The Differences Between "Intelligent Design" and "Evolutionary Creationism" - An Introduction

A Satire - "What's Science up to?" by Aasif Mandvi

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/x1h7ku/weathering-fights---science--what-s-it-up-to-

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

Reviewing “Darwin’s Doubt”: Introduction

http://biologos.org/blog/reviewing-darwins-doubt-introduction

by Deborah Haarsma

August 25, 2014

Today on the BioLogos Forum, we begin a series responding to Darwin’s Doubt (2013) by Stephen Meyer. Meyer holds a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University and is Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. This significant book makes a comprehensive case for Intelligent Design, referring to an extensive body of scientific literature.

BioLogos and other evolutionary creation leaders have been in conversation with Meyer and other leaders in Intelligent Design for many years. See, for example, exchanges in 2009-2010 on the BioLogos site regarding Meyer’s Signature in the Cell [1], many articles in the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, a 2010 conference by the Hill Country Institute, and a 2012 symposium at Wheaton College. This blog series continues the conversation.

In today’s culture, “intelligent design” is often used broadly to refer to the work of an intelligent being in the universe, in opposition to “godless evolutionism” (see this helpful introduction from BioLogos Fellow Ted Davis). Within this broad scope, the views of evolutionary creation, old earth creation, young earth creation, and the monotheistic faiths would all fall under “intelligent design.” These groups are united in rejecting the views of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne who argue that religion is just superstition and cannot be reconciled with science. Those who accept this sense of intelligent design generally believe that science and religion are not at war, but can inform and enhance one another. At BioLogos, we believe that God is the living and active Creator of the whole universe, from initiating the Big Bang to providentially sustaining his creation today.

When capitalized, however, “Intelligent Design” refers to a more particular set of views and arguments as exemplified by the work of the Discovery Institute and this recent volume by Stephen Meyer. The views of the Discovery Institute (DI) and the views of BioLogos (BL) have a lot in common. Unlike young earth creationists, most DI leaders accept that the universe and earth are billions of years old, as we do at BL. Most DI leaders also accept a time scale of billions of years for the appearance of first life and subsequent species on earth.

DI and BL agree wholeheartedly that an intelligent being fine-tuned the laws of nature, designing the universe to be a place of life. The fundamental parameters and laws were crafted so that stars and galaxies could form, carbon could be produced in abundance, and life could flourish on Earth. Unlike militant atheists, we see this as evidence that the universe was created with purpose and intention.

Yet with all these similarities, there are significant areas of disagreement between the views of Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Creation (more on different positions). The biggest difference is in how the two views counter atheistic evolutionism: Both reject the idea that the science of evolution disproves God or replaces God, but take very different approaches.

• Intelligent Design claims that the current scientific evidence for evolution is weak, and argues that a better explanation would make explicit reference to an intelligent designer.

• Evolutionary Creation claims that the current scientific evidence for evolution is strong and getting stronger, but argues that the philosophical and religious conclusions that militant atheists draw from it are unwarranted.

• Evolutionary creationists respond to atheists by pointing out that in Christian thought, a scientific understanding of evolution does not replace God. God governs and sustains all natural processes, from gravity to evolution, according to his purposes.

Perhaps because we accept the science of evolution, the misconception has developed that BioLogos believes God must always use natural causes. This is not the case. At BioLogos, “we believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as ‘natural laws.’ Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture.” (See more on miracles). The debate is over how much God chose to use miracles over the eons of natural history, and here BL and DI assess the evidence differently.

In upcoming posts we respond to Meyer’s scientific and philosophical arguments. We begin tomorrow by featuring a review first published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF) by paleontologist Ralph Stearley who evaluates Darwin’s Doubt alongside two other recent books on the Cambrian and Ediacaran periods, countering Meyer’s arguments for the extreme suddenness of, and lack of precursors to, the Cambrian explosion.[2] In coming weeks, we will feature a review by philosopher and historian Robert Bishop, who addresses the overall argument of the book, assessing the rhetorical strategies.

Geneticist Darrel Falk (BioLogos Senior Advisor for Dialogue) will also offer some reflections on the book. Note that BioLogos Fellow for genetics Dennis Venema also responded recently to DI arguments from genetics, explaining the evidence in support of common ancestry of humans. For a discussion of arguments from information theory, we recommend the December 2011 special issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Finally, we’ll feature an article from theologian Alister McGrath that responds, not to Darwin’s Doubt in particular, but to the overall apologetics approach of Intelligent Design.

As you will read in these posts, these scholars are carefully considering the evidence and explaining the findings to those outside their field of expertise. This kind of attention to evidence counteracts another misconception about BioLogos, namely that we uncritically accept the consensus of mainstream science simply because it is the consensus. We do take the consensus among scientists seriously, when it has been tested by extensive peer review among those who are experts in an area and when it is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence. Since no individual can be an expert in all the disciplines relevant to the evolution of life, we need to rely on the expertise of others. But ultimately it is the strength of the evidence itself that convinces us that species developed through the processes of evolution. Evolutionary biology is a rapidly developing field, with several areas that do not yet have a consensus. These include the particular mechanisms of evolution posited by the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and the development of the very first life form (see “At the Frontiers of Evolution” by Venema and more in Bishop’s review). The case is still open in these areas, and most evolutionary creationists feel it is too soon to claim that these must be places where God acted miraculously rather than through natural mechanisms.

