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

Friday, November 11, 2011

Common Christian Mistakes Made about Adam and Evolution


For further review from a biblical, historical viewpoint please refer to -




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


“Most of all, perhaps, we need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set against the present, to remind us that the basic assumptions have been quite different in different periods and that much which seems certain to the uneducated is merely temporary fashion. A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village; the scholar has lived in many times, and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that prints out from the press and the microphone of his own age.”

- CS Lewis, The Weight of Glory


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


Recurring Mistakes in the Adam/Evolution Discussion, Part 1
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2011/11/recurring-mistakes-in-the-adamevolution-discussion/

by Peter Enns
November 10, 2011

Over the past two weeks or so, there has been quite a bit of blog discussion over the question of Adam in light of evolution. I have kept up with various websites and other postings—not to mention comments on my own website.

Opinions vary, of course, and the Internet can be a good place to air one’s views and have a rousing back and forth debate. Nothing at all wrong with that. But, as I began reading editorials and comments, I saw patterns of responses that served more to obscure the issues before us than enlighten.

I began jotting down these patterns, thinking that, perhaps, I’ll write a brief post about “problems to avoid if we want to get anywhere in this important discussion.” But my list of recurring mistakes grew to fifteen—well beyond one post.

So, we’ll begin today with the first three recurring mistakes —in no particular order whatsoever. The others will follow in the days to come.


I.  It’s all about the authority of the Bible.

I can understand why this claim might have rhetorical effect, but this issue is not about biblical authority. It’s about how the Bible is to be interpreted. It’s about hermeneutics.

It’s always about hermeneutics.

I know that in some circles “hermeneutics” is code for “let’s find a way to get out of the plain meaning of the text.” But even a so-called “plain” or “literal” reading of the Bible is a hermeneutic—an approach to interpretation.

Literalism is a hermeneutical decision (even if implicit) as much as any other approach, and so needs to be defended as much as any other. Literalism is not the default godly way to read the Bible that preserves biblical authority. It is not the “normal” way of reading the Bible that gets a free pass while all others must face the bar of judgment.

So, when someone says, “I don’t read Genesis 1-3 as historical events, and here are the reasons why,” that person is not “denying biblical authority.” That person may be wrong, but that would have to be judged on some basis other than the ultimate literalist conversation-stopper, “You’re denying biblical authority.”

The Bible is not just “there.” It has to be interpreted. The issue is which interpretations are more defensible than others.

To put all this another way, appealing to biblical authority does not tell you how to interpret the Bible. That requires a lot more work. It always has. “Biblical authority” is a predisposition to the text. It is not a hermeneutic.


II.  You’re giving science more authority than the Bible.

This, too, may have some rhetorical effect, but it is entirely misguided.

To say that science gives us a more accurate understanding of human origins than the Bible is not putting science “over” the Bible—unless we assume that the Bible is prepared to give us scientific information.

There are numerous compelling reasons to think that Genesis is not prepared to provide such information—namely the fact that Genesis was written at least 2500 years ago by and for people, who, to state the obvious, were not thinking in modern scientific terms.

One might respond, “But Genesis was inspired by God, and so needs to be true.”

That assertion assumes (1) that “truth” requires historical accuracy (which needs to be defended rather than asserted), and (2) that a text inspired by God in antiquity would, by virtue of its being the word of God, need to give scientific rather than ancient accounts of origins (which is also an assumption that would need to be vigorously defended, not merely asserted).

Put another way, lying behind this error in thinking is the unstated assumption that the Bible, as the word of God, must predetermine the conclusions that scientific investigations can arrive at on any subject matter the Bible addresses.

To make this assumption is to run roughshod over the very contextual and historically conditioned nature of Scripture.

If Scripture were truly given priority over science in matters open to scientific inquiry, the church would have never gotten past Galileo’s discovery that the earth revolves around the sun.


III.  But the church has never questioned the historicity of Adam.

This is largely true—though it obscures the symbolism especially early interpreters found in the Garden story, but I digress. On the whole, this statement is correct.

But this rather obvious observation is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Knowing what the history of the church has thought about Adam is not an argument for Adam’s historicity, as some seem to think, since the history of the church did not have evolution to deal with until recently.

