That is fine. I am happy to see your thoughts and opinions in the comments.   A few requests for the comments:
  • Keep the conversation civil. No name calling. Just because you were hurt in the past is no excuse to hurt others in the future.
  • Keep the conversation humble. Bragging about how this is not a problem in your family is not very helpful.
  • Please read the follow up article before posting comments. I may have already addressed your question in the Q&A post.
  • I reserve the right to delete comments. It is not censorship to take your comment off of my personal blog. Remember you can say whatever you want about me or this post on your own blog or Facebook page.
---
If you think that this post should be expanded into a book to respond to some of the concerns posted below, click here, to get book updates.


A "Day of Thanksgiving," announced by the "All Africa Purpose Driven Church Congress," August 6-10, 2015, Kigali, Rwanda


(PHOTO: SADDLEBACK CHURCH/SCOTT TOKAR) Pastor Rick Warren announces plans for the All Africa Purpose Driven Church Congress
to be held Aug. 6-10, 2015. Warren made the announcement during a press conference held in Kigali, Rwanda, Aug. 11, 2014.

Rick Warren in Rwanda Announces Plans to Host All 54 African Nations at Purpose Driven Church Congress
http://www.christianpost.com/news/rick-warren-in-rwanda-announces-plans-to-host-all-54-african-nations-at-purpose-driven-church-congress-124718/

by Alex Murashko, Christian Post Reporter
August 13, 2014|8:12 am

Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and author of The Purpose Driven Life, announced plans earlier this week at a press conference in Kigali, Rwanda, to host an unprecedented gathering of pastors and church leaders from all 54 African nations in conjunction with a national day of Thanksgiving next year.

The All Africa Purpose Driven Church Congress, which is planned for August 6-10, 2015, will be held during Rwanda Shima Imana, a relatively new celebration in Rwanda, a "Day of Thanksgiving" to celebrate reconciliation and gratitude on the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide.

The conference will be the first of five annual continent-wide conferences to take place by 2020, with the second planned to be held in Latin America in 2016, organizers said.

"I have been to Rwanda many times but this is by far my most important trip," said Warren. "This week I am bringing over 100 leaders from 30 African nations as well as Russia, China, India and the U.S. I want them to see what is happening in this country and to see the growth, development and progress that has been made in both this nation and its churches as we prepare for the 2015 gathering."

(PHOTO: SADDLEBACK CHURCH) President of Rwanda, His Excellency Paul Kagame,(R) joined Pastor Rick Warren Saturday evening for
Kwibuka 20, a special service at Saddleback Church to honor the victims of the Rwandan genocide 20 years later and celebrate the
partnership and efforts of The PEACE Plan in Rwanda over the past 10 years, April 26, 2014.

Warren explained how the idea for The PEACE Plan was birthed in 2003 while he was speaking in South Africa, but two years later following a call from His Excellency Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda, it became a reality as the country became the first Purpose Driven nation.

"I have been working with and watching the churches of Rwanda for nearly 10 years, and I believe now is the time for them to be a model to the world," Warren said. "It would be just like God to take a small nation like Rwanda on which the world turned its back 20 years ago in its greatest need and use it for God and for good."

Warren emphasized that as leadership training begins this week in Rwanda and continues in 2015 with the continent-wide gathering, it will emphasize reconciliation, with Rwandan leaders sharing their stories of forgiveness and healing following the 1994 genocide, which took the lives of 1 million Rwandans and left 1 million children orphaned over the course of 100 days.

"I believe the secret to Middle East peace is in Rwanda," said Warren. "World leaders should be studying Rwanda. This should be the model."

The 12 pastors who serve on the Rwanda PEACE Plan Board of Directors joined Warren for today's press conference along with eight of more than 25 leaders that serve as Master Trainers for PEACE.

"These men, whether you realize it or not, are world leaders," Warren said. "What they are doing with churches in Rwanda is being watched by churches all around the world."