At BioLogos, we embrace the historical Christian faith and uphold the authority and inspiration of the Bible. Several leaders at the Discovery Institute, including Meyer, share these commitments. The organization [e.g., Biologos], however, has chosen not to make specific religious commitments, welcoming Jews, Muslims, and agnostics as well as Christians. This difference is integral to our contrasting approaches to apologetics. DI seeks to make the case for the designer in a purely scientific context, without specifying who the designer is. At BioLogos, we take the approach that science is not equipped to provide a full Christian apologetic. Rather, we believe in the Triune God for the same reasons most believers do – because of the evidence in the Bible, personal spiritual experience, and recognition that we are sinners who need the saving work of Jesus Christ. Because of these beliefs, we look at the universe through the lens of biblical faith, and see a glorious creation that testifies to the God we know and love. How do we make the case for God if we accept the mainstream scientific results for evolution? Stay tuned for the closing piece of this series by theologian Alister McGrath. In the meantime, take a look at John Polkinghorne’s views of the resurrection and natural theology, this sermon from leading Pastor John Ortberg, and a blog series from BioLogos Content Manager Jim Stump.

The debate between intelligent design and evolutionary creation is relatively minor in the larger work of the church. Both views are held by fellow believers seeking to be faithful followers of Christ, as is young earth creation. Yet damage can be done to the church if popular apologetic techniques get attached to incorrect science. The purpose of this series is to seek truth, including pointing out scholarly weaknesses and inaccuracies as we see them. “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” (Prov 27:17) We welcome the iron to be sharpened on us in turn, and have invited Stephen Meyer to post a response to the reviews in this series.

---

The 2009-2010 review of Signature in the Cell included posts by Darrel Falk on December 29, and byFrancisco Ayala on January 7. Responses from Stephen Meyer were posted on January 28 and March 8-9, with rejoinders from Falk on January 29 and March 10-11. [return to body text]

While not a review of Darwin’s Doubt, Keith Miller recently updated his excellent overview of the Cambrian explosion in the June 2014 issue of PSCF, available online now for subscribers. [return to body text]

---

Deborah Haarsma serves as President of The BioLogos Foundation, a position she has held since January 2013. Previously, she served as professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Gifted in interpreting complex scientific topics for lay audiences, Dr. Haarsma often speaks to churches, colleges, and schools about the relationships between science and Christian faith. She is author (along with her husband Loren Haarsma) of Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (2011, 2007), a book presenting the agreements and disagreements of Christians regarding the history of life and the universe. Haarsma is an experienced research scientist, with several publications in the Astrophysical Journal and the Astronomical Journal on extragalactic astronomy and cosmology.

continue to ~

The Differences Between "Intelligent Design" and "Evolutionary Creationism" - An Introduction

Why All the Fuss over Earth's Remarkable Cambrian Explosion?

The Differences Between "Intelligent Design" and "Evolutionary Creationism" - Part 1

The Differences Between "Intelligent Design" and "Evolutionary Creationism" - Part 2

The Differences Between "Intelligent Design" and "Evolutionary Creationism" - Part 3

The Differences Between "Intelligent Design" and "Evolutionary Creationism" - Part 4

The Differences Between "Intelligent Design" and "Evolutionary Creationism" - Part 5

The Differences Between "Intelligent Design" and "Evolutionary Creationism" - Part 6

The Differences Between "Intelligent Design" and "Evolutionary Creationism" - Part 7

Who Is Rudolf Bultmann? The Father of Form Criticism and DeMythologizing of the Bible.

Rudolf Bultmann

Bultmann's legacy = mostly positive

http://www.brianleport.com/personal-blog/2014/8/21/bultmanns-legacy-mostly-positive?utm_content=buffer40046&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Brian LePort
August 21,  2014

(1) Bultmann was a first class scholar, even if you disagree with him, and he will cause you to think afresh about exegesis and theology when you read him.

(2) Bultmann was not an angry skeptic trying to destroy orthodoxy as many conservatives seem to suppose. He was a modern man trying to understand how to retain what was central to the Gospel in his day and age. One may not want to concede as much ground as he did to modernism, but that doesn't mean we should see his task as necessarily antithetical to what even conservative theologians do now (save the most Fundamentalist types).

(3) Whether or not we like it, we are all playing the same game as Bultmann. If you disagree read his 1941 essay "New Testament and Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Proclamation" and then honestly ask yourself whether you totally disavow his hermeneutic or if you may have adopted a modified form. Personally, I may not follow him on the resurrection, or even on spirits like angels and demons, but I do tend to seek the core theological truths in Genesis 1-11 without relying too much upon the "science" of these texts (or, the lack thereof). So at some point I tend to seek the "kernel", if you will.

(4) Even if you find most of Bultmann's conclusions to be bankrupt you will likely also find that the person whose response to Bultmann you most admire is exactly that: a response to Bultmann. As I said in point (1), Bultmann forces us to think and he did the same for his contemporaries and near contemporaries. Even when one disagrees with Bultmann that act of disagreeing makes for constructive theologizing.