That’s the whole point of this debate—evolution is a new factor we have to address.

Appealing to a time in church history before evolution was a factor as an authoritative voice in the discussion over evolution simply makes no sense. What Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans assumed about human origins is not relevant. (And, no, I am not dismissing the study of church history, historical theology, etc., by saying this.)

Calling upon church history does not solve the problem; it simply restates it.

Appealing to church history does not end the discussion; it just reminds us why we need to the discussion in the first place.


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


More Recurring Mistakes in the Adam/Evolution Discussion, Part 2
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2011/11/more-recurring-mistakes-in-the-adamevolution-discussion-2/

We continue today with three more recurring mistakes in the Adam/evolution discussion.

IV.  Both Paul and the writer of Genesis thought Adam was a real person, the first man. Denying the historicity of Adam means you think you know better than the biblical writers.

As with the issues we looked at in my last post, phasing things this way has some rhetorical punch, but it simply sidesteps a fundamental interpretive challenge all of us need to address on one level or another.

All biblical writers were limited by their culture and time in how they viewed the physical world around them. This is hardly a novel notion of inspiration, and guiding lights of the church from Augustine to Calvin were quite adamant about the point.

A responsible, orthodox, doctrine of inspiration understands that the biblical authors were thoroughly encultured, ancient people, whom God used as ancient people to speak. Inspiration does not cancel out their “historical particularity.” God, by his Spirit, works within ancient categories to speak deep truth.

We do indeed “know more” than the biblical writers about some things. That in principle is not a theological problem. The problem is that this principle is now touching upon an issue that some feel is of paramount theological importance. The stakes have been raised in ways no one expected, for know we understand that the ancient biblical authors’ understanding of human origins is also part of their ancient way of thinking.

Should the principle be abandoned when it becomes theologically uncomfortable?

As I see it, the whole discussion is over how our “knowing more” about human origins can be in conversation with the biblical theological metanarrative. This the pressing theological challenge before us, and we really need to put our heads together—not insulate ourselves from the discussion.

Acknowledging that we know more than biblical writers about certain things is not to disrespect Scripture. We are merely recognizing that the good and wise God had far less difficulty condescending to ancient categories of thinking than some of us seem to be comfortable with.


V.  Genesis as whole, including the Adam story, is a historical narrative and therefore demands to be taken as an historical account.

It is a common, but nevertheless erroneous, assumption that Genesis is a historical narrative.

Typically the argument is mounted on two fronts: (1) Genesis mentions people by name and says they are doing things and going places. That sounds like a sequence of events, and therefore is a “historical narrative.” (2) Genesis uses a particular Hebrew verbal form (waw consecutive plus imperfect, for your Hebrew geeks out there). That is the verbal form used throughout Old Testament narrative to present a string of events—so-and-so did this, then this, then went there and said this, then went there and did that.

Apparently, one is to conclude that a story that presents people doing things in a sequence is an indication that we are dealing with history. That may be the case, but the sequencing of events in a story alone does not in and of itself imply historicity. Every story, whether real or imagined, has people doing things in sequences of events.

To be clear, this does not mean that Genesis can’t be a historical narrative. It only means that the fact that Genesis presents people doing things in sequence is not the reason for drawing that conclusion.

The connection between Genesis and history is a complicated matter that many have pondered in great depth and that involves a number of factors. The issue certainly cannot be settled simply by reading the text of Genesis and observing that things happen in time.


VI.  Evolution is a different “religion” (i.e., “naturalism” or “Darwinism”) and therefore hostile to Christianity.

There is no question that for some, evolution functions as a different “religion,” hostile not only to Christianity but any belief in a world beyond the material and random chance. But that does not mean that all those who hold to evolution as the true explanation of human origins are bowing to evolution as a religion. Nor does it mean that evolutionary theory requires one to adopt an atheistic “naturalistic” or “Darwinistic” worldview.

Christian evolutionists—at least the ones I know—do not see their work in evolutionary science as spiritual adultery. Christian evolutionists take it as a matter of deep faith that evolution is God’s way of creating, the intricacies of which we cannot (ever) fully comprehend.