The PEACE Plan works worldwide to Promote reconciliation, Equip servant leaders, Assist the poor, Care for the sick,and Educate the next generation, through a massive effort to mobilize millions of Christians to combat the five global evil giants of spiritual emptiness, self-centered leadership, extreme poverty, pandemic disease and illiteracy/education, according to church officials. Since its founding, Saddleback has sent over 23,000 members to implement The PEACE Plan in all 197 nations of the world.

"Most nations are validated by their strength in exports; Rwanda can become famous for exporting leadership," Warren said. "Rwanda should be the leadership and innovation capital of the continent of Africa. That is why I am calling leaders from across the continent to come to Rwanda next year to learn. The strength of Rwanda is not in the ground; it's in the people."

Through The PEACE Plan in Rwanda, Saddleback Church has worked together with the public, private and faith sectors of the nation – what it calls the three-legged stool of churches, government and businesses – to help lower the poverty rate, empty orphanages, provide healthcare, train pastors and provide education.

"What makes The PEACE Plan unique is that it is done by local churches, in local churches, in the community," said Warren. "I could take you to 10 million villages around the world where the only thing there is the church. The church is the biggest organization on the planet and has most potential to do good if mobilized."

Over 3,200 pastors have completed a three-year intensive training in the purpose-driven PEACE Plan. These churches now offer everything from micro-savings clubs to preschools to programs training farmers how to double their crops on the same amount of land.

The media site AllAfrica.com reports that Rwanda Shima Imana is a national Christian Thanksgiving Day and was "inaugurated in 2012, by Peace Plan, a brainchild of Pastor Warren, with a presence in most Christian churches in Rwanda."

"It is a day when believers come together to thank God for the progress made in the country and the Church so far," according to AllAfrica.

The 3rd annual Thanksgiving crusade is this Sunday (Aug. 17), at the Amahoro stadium. Warren is a member of the Rwanda Presidential Advisory Council and would like to see Rwanda Shima Imana a public holiday, "just as [Thanksgiving] is in some other countries, including the US, Japan, and the Netherlands," reports All Africa.

"It is my prayer that this day becomes a national holiday just as it is in some parts of the world," Warren said. "Twenty years after the Genocide, we are now a new Rwanda. We have seen the country develop and have nothing to hold against God, other than celebrating what He has done for our country."


For more information about Saddleback's work in Rwanda or The PEACE Plan, visit http://www.saddleback.com or http://www.thepeaceplan.com. For additional information about Rwanda Shima Imana, visithttp://www.shimaimana.rw.



Monday, August 18, 2014

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 5 - John Franke




There is little doubt that the inerrancy of the Bible is a current and often contentious topic among evangelicals. Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy represents a timely contribution by showcasing the spectrum of evangelical positions on inerrancy, facilitating understanding of these perspectives, particularly where and why they diverge.

Each essay in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy considers:

  • the present context and the viability and relevance for the contemporary evangelical Christian witness;
  • whether and to what extent Scripture teaches its own inerrancy;
  • the position’s assumed/implied understandings of the nature of Scripture, God, and truth; and
  • three difficult biblical texts, one that concerns intra-canonical contradictions, one that raises questions of theological plurality, and one that concerns historicity.

Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy serves not only as a single-volume resource for surveying the current debate, but also as a catalyst both for understanding and advancing the conversation further. Contributors include Al Mohler, Kevin Vanhoozer, Michael Bird, Peter Enns, and John Franke.


* * * * * * * * *


Scott McKnight begins a discussion of Inerrancy to which I will add
occasional emendation, notes, links, and resources. R.E. Slater, August 4, 2014


Mission, Pluralism, and Inerrancy
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/08/18/mission-pluralism-and-inerrancy/

by Scot McKnight
Aug 18, 2014
Comments

John Franke
In the final essay in Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy, John Franke reframes inerrancy through the theological grids of Trinitarian mission and epistemic pluralism. He begins where many have begun, and when I say “many” I mean many people who have said things to me and who have said so in writing (including John himself), that inerrancy’s ideal is good but its use has become problematic. Namely, it is too often:

(1) assumed in meaning, and
(2) used as a theological divider on the basis of
the assumed meaning, and
(3) it has caused way too much division.