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

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann

Rudolf Karl Bultmann (German: [ˈbʊltman]; 20 August 1884 – 30 July 1976) was a German Lutheran theologian and professor of New Testament at the University of Marburg. He was one of the major figures of early 20th century biblical studies and a prominent voice in liberal Christianity.

Bultmann is known for his belief that the historical analysis of the New Testament is both futile and unnecessary, given that the earliest Christian literature showed little interest in specific locations.[1] Bultmann argued that all that matters is the "thatness", not the "whatness" of Jesus, i.e. only that Jesus existed, preached and died by crucifixion matters, not what happened throughout his life.[1][2][2]

Bultmann's approach relied on his concept of demythology, and interpreted the mythological elements in the New Testament existentially. Bultmann contended that only faith in the kerygma, or proclamation, of the New Testament was necessary for Christian faith, not any particular facts regarding the historical Jesus.[3]

Background

Bultmann was born in Wiefelstede, Oldenburg, the son of Arthur Kennedy Bultmann, a Lutheran minister. He did his Abitur at the Altes Gymnasium in Oldenburg, and studied theology at Tübingen. After three terms, Bultmann went to the University of Berlin for two terms, and finally to Marburg for two more terms. He received his degree in 1910 from Marburg with a dissertation on the Epistles of St Paul. After submitting a Habilitation two years later, he became a lecturer on the New Testament at Marburg.

Bultmann married Helene Feldmann in 1917. The couple had three daughters.[4]

After brief lectureships at Breslau and Giessen, Bultmann returned to Marburg in 1921 as a full professor, and stayed there until his retirement in 1951. From autumn 1944 until the end of World War II in 1945 he took into his family Uta Ranke-Heinemann, who had fled the bombs and destruction in Essen.

Bultmann was a student of Hermann Gunkel, Johannes Weiss, and Wilhelm Heitmüller.[3] His students included Hans Jonas, Ernst Käsemann, Günther Bornkamm, Hannah Arendt and Helmut Koester.

He was a member of the Confessing Church[5] and critical towards National Socialism. He spoke out against the mistreatment of Jews, against nationalistic excesses and against the dismissal of non-Aryan Christian ministers. He did not, however, speak out against "the antiSemitic[sic] laws which had already been promulgated" and he was philosophically limited in his ability to "repudiate, in a comprehensive manner, the central tenets of Nazi racism and antiSemitism[sic]."[6]

Bultmann became friends with Martin Heidegger who taught at Marburg for five years, and Heidegger's views on existentialism had an influence on Bultmann's thinking.[7] However, Bultmann himself stated that his views could not simply be reduced to thinking in Heideggerian categories, in that "the New Testament is not a doctrine about our nature, about our authentic existence as human beings, but a proclamation of this liberating act of God."[8]

Beliefs regarding Jesus

His History of the Synoptic Tradition (1921) remains highly influential as a tool for biblical research, even by scholars who reject his analyses of the conventional rhetorical pericopes or narrative units of which the Gospels are assembled, and the historically-oriented principles called "form criticism" of which Bultmann has been the most influential exponent:"

• The aim of form-criticism is to determine the original form of a piece of narrative, a dominical saying or a parable. In the process we learn to distinguish secondary additions and forms, and these in turn lead to important results for the history of the tradition."

In 1941 he applied form criticism to the Gospel of John, in which he distinguished the presence of a lost Signs Gospel on which John, alone of the evangelists, depended. This monograph, highly controversial at the time, became a milestone in research into the historical Jesus. The same year his lecture New Testament and Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Message called on interpreters to replace traditional supernaturalism (demythologize) with the temporal and existential categories of Bultmann's colleague, Martin Heidegger, rejecting doctrines such as the pre-existence of Christ.[9] Bultmann believed this endeavor would make accessible to modern audiences—already immersed in science and technology—the reality of Jesus' teachings.

• Bultmann thus understood the project of "demythologizing the New Testament proclamation" as an evangelical task, clarifying the kerygma, or gospel proclamation, by stripping it of elements of the first-century "mythical world picture" that had potential to alienate modern people from Christian faith:

"It is impossible to repristinate a past world picture by sheer resolve, especially a mythical world picture, now that all of our thinking is irrevocably formed by science. A blind acceptance of New Testament mythology would be simply arbitrariness; to make such acceptance a demand of faith would be to reduce faith to a work"[10]

Rudolf Bultmann said about salvation and eternity - “As from now on there are only believers and unbelievers, so there are also now only saved and lost, those who have life and those who are in death”[11]

While Bultmann reinterpreted theological language in existential terms, he nonetheless maintained that the New Testament proclaimed a message more radical than any modern existentialism. In both the boasting of legalists "who are faithful to the law," and the boasting of the philosophers "who are proud of their wisdom," Bultmann finds a "basic human attitude" of "highhandedness that tries to bring within our own power even the submission that we know to be our authentic being."[12] Standing against all human highhandedness is the New Testament, "which claims that we can in no way free ourselves from our factual fallenness in the world but are freed from it only by an act of God ... the salvation occurrence that is realized in Christ."[13] 

• Bultmann remained convinced the narratives of the life of Jesus were offering theology in story form. Lessons were taught in the familiar language of myth. They were not to be excluded, but given explanation so they could be understood for today.

• Bultmann thought faith should become a present day reality. To Bultmann, the people of the world appeared to be always in disappointment and turmoil. Faith must be a determined vital act of will, not a culling and extolling of "ancient proofs."

He carried form-criticism so far as to call the historical value of the gospels into serious question.[3] Some scholars[who?] criticized Bultmann and other critics for excessive skepticism regarding the historical reliability of the gospel narratives. The full impact of Bultmann was not felt until the English publication of Kerygma and Mythos (1948). The conservative and confessing Lutheran theologian, Walter Kunneth, provided some interesting insights on Bultmann in his Die Theologie der Auferstehung.

Selected works

Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1921, 1931)

• History of the Synoptic Tradition, Harper San Francisco, 1976, ISBN 0-06-061172-3 (seminal work on form criticism)

Jesus (1926)

• Jesus and the Word, New York, London, C. Scribner’s sons, 1934, online
• Jesus Christ and Mythology, Prentice Hall, 1997, ISBN 0-02-305570-7

Neues Testament und Mythologie (1941)

• The New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings, Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1984, ISBN 0-8006-2442-4
• Kerygma and Myth by Rudolf Bultmann and Five Critics (1953) London: S.P.C.K., HarperCollins 2000 edition: ISBN 0-06-130080-2, online edition (contains the essay "The New Testament and Mythology" with critical analyses and Bultmann's response)

Das Evangelium des Johannes (1941)

• The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Westminster John Knox Press, 1971, ISBN 0-664-20893-2

Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1948–53)

• Theology of the New Testament: Complete in One Volume, Prentice Hall, 1970, ISBN 0-02-305580-4

Das Urchristentum im Rahmen der Antiken Religionen (1949)

• Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting, Thames and Hudson, 1956.

Religion without Myth (coauthored with Karl Jaspers) (1954)

• Myth & Christianity: An Inquiry Into The Possibility Of Religion Without Myth, translation 1958 by Noonday Press, Prometheus Books, 2005, ISBN 1-59102-291-6. In this dialogue with philosopher Jaspers, Jaspers first makes the case that Christianity can not be understood apart from its mythical framework, and that myth is necessary form of communication through symbol. Bultmann responds that modern scientific analysis of the text is required to separate the genuine from the miraculous claims, thereby revealing the true message.

History and Eschatology: The Presence of Eternity (1954–55 Gifford Lectures), Harper, 1962,Greenwood Publishers, 1975: ISBN 0-8371-8123-2

Announcement: AAR Group Sessions - Open and Relational Theologies

Our Open and Relational Theologies group sessions are Saturday and Sunday mornings at AAR.

Below are the details. Please plan to attend!

Theme: John B. Cobb, Jr.: Work and Legacy (co-sponsored with other groups)

Thomas Oord, Northwest Nazarene University, Presiding

---

Saturday, Nov. 22 - 9:00 AM-11:30 AM

John B. Cobb, Jr., has exerted extraordinary influence on how scholars think about a wide range of topics. In addition to being a foremost spokesman for process theology, Cobb's work on economics, liberal theology, postmodernism, ecology, Wesleyan theology, politics, metaphysics, feminism, religious pluralism, science and religion, and more is remarkable. Cobb has authored more than 50 books, co-established a major theological center for research, and is recognized around the world as an extraordinary scholar of transdisciplinary studies. His stamp on theology -- especially in America and China -- is indelible. As Cobb nears his 90th birthday (Feb. 2015), this quad-sponsored session honors his intellectual legacy. Panelists explore Cobb's contributions to many subjects, and Cobb will be present in the session to respond.

Panelists:

Philip Clayton, Claremont School of Theology

Catherine Keller, Drew University

Gary J. Dorrien, Columbia University, Union Theological Seminary

Michael Lodahl, Point Loma Nazarene University

Marit Trelstad, Pacific Lutheran University

Jay McDaniel, Hendrix College

Responding:

John B. Cobb, Jr.

Theme: Twentieth Anniversary of Book, The Openness of God (IVP Academic, 1994)

Brenda Colijn, Ashland Theological Seminary, Presiding

---

Sunday, Nov. 23 - 9:00 AM-11:30 AM

In 1994, The Openness of God hit bookshelves and created a stir. Co-written by Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, the book offered "a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God." The position advocated by the co-authors said God grants freedom to humans, is involved in genuine interaction with creation, takes risks, and does not know the future exhaustively. What has come to be called "open theism" was born. Since 1994, the open theism movement has been criticized variously. But open theology has grown and expanded in ways the original authors could have never imagined. It has become one of the major theological options embraced by those in religious academia, in local Christian congregations, in philosophical circles, and has influenced the science and theology discussion. In this session, three of The Openness of God authors and three respondents talk about what has transpired before and after the book was published 20 years ago. The authors reflect on where open theology has come and where it might be going. Respondents address particular questions about open theology's relationship to the Church, the academy, and various sciences.