He says it has become a “theological and political symbol” (260) and I agree. To be sure, abuse does not determine meaning until abuse gets too closely allied with meaning, and many of us think the latter line has been crossed. (More of that on Wednesday.)

Franke rightly observes that one can say inerrancy is the church’s tradition if one means the Bible is true and trustworthy, and if (a big IF) one accepts non-literal (non-historical) figurative, theological readings of the Bible. Franke sees the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as an example of “classic or strong foundationalism” (261). That is, it seeks a “universal and indubitable basis for human knowledge” (261).

We are then dealing with a term (inerrancy) shaped by Enlightenment modernity. So whatever the Bible says is true (foundation) and any chink in the armor destroys the whole. Foundationalism leads to fallibilism, that is, humans are fallible and absolute certainty is impossible. He thinks the CSBI, perhaps unwittingly, is committed to classic foundationalism. Since most evangelicals are weak foundationalists he asks what inerrancy would look like in a fallibilist perspective.

Inerrancy for Franke is second-order, a construction built on biblical texts but not asserted in biblical texts (263). Article 13 of CSBI opens up the possibility of the Bible’s affirmations to be conditioned upon context (264). But Article 12 may back off from that kind of interpretive logic.

He thinks CSBI is too caught up in classical foundationalism so he offers a different model:

1. The God of Scripture: God is God (and we are not), God is living and active, God is love, God is missional, and God is plurality-in-unity and unity-in-plurality.

2. Divine accommodation, Truth and Scripture: we are not God; there is an infinite qualitative distinction between us and God. The finite cannot comprehend the infinite. So God accommodates to us in revealing truth to us. Language is not divinization; language partakes of human limitations. Scripture then is a “map” (268). God is light but God’s light is beyond any light we know. God is Truth; Scripture can only be truth. By inspiration they become true and faithful. By God’s grace we can know God truly.

Therefore, inerrancy fits in the “truth” aspect of God’s Truth. It is limited to language’s own limitations. “inerrancy functions only within the limits of language alone” (270).

3. Spirit: the act of revelation, then the Spirit witness to revelation, and then the Spirit-guided comprehension of the witness to God’s true revelation (270). Hence, Word and Spirit must be bound together. Spirit speaks through the Scripture but exegesis cannot exhaust Spirit.

The Scripture creates world through the Spirit as God wills that world. The most real world is the eschatological reality of the kingdom. God’s mission and love are fundamental to truth as well.

For Franke it is important to emphasize diversity and plurality in God’s revelation. The Bible is polyphonic. Four Gospels, not one. Not in the sense of relativism but in the sense of multiple approaches to the one true gospel. This entails unity in the canon. Canon bounds the diversities into the unity.

4. Inerrancy: “Scripture is inerrant in its witness to the plurality of perspectives that are indispensable to the practice of missional Christian community” (276). It means all texts must be given their place at the table, but it also means no text is allowed to force others to conform to it. Scripture therefore creates an open and flexible tradition. It also works against a single universal systematics.

---

In this chapter we see the first real impact of postmodernity’s chastened epistemology (Lesslie Newbigin style) on both the nature of Scripture, which Franke mediates through the big themes of Karl Barth’s view of Scripture, and the extent of our own interpretations. I’m not afraid to put words in Franke’s mouth: postmodernity’s perception of the human condition of knowing has to impact both our view of Scripture and our own articulations of theology. That is, they are limited and contextually shaped. I don’t see this in any of the other essays. I value what Franke is pointing us to consider in this regard.

On Joshua 6… he tips his hat to the core historicity (“essential”), notes the possible enlargement of the story in terms of myth (in accordance with usage of James Hoffmeier and Kenneth Kitchen, whose evangelical credentials are unquestioned)… but moves into the essential aim of Scripture: not to give these kinds of details but to form people into God’s mission. He thinks the Acts passages are not that important but does see canonical pluralism in the contrast of Deuteronomy and the words of Jesus about violence in Matthew 5.

Franke gets some serious pushback — from Mohler, Bird and Vanhoozer. Mohler for changing the whole idea of inerrancy, Bird for his incarnation analogy (I don’t see the problem here that Bird sees, as long as one doesn’t see it so much ontologically but analogically), and for the distinction of Truth from truth, and for having a pragmatic orientation to Scripture. Vanhoozer is concerned with Franke’s critique of foundationalism and for his lack of clarity on the meaning of inerrancy vs. the abuses of inerrancy. [I could wish Kevin would acknowledge how much negative impact the misuse of inerrancy has had on the meaning of the term where it has become as much a hermeneutical identity today as a statement about the power of Scripture to tell God's truth.] He also pushes against fallibilism, which he thinks Franke connects too much to interpretations. He wants to know about Franke’s view of “sound doctrine.”


* * * * * * * * * * *


Addendum by R.E. Slater

Just a quick here... Franke's view pretty much dovetails with my own analysis in "Part 4 - Keven Vanhoozer" in that it is beginning to parse the evangelical tradition for its uses of inerrancy as a standard for Christian brotherhood which is discriminate to its naive views of biblical interpretation.

I also have noted Scot's omission of Peter Enns name in his final paragraph above. Namely, if we were to assume - as I have here in my addendums - that like myself, Peter would have very little negative reaction to John Franke's published statements. Who personally would be more in agreement with Franke's positive statements than disagreements on the whole.

Finally, I will attempt a final wrap of this subject from the perspective of postmodern doubt and skepticism. It may help lend a more rounded frame of discussion towards late-modernity's epistemic certainty and related unnecessary dogmas placed upon the texts of Scripture. Overall, it would be better to not necessitate a position of inerrancy than it would be to hold to its many layered positive affirmations and denials.

R.E. Slater
August 18, 2014


Thursday, August 14, 2014

Kintsukuroi - "Broken Jars of Clay Repaired with Gold"








We are but broken jars of clay
healed by the precious blood of Jesus
made more beautiful for the imperfection ...

- R.E. Slater, August 14, 2014



But now, O LORD, you are our Father;
we are the clay, and you are our potter;
we are all the work of your hand.

- Isaiah 64.8



But we have this treasure in jars of clay,
to show that the surpassing power
belongs to God and not to us.

- 2 Corinthians 4.7



there are some pots that
are cracked,
others that leak,
that can give no service
until bound-up and restored
into service’s assembly
and there, in service,
find fulfillment,
not in itself,
but in what it bears.

- from Jars of Clay, R.E. Slater, November 7, 2011









The Collision Between "Beliefs and Facts" and the Evangelical Narrative


evangelicalism, evolution, and the facts
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/08/evangelicalism-evolution-and-the-facts/

by Peter Enns
August 13, 2014

A recent article in the NYT talks about the collision between “beliefs and facts.” It struck a chord.

The author, Brendan Nyhan, argues that simply “knowing” scientific data, for example on evolution or climate change, isn’t as important as one’s beliefs and group identity–be it political or religious.

The force that determines where people eventually wind up is their ideology and the group to which they belong, which give them a coherent life-narrative.

Here is the key point of the article:

In a new study, a Yale Law School professor, Dan Kahan, finds that the divide over belief in evolution between more and less religious people is wider among people who otherwise show familiarity with math and science, which suggests that the problem isn’t a lack of information. When he instead tested whether respondents knew the theory of evolution, omitting mention of belief, there was virtually no difference between more and less religious people with high scientific familiarity. In other words, religious people knew the science; they just weren’t willing to say that they believed in it.

Mr. Kahan’s study suggests that more people know what scientists think about high-profile scientific controversies than polls suggest; they just aren’t willing to endorse the consensus when it contradicts their political or religious views. This finding helps us understand why my colleagues and I have found that factual and scientific evidence is often ineffective at reducing misperceptions and can even backfire on issues like weapons of mass destruction, health care reform and vaccines. With science as with politics, identity often trumps the facts.

---

Applying this to the question of Christianity and evolution, it’s not enough to “show people the facts” of the fossil record or genetics, even if in doing so some change of thinking results.