Panelists:

Richard Rice, Loma Linda University

John Sanders, Hendrix College

David Basinger, Roberts Wesleyan College

Responding:

Bethany Sollereder, University of Exeter

Timothy Moore

Thomas Oord, Northwest Nazarene University

---

Business Meeting:

Thomas Oord, Northwest Nazarene University

Index - Postmodernism & Philosophical Theology

Index to Postmodernism & Philosophical Theology

x

Book Review - The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 1

Phase III: Christianity's Journey from Modern to Postmodern Theology

Roger Olson, "The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction"

Part 2 - How Modernity's Secularism Changed the World: Charles Taylor, "A Secular Age"

Part 1 - How Modernity's Secularism Changed the World: An Introduction to Postmodern Hermeneutics

How Not to Confuse Christian Evolution with a Naturalistic Worldview

How Postmodern Hermeneutics Helps in Reading The Bible

Index to Postmodernism and Philosophy

x

Can Relational Theism Overcome the Ills of both Process Theology and Classical (Evangelic) Dogma? Part 2 of 2

Can Relational Theism Overcome the Ills of both Process Theology and Classical (Evangelic) Dogma? Part I of 2
Roger Olson - Observations from Postmodern Readings....

Peter Rollins, "The Idolatry of God"

Soren Kierkegaard's Postmodernistic Relevance for Today

The endless wheel of Postmodernism

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 1

Modernity has been an age of revolutions—political, scientific, industrial and the philosophical. Consequently, it has also been an age of revolutions in theology, as Christians attempt to make sense of their faith in light of the cultural upheavals around them, what Walter Lippman once called the "acids of modernity." Modern theology is the result of this struggle to think responsibly about God within the modern cultural ethos.

In this major revision and expansion of the classic 20th Century Theology(1992), co-authored with Stanley J. Grenz, Roger Olson widens the scope of the story to include a fuller account of modernity, more material on the nineteenth century, and an engagement with postmodernity. More importantly, the entire narrative is now recast in terms of how theologians have accommodated or rejected the Enlightenment and scientific revolutions.

With that question in mind, Olson guides us on the epic journey of modern theology, from the liberal "reconstruction" of theology that originated with Friedrich Schleiermacher, to the post-liberal and postmodern "deconstruction" of modern theology that continues today. The Journey of Modern Theology is vintage Olson: eminently readable, panoramic in scope, at once original and balanced, and marked throughout by a passionate concern for the church's faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This will no doubt become another standard text in historical theology.

Baylor Historical Theologican Roger Olson

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/08/22/the-acids-of-modernity-and-christian-theology/

by Scot McKnight

Aug 22, 2014

Comments

Modern theology is theology done in the context of modernity, which means, in the context of what happened to thinking and culture as a result of the Enlightenment. Modern theology is often a code expression for “liberal” theology, and many ways that might be right. But Roger Olson, in his big book The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction, [has] massively updated [a] book he co-wrote with Stanley Grenz (called Twentieth Century Theology, 1992), spends less time thinking about “liberal” and far more about “modern.”

To get what he’s doing we have to understand what “modernity” is, what one famous American thinker called the “acids” of modernity?

The "acids of modernity..."

- Walter Lippmann' 1929 essay "A Preface to Morals"

"Corrosion is an apt metaphor for the effects of overblown

certainty, legalism, inerrancy, and the insistence on

surely knowing everything. It can eat you alive."

- anon

Olson highlights seven features of modernity, each of which has stronger and weaker forms, so that one must have nuances all over the place if one wishes to be intelligent about this kind of subject. I have spent some of the last year reading about liberal theology, and I see Roger’s book as the best sketch of the big picture we have available today.

So, what is modernity?

1. Rationalism: the omnicompetence of autonomous human reason.

2. Skepticism: an anti-posture toward tradition, especially Christian religious traditions, as beliefs not based on reason.

3. Scientism/naturalism: a belief in the scientific method, on the indubitable realities of the empirical world in contrast to beliefs, and in a worldview that is shaped by naturalism.

4. Secularism: life can be lived best without God and religion. Religion belongs in the private, personal sphere of life.

5. Historicism: everything in history is causally related to other historical events.

6. Optimism: modernity, when lived well, leads to inevitable progress in overcoming misery.

7. Anthropocentrism: humans are at the center of knowing and the center of the universe.

(8.) These elements, when pursued, enable us to pursue progress in society and culture.

Many major modernistic voices — e.g., Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson — have contended that modernity’s march would trod religion, especially Christianity, under foot and it will disappear but Christianity, paradoxically, has flourished in a worldview of modernity.

Modern theology traces how various theologians have accommodated to modernity’s central features. Some have capitulated; many have reacted under the control of modernity. So there is a spectrum from capitulation and subversion all the way to robust reframings of the tradition in more modernistic categories (many would say that is what American Protestant fundamentalism was/is).

Where do you place “progressive Christianity” in this discussion?

Join me in purchasing this book and reading it over the next few weeks.

continue to ~

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 1

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 2

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 3

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 4

The Acids of Modernity and Christian Theology, Part 5

Baylor Historical Theologian Roger Olson

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 6 - Scot McKnight

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

The Emperor and Inerrancy
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/08/20/the-emperor-and-inerrancy/

by Scot McKnight
August 20, 2014
Comments

On the inerrancy posts I’ve had a number ask me to explain what I think. When I was a professor at TEDS inerrancy came up often; when I was at North Park, among many evangelical students and a seminary attached to the school and as I got to know Covenant pastors, inerrancy almost never came up; since I’ve been at Northern Seminary it has almost never come up other than in a powerful reconceptualizing and critique of the idea in a chapter by my colleague, David Fitch, in his book The End of Evangelicalism. At Northern I’ve not had a class session where I thought my students thought the Bible was wrong or its truth claims needed to be challenged. Yet the term inerrancy is not how our students — at least in class sessions with me — seem to think about the Bible.