If anyone wants to re-educate evangelicalism about evolution, they need to do more than “re-educate” evangelicals–it takes more than slides and YouTube videos explaining the compelling evidence.

Education doesn’t correct bad thinking if one’s narrative relies on that bad thinking. One also has to offer an alternate coherent and attractive structure whereby people can handle these new ways of thinking without feeling as if their entire faith and life hang in the balance.

I wrote Inspiration and Incarnation, The Evolution of Adam, and The Bible Tells Me So with this process in mind. The “aha” moments series I am currently running lays out examples of others (and more to come) who have come to accept, for various reasons, an alternate “structure” for their theological narratives–specifically, how they read the Bible.

If you’ll allow me to get on my soap box, this entire evangelical dilemma comes down to: “What is the Bible and what do I do with it?”

Learning to read the Bible differently–in a manner that is consistent with reason, tradition, and experience (yes, that is the Episcopalian “three-legged stool” and 3/4 of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral)–is the key issue for evangelicalism in order to relax a bit about evolution and think through it rather than reacting and vilifying others.

Unfortunately, holding fast to familiar ways of reading the Bible is the core pillar of the evangelical narrative structure. And there you have the problem facing evangelicalism in a nutshell.

It’s a hard thing to let go of. But for those who are ready to, alternate narrative structures abound and many have found a good home elsewhere and haven’t lost their faith in the process.


* * * * * * * * * * *



Do Americans understand the scientific consensus about issues like climate change and evolution?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html?_r=1

by Brendan Nyhan
July 5, 2014 

At least for a substantial portion of the public, it seems like the answer is no. The Pew Research Center, for instance, found that 33 percent of the publicbelieves “Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time” and 26 percent think there is not “solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades.” Unsurprisingly, beliefs on both topics are divided along religious and partisan lines. For instance, 46 percent of Republicans said there is not solid evidence of global warming, compared with 11 percent of Democrats.

As a result of surveys like these, scientists and advocates have concluded that many people are not aware of the evidence on these issues and need to be provided with correct information. That’s the impulse behind efforts like the campaign to publicize the fact that 97 percent of climate scientistsbelieve human activities are causing global warming.

In a new study, a Yale Law School professor, Dan Kahan, finds that the divide over belief in evolution between more and less religious people iswider among people who otherwise show familiarity with math and science, which suggests that the problem isn’t a lack of information. When he instead tested whether respondents knew the theory of evolution, omitting mention of belief, there was virtually no difference between more and less religious people with high scientific familiarity. In other words, religious people knew the science; they just weren’t willing to say that they believed in it.

Photo Credit: Eiko Ojala

Mr. Kahan’s study suggests that more people know what scientists think about high-profile scientific controversies than polls suggest; they just aren’t willing to endorse the consensus when it contradicts their political or religious views. This finding helps us understand why my colleagues and I have found that factual and scientific evidence is often ineffective at reducing misperceptions and can even backfire on issues like weapons of mass destruction, health care reform and vaccines. With science as with politics, identity often trumps the facts.

So what should we do? One implication of Mr. Kahan’s study and other research in this field is that we need to try to break the association between identity and factual beliefs on high-profile issues – for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican like former Representative Bob Inglis or an evangelical Christian like the climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe.Continue reading the main story

But we also need to reduce the incentives for elites to spread misinformationto their followers in the first place. Once people’s cultural and political views get tied up in their factual beliefs, it’s very difficult to undo regardless of the messaging that is used.

It may be possible for institutions to help people set aside their political identities and engage with science more dispassionately under certain circumstances, especially at the local level. Mr. Kahan points, for instance, to the relatively inclusive and constructive deliberations that were conducted among citizens in Southeast Florida about responding to climate change. However, this experience may be hard to replicate – on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, another threatened coastal area, the debate over projected sea level rises has already become highly polarized.