So back to the question above: What do I think? Four thoughts, and I want you to know that these thoughts come after decades of listening to debates and discussions and defenses and ripostes, and after writing about the Bible for going on thirty years. I have for years said the first and leading word for Scripture needs to be truth. I stand by it and it puts the entire inerrancy discussion into a larger context.

Here’s the first: The term itself, not a big idea behind it, has become a distraction as the chps in Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy themselves clearly show: instead of pointing the church toward how to sit before the Bible and listen to the Bible, the term itself generates a debate about how best to define the term and about how to read Joshua 6 and Genesis 1-2; and many things besides. This is what inerrancy term does every time it enters the room, and in so doing deserves a good thrashing. Read the chapters and then ask yourself this question: Will this book generate light for Sunday School classes on how to read the Bible or a fight on how to assess who stands where? Does it bring light or a fight? The latter is [often] what happens.

The term, so it seems from a book like this, may have lost its value for church life. The word we ought to be fastening onto is the word truth. The Bible is true and God calls us to listen and to learn and to live what God speaks to us from the true Word of God. This posture of listen-to-the-truth before the Bible does not determine a hermeneutic but invites us to listen until we discern the hermeneutic needed for the various texts.

My second point might be controversial for some, but I believe it. There is only one real view of inerrancy because this term has been captured by Mohler and those who stand with Mohler. It is the historical hermeneutic agenda. The test cases prove this point: each of the texts chosen concerns a historical hermeneutic agenda and asks Is the Bible accurate? No one asked anyone to assess simply the violence of God in warfare in Deuteronomy. No one asked about cutting off hands in Exodus. No one asked about women taken as booty. No one asked about slavery in the Bible. No one was asked about truth but about accuracy. The only inerrancy I have ever known about is historical hermeneutic accuracy inerrancy. Any text that appears to be history-referring must be history-referring because the alternative conclusion, that it might not be accurate as we want it to be accurate, threatens the system. What Mohler, Bird and Vanhoozer won’t admit is a view that contends that since the historians and archaeologists don’t think what the text says is how things happened the interpretations have to be adjusted, out of respect for historical realities, in order to meet the evidence.

Mohler’s view, or this history-referring inerrancy, is at work in a Bible scholar, Bird, and a sophisticated hermeneutician, Vanhoozer. (Bird’s sophisticated too, at least as much as that red-headed Ozzie can be.) Read how they treat Joshua 6 — in the end, inerrancy is itself a hermeneutic that takes the face value of a text automatically to mean historicity, has an interpretive tradition along that line, and if that historicity can’t be demonstrated, cast aspersions on the scholarship of the archaeologists or hold out until the historical interpretation can be proven (even if there is no end in sight). So, Bird and Vanhoozer can finesse their hermeneutics all they want but when it comes to a historically problematic text they have already chosen on the basis of their view of inerrancy what the text has to have meant. What I saw in all three attempts was a persistent, stubborn refusal even to countenance the view of the archaeologists. The only archaeological theories permitted on the table were the ones that confirmed what they already knew from their inerrancy theory — as history-referring if the plain reading seems so – had to be the case.

Before I get to a third point I want to offer an example of my own on how I think inerrancy operates as captured by the historical hermeneutical approach.

Open your Bible to Matthew 8:5-13. Here are the two verses (5-6) that matter:

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.

6“Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering”

Matt 8:7 Jesus said to him,

“I will go and heal him.”

A plain reading of the text says that an actual centurion approached Jesus physically and asked him for help and Jesus told that same centurion that he would go to that man’s house and heal his servant. Every inerrantist would make these details important if you denied it.

Now look at Luke 7:1-10. Here is what we suddenly realize: the centurion himself did not in fact speak with Jesus. His elders did:

2 There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to

die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to

come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him,

“This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built

our synagogue.” 6 So Jesus went with them.

The point is this: a history-referring inerrantist hermeneutic, if we didn’t know of Luke 7:2-6, would know that it was a centurion who came to Jesus and spoke with him. If all a church knew was Matthew, an inerrantist would be up in arms if anyone suggested that No, in fact, it was some elders — not the centurion himself.

But once we have Luke 7:2-6 we realize our perception of a history-referring reading is flat-out wrong. The centurion actually sent some elders. A second text, Luke, clarified the first text, Matthew, and proved our original instincts wrong. We adjust our readings of Matt 8 to Luke 7.

So we, admirably I believe, find a convention that permits explanation: when an ambassador was sent he was the one who sent him. So, the elders are the centurion. I agree, that is what is going on here. We were only led to the convention by the interference of another text, not by the original text (Matthew 8). We let another text reshape our readings of the Matthew text.