The deeper problem is that citizens participate in public life precisely because they believe the issues at stake relate to their values and ideals, especially when political parties and other identity-based groups get involved – an outcome that is inevitable on high-profile issues. Those groups can help to mobilize the public and represent their interests, but they also help to produce the factual divisions that are one of the most toxic byproducts of our polarized era. Unfortunately, knowing what scientists think is ultimately no substitute for actually believing it.



Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 4 - Kevin Vanhoozer




There is little doubt that the inerrancy of the Bible is a current and often contentious topic among evangelicals. Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy represents a timely contribution by showcasing the spectrum of evangelical positions on inerrancy, facilitating understanding of these perspectives, particularly where and why they diverge.

Each essay in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy considers:

  • the present context and the viability and relevance for the contemporary evangelical Christian witness;
  • whether and to what extent Scripture teaches its own inerrancy;
  • the position’s assumed/implied understandings of the nature of Scripture, God, and truth; and
  • three difficult biblical texts, one that concerns intra-canonical contradictions, one that raises questions of theological plurality, and one that concerns historicity.

Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy serves not only as a single-volume resource for surveying the current debate, but also as a catalyst both for understanding and advancing the conversation further. Contributors include Al Mohler, Kevin Vanhoozer, Michael Bird, Peter Enns, and John Franke.


* * * * * * * * *


Scott McKnight begins a discussion of Inerrancy to which I will add
occasional emendation, notes, links, and resources. R.E. Slater, August 4, 2014


Well-Versed Inerrancy
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/08/13/well-versed-inerrancy/

by Scot McKnight
Aug 13, 2014

Kevin Vanhoozer
In a book where the biggest terms are the last two, Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy, the problem is the word “biblical.” If this adjective means “inerrancy of the Bible” we haven’t much of a problem. But even this raises a problem I have with the book: a biblical view of inerrancy ought to be about the Bible’s view of inerrancy but this book — all five views — are much more theological and philosophical and historical studies of inerrancy instead of a serious attempt to show from the Bible what the Bible says about the topic of “inerrancy.”

The criticism applies less to Kevin Vanhoozer’s fine chapter, “Augustinian Inerrancy: Literary Meaning, Literal Truth, and Literature Interpretation in the Economy of Biblical Discourse,” than to the other essays. Still, we are a long way from a truly biblical approach, because that approach leads at least in part to Matthew’s or Paul’s midrashic, allegorical exegeses that at times have nothing to do with the author’s intent

Vanhoozer’s remains very theoretical and the categories are more or less set up before we get to the test cases but his section “God and Truth” is an exceptional example of a more biblically-framed approach to inerrancy. His approach is Augustinian, but the more important expression is that he’s about a “well-versed” inerrancy, one that is well versed in hermeneutics enough to know the following:

God’s authoritative Word is wholly true and trustworthy in everything
it claims about what was, what is, and what will be (202).

Or,

… the authors speak the truth in all things they affirm (when they make affirmations),
and will eventually be seen to have spoken truly (when right readers read rightly) (207).

Yes, hermeneutics is at the core of this issue, but determining what is “affirmed” is more than a little challenge.

So both semantics and poetics are at work in reading Scripture. So the quest is the “speech act content” not just the content. That is, find the literal sense to know truth and falsehood of the Bible.

I’ll say it again: The problem for inerrancy is the Bible itself so we need far more attention on what the Bible says about truth and how it speaks before we can have anything approaching a “biblical” inerrancy.

On the problem passages, I have one big comment: Inerrantists tip-toe and tap-dance around the fall of Jericho’s walls and end up denying the overwhelming conclusions of the archaeologists. Pete Enns is right to challenge dust-in-the-eyes proposals of resolution to these sorts of problems. So, what we really need is an inerrantist to explain their view of inerrancy if the account of Joshua 6 really does not correspond to the archaeological evidence. Vanhoozer shifts to “extreme caution” about the archaeological evidence. But then he provides, at least in my view, a way out: he asks what the author means to do with the text of Joshua 6. God is faithful to his word by granting the Israelites the Land. Jericho 6 communicates that promise of God. But does this just shift the content from the historical to the theological? Is this dodging or offering an alternative reading that can accommodate a non-historical reading of Joshua 6?