Why can’t we let the historian’s and archaeologist’s evidence do the same for us for Joshua 6? Why can’t we at least look for a convention that explains why the archaeology says one thing and the text says another? (And Joshua 6 is but one example.) Because we have a plain-reading, history-referring inerrantist hermeneutic at work that won’t permit such adjusted reading (unless, of course, we are forced — as we are in the Matt-Luke parallel — by the Bible itself to think otherwise). Too many inerrantist hear of such things and utter out, in effect if not in these terms, “Damn the archaeologists, this is the inspired Bible and it’s right and they’re wrong.” Most inerrantists try to wiggle out of the archaeology on Joshua by tossing dust in the archaeologists’ eyes and then announce their vision is blurry. While the blurred vision settles down the inerrantists change the discussion. It’s not good scholarship.

My contention is fairly simple and straightforward: we ought to let all the evidence determine what a text is actually saying and doing and not our assumptive readings. Which means no term other than “true” ought to shape our hermeneutic. The word “true” is bigger than the word “inerrant.” In fact, “true” is the emperor of all biblical hermeneutics. The term “inerrancy” too often usurps the word “true” and the Bible loses.

Third, maybe you think it is unfair to restrict inerrancy to the history-referring, plain-meaning view of someone like Mohler. Maybe there is a second view, one that emphasizes what the Bible is affirming at the level of divine or human intention. So, we ask what was Matthew affirming, what was Matthew’s purpose in Matt 8:5-6? Was he affirming only a centurion? Or was he affirming that a centurion made contact with Jesus, however that contact was made?

I see this emphasis on intention and purpose in the essays of Enns, Bird, Vanhoozer and Franke. I believe an emphasis on intentionality or purpose in Scripture, or on the pragmatics of the text, can reshape the meaning of inerrancy. It can, but it will mean far more emphasis on hermeneutics and theology at work in the purpose of the author/God/text than is often acknowledged. A ringer: John Piper’s view of inerrancy is very much along this line, and such a view would permit Robert Gundry’s theory of midrash in Matthew, Michael Licona’s view of the resurrection of the saints, as well as some mythical and exaggerations in Old Testament stories, including Joshua 6. Here is Piper’s own statement followed by Bethlehem Baptist’s statement:

I thus gladly align myself with the long-proved tradition: perfectio respectu finis

(perfection with respect to purpose). 

We believe that God’s intentions, revealed in the Bible, are the supreme and final

authority in testing all claims about what is true and what is right. In matters not

addressed by the Bible, what is true and right is assessed by criteria consistent with

the teachings of Scripture.

I very respect this emphasis on purpose and intention; it admits into the door the messy world of hermeneutics; it permits at the table some voices that today are simply now welcome by many; it means hermeneutics decides genre. The strident strong voices of inerrancy, however, do not permit the purpose/intention dimension unless it already conforms to the history-referring theory already at work. I have on good word that some of the historic major framers of how inerrancy was understood among evangelicals saw the purpose theory of inerrancy as totally inadequate.

Fourth, inerrancy without an ecclesiology or an ecclesial confession/creed leads inevitably to pervasive interpretive pluralism and therefore it diminishes the authority of the Bible to the strongest or most compelling voice on the platform. I am referring here to the important study of Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible.

I can open up the floodgates here by suggesting that there is a notable absence of Spirit in the chapters: and I don’t mean just inspiration, but the Spirit as at work, the Spirit at work in people and in the people of God, guiding, leading, inspiring so that Scripture is the effect of God’s communicative action to the people of God through the Spirit in Christ with the result of Scripture. Instead of asking “What” is authoritative?, maybe we need to ask “Who” is authoritative? Scripture is authoritative in that it mediates the authority of God in Christ through the Spirit. Our authority then is God.

Maybe the history-referring, accuracy-oriented inerrancy has to focus on the original autographs while the purpose-oriented framing of the issues might have an opportunity to focus on the Spirit — the Spirit at work through Scripture — instead of the original autographs, which we don’t have and God didn’t seem to think we needed. Why? The Spirit and the church and the gifts.

Having now shown my cards of the church in the plan of God’s communicative action, I can cite an ecclesial statement to which I subscribe:

Here is the Anglican Church of North America’s wise statement on its view of Scripture:

We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the

inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to

be the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.

I think Mike Bird would see this as part of the infallibilist tradition, and I would see it that way too. But notice the positive terms. Inerrancy means “not in error.” At any rate, I affirm the ACNA’s orientation and it can guide Bible reading for me.

At the core of Bible reading is knowing what the Bible is doing, and the essays had something like this going on. Vanhoozer was the most explicit though Franke was close. What ought to be going on is a gospel hermeneutic that will render meaning for us as we encounter texts through the truth about Jesus, the gospel. Pete Enns calls this a christotelic reading and this sort of approach governed the earliest Christians (Jesus and the apostles) when they read (what we call) the Old Testament. Perfect example from Jesus in Luke 24

Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything

must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He

told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the

third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all

nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to

send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed

with power from on high.”

Open to Matthew 1-2; to Paul in most any of his letters, to the Book of Hebrews or to Revelation. Over and over they are reading the Bible through the lens of the gospel, the truth, which as you may know I take to be the story of Israel fulfilled in the story of Jesus so that christology (not soteriology) gets the first word. If Jesus was raised from the dead your hermeneutic is transformed into a gospel hermeneutic.

Vanhoozer’s essay wanted to back off for the big theme: God’s promise to give the Land to the children of Israel is what this text is about. He’s right. Now guide us from there to Jesus and the gospel and we’ll be reading the Bible the way Jesus and the apostles did, we will be reading the Bible in a way that brings the sun’s true light of life to the church, and in a way that avoids the wrangling that inerrancy inevitably creates. I could say this of the others.

Inerrancy is a disruptive child in the theological classroom. He or she gets all the attention of teacher and students. A biblical view of inerrancy demotes it under the word true, all as part of God’s choice to communicate efficiently and sufficiently. When the word “true” governs the game it’s a brand new, healthy game. Good teachers know how to handle disruptive children.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Addendum by R.E. Slater

Scot brings a practical mindedness to the discussion of biblical interpretation by leveling out the field stating that the Bible is, in principle, true - fully, infallibly, and with the inspiration from God's Holy Spirit. So that generally, when reading the Bible, it is us who must discern God's word and as such, it is us that must continually seek after discovering what in the Bible is true of God and of this life we live. More particularly, whenever the Bible speaks of salvation, of God, of the church, and so forth, it is true in these areas.

For myself, this is good general guidance and a fundamental rule to observe, but nevertheless I cannot help but ask in what sense is Scripture true if its very verse(s) seems to speak against its own veracity.When it conflicts with science or archaeology. Or when it conflicts with basic human ethics and morality that we know defeat civil rights and responsibility (homosexuality, gender equality, violence, oppression, etc). And so, to say the Word of God is true is a statement I wish to believe but I also wish to know in what sense the Word of God is true when it conflicts with Jesus' statements to love one another when His servants like Joshua or David created violence and injustice upon civilizations different from themselves. It is a fair question to ask.

And so, yes, the Bible is true. It is a good approach, but it brings us back to the very folds of inerrancy whose wooden - or literalistic - interpretations of the Bible has done so much harm within the many arms and branches of Evangelical and Catholic thinking in the church. Can there be another word to use alongside the word "true" or should we abandon description altogether and simply move forward in biblical studies reduced to ourselves as the only measure to God's Word?

I think not.

To use ourselves as a measure to God's holy Word is to no longer allow God to superintend over His revelation to us but to allow ourselves to superintend over its pages. We do not wish this. But nor do we wish to unquestioningly study its scripts without asking profound questions of God and His Word. In essence I think we must do both in a tightrope balancing act of probing its pages while also probing our own hearts for its violence and sin, evils and wickedness. To unbalance God's Word with our own preferred readings may imbalance the revelation it seeks to bring.

Hence, somewhere on its pages is the heart of a biblical author seeking to reveal God against all that he or she is as a sinner saved by grace. Who is filled with the Holy Spirit to move and speak God's Word to his or her's community using their intellect, emotions, personality, and developing beliefs. Beliefs that are not mature but searching. That are not the final light of God's speech when inquiring of God of His speech into their own predicaments of life and its hardships, joys, blessings, and agonies.

That we, too, are not unlike that biblical author who are filled with the Spirit of God to speak His Word as truly and accurately as we can without getting in the way of God, His will, and plans for the generations about us. That we too are maturing from the violence in our hearts, the sin in our minds and heart, the injustices that we carry with us as we attempt to discern God's word and speak its heart.

The task of the theologian is difficult. S/he must at all times be aware of many things while speaking, ministering, or serving with the heart and mind of Jesus. In essence, all Christians are imperfect, fraught with sin, and must humble themselves before the Lord when speaking His Word powerfully, with authority, and directly into the heart of human events that require a wisdom not of this earth. To form as rightful a judgment of Scripture as is possible and yet, within that judgment always be open to a further Word from the Spirit of God who lives, and moves, and has His holy being within our lives, thoughts, judgments, and services.

It is we who now are the open Book of God and no longer those ancient dusty pages we can no longer perceive or understand as they are now composed without doing a herculean amount of work to sort out its truths and wonts. We are the people of God who give allegiance to a Savior who shows to us God Himself in His weakness, His humility, His service to others both weak and strong.

That we are a people to be moved by the Spirit as the stylus of God through our communities, businesses, church, families and friends. We are the iron tip that strikes. The gliding tip that shows mercy, peace, and forgiveness. The graphite tip that is blurred and in need or an occasional erasure. The artist's brush that paints the colors that are not exact but a blurry picture of the very Christ to whom we represent as ambassadors to His Holy Kingdom. Whose reign is forever and forever. And ever, and forthwith, proceeding from the pens of men and women's lives as we write God's living Word throughout our journey in this short life we are given.

So go out then and be the pen, the pencil, the artist's brush, the font and script of God's Holy Word which speaks revelation into the hearts of those men, women, and children about us hungry for the Spirit's guidance, the Savior's redemption, the Father's healing hands of mercy and grace. Amen.

R.E. Slater
August 23, 2014

* * * * * * * * *


continue to -

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 1 - Albert Mohler

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 2a - Peter Enns

Peter Enns - "Five Views of Inerrancy," Part 2b - Peter Enns Responds

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 3 - Mike Bird

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

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

RJS - Inspiration? Yes! – Inerrancy? No.

An Analysis of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy by Peter Enns

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 6 - Scot McKnight

Roger Wolsey - 16 Ways Progressive Christians Interpret the Bible