His approach to these difficulties is to discern the larger rhetorical intent of the author as a generalization whose truth outdoes the historical tension. Vanhoozer rightfully wonders this: since Jesus never distanced himself from the God of the Old Testament, maybe we should use his version of God. Well, isn’t this about what Jesus affirms more than what he doesn’t deny? Is affirmation of Israel’s God an affirmation of everything found in the OT?

Jesus, Vanhoozer says, reads the Bible with an over arching salvation historical drama driving his vision. The herem instructions then are about God clearing space for his own dwelling in the Land. I am unconvinced of this over arching narratival solution: the problem is the actual propositions of the text about what God wants for his people — the tension between Deut 20:16-17 and Jesus’ eschewing of the same in Matthew 5:44. By permitting that act to be God’s way in that time one finds tension with God’s way in Jesus’ time. (Right?)


* * * * * * * * * * *


Addendum by R.E. Slater

From the onset of discussing the subject of inerrancy it has been mine own conclusion, along with many others like Peter Enns, that inerrancy as a philosophical proposition placed upon the biblical text has been unhelpful. That it adds additional religious (Christian) layers to the discussion of the biblical text and by doing so speaks more from the reader's more culturally-defined (and not Spirit-defined) preferences and prejudices.

Scot touches upon the real issue here in that the reading of the biblical text must also be done with an eye to what the author of that text (or its oral legendary component) is trying to communicate. Now it might be assumed through biblical archaeological work - coupled with anthropological research - that the study of ancient cultures might portray a credible idea or two about what may have been going on many thousands of years ago. But it might also be credibly assumed that we may have no idea whatsoever as to what was in the mind of the author, or the intent of the legend being communicated, down through its generations of song, psalm, hymn, and poem.

As such, theology can get itself in a real bind when pretending to "compare verse with verse" to itself without consulting the ancient customs and cultures of the biblical text. Moreover, it can also do a great disservice to its discipline when not also considering the intentions of the ancient society when transmitting its oral histories of God and His revelation to one another. This is what is meant when saying that a fuller biblical hermeneutic must not only be contextual, grammatical, and linguistical, BUT ALSO anthropological. It is not enough to consider ancient society's philosophies and ideologies of their day, but also its receptive readership and what they may have wanted from God by communicating their specific ideas of Him through oral legends and ballads, testimonies and narratives.

Thus the anthropological component is crucial to the biblical text both then, as it is now, in our day. As readers of God's Word we must ask ourselves "just how do we come to its ancient script to read of God?" Do we come with an intent to re-enforce what we believe about God and thus come to the ancient text by way of our own preferences and prejudices? Or do we come to its text willing to unlearn what we think we know in order to reconsider other possible avenues of spiritual discovery and revelation?

And so, not only must a proper hermeneutic include an anthropological orientation to the past and to our own times - including ourselves - but it must  also be contemporary, relevant, dynamic and open. Why? Because a closed faith coupled with a closed Bible simply leads to dogmatism and undue critical judgment and not to a true biblical doctrine. Rather, this approach is not loving but critical of everyone and everything. But an open faith and an open Bible may lead to a gracious God who is doing mighty works against the evils of our day - even within our own lives!

Interpreting the Bible then is a complex set of tasks and not so simply read as first thought. But then again, it must be read and studied. It takes capable teachers of its many stories and narratives - and it takes a wisdom not of man but of God Himself. Hence, to layer one more "philosophical or theological" idea upon its text like the spurious doctrine of "inerrancy" is unhelpful. It can lead to Christian ideas that are not biblical but fallible, harmful, unhelpful, both to ourselves as to our friends and family, church and nation.

Let us be wise then to "unbind" the shackles we would unadvisedly place upon the Bible when pretending we are speaking up for the One who needs no Speech except His own through our still, small voices, offering crucified lives of dedication to the atoning Savior claimed and known with eyes and hearts not of this world. Amen.

R.E. Slater
August 14, 2014
edited August 18, 2014