In other words, “evolution = naturalistic atheism,” although rhetorically appealing, is not an equation those Christians in the field make, and I think their convictions should be taken at face value, rather than suggesting that have been duped or are inconsistent Christians.


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


Still More Recurring Mistakes in the Adam/Evolution Discussion, Part 3
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/

by Peter Enns
posted November 17, 2011


VII. Since Adam is necessary for the Christian faith, we know evolution can’t be true.

Evolution causes theological problems for Christianity. There is no question of that. We cannot simply graft evolution onto evangelical theology and claim that we have reconciled Christianity and evolution.

The theological and philosophical problems for the Christian faith that evolution brings to the table are hardly superficial. They require much thought and a multi-disciplinary effort to work through. For example:
  • Is death a natural part of life or unnatural? Is it a punishment of God for disobedience?
  • What does it mean to be human and made in God’s image?
  • What kind of God creates a process where the fittest survive?
  • How can God hold people responsible for their sin if there was no first trespass?


A literal, historical, Adam answers these and other questions. Without an Adam, we are left to find other answers. Nothing is gained by papering over this dilemma.

But, here is my point:

The fact that evolution causes theological problems does not mean evolution is wrong. It means we have theological problems.

Normally, we all know that we cannot judge if something is true on the basis of whether that truth is disruptive to us. We know it is wrong to assume one’s position and then evaluating data on the basis of that predetermined conclusion.

We are also normally very quick to point out this logical fallacy in others. If an atheist would defend his/her own belief system by saying, “I reject this datum because it does not fit my way of thinking,” we would be quick to pounce.

The truth of a historical Adam is not judged by how necessary such an Adam appears to be for theology. The proper response to evolution is to work through the theological challenges it presents (as many theologians and philosophers are doing), not dismiss the challenge itself.


VIII. Science is changing, therefore it’s all up for grabs.

Science is a self-critical entity, and so it should not surprise us to see developments, even paradigm shifts, in the near and distant future.

Is the universe expanding or oscillating? Are there multiple universes? How many dimensions are there? What about dark matter and dark energy? How many hominids constituted the gene pool from which all alive today have descended? And so forth.

But the fact that science is a changing discipline does not mean that all evolutionary theory is hanging on by a thread, ready to be dismissed at the next turn.

Also, the fact that science is self-correcting doesn’t mean that, if we hold on long enough, sooner or later, the changing nature of science will eventually disprove evolution and vindicate a literal view of Genesis.

Change, development, even paradigm shifts in scientific work, are sure to come. That is how science works. But further discoveries will take us forward, not backward.


IX. There are scientists who question evolution, and this establishes the credibility of the biblical view of human origins.

Individual, creative, innovative thinking often leads to true advances in the human intellectual drama. I would say that without these pioneering voices pushing the boundaries of knowledge, there would be no progress.

However, the presence of minority voices in and of itself does not constitute a counterargument to evolution.

Particularly in the age of the Internet, it is not hard at all to find someone with Ph.D. in a relevant field who lends a countervoice to mainstream thinking. This is true in the sciences, in biblical studies, and I’m sure any academic field.

There is always someone out there who thinks he or she has cracked the code, hidden to most others, and disproved the majority. And, in my experience, too often the promotion of minority voices is laced with a fair dose of conspiracy theory, where the claim is made that one’s view has been ostracized simply because it cuts against the grain.

Those without training in the relevant fields are particularly susceptible to following a minority voice if it conforms to their own thinking. But neither having a Ph.D. or some advanced degree, nor having research experience, nor even having written papers on minority positions, establishes the credibility of minority positions.

The truthfulness of minority claims must be tested over time by a body of peers, not simply accepted because those claims exist and affirm our own positions.


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


Two Final Recurring Mistakes in the Adam/Evolution Discussion, Part 4
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/

by Peter Enns
posted November 25 2011


X. Evidence for and against evolution is open to all and can be assessed by anyone.

The sciences are technical and complex, and so require years of training to grasp.

Since evolutionary theory is the product of scientific investigation, it follows that those best suited to evaluate the scientific data and arguments are those at the very least trained in the relevant sciences—or better those who are practicing scientists and therefore are keeping up with developments.

A loose analogy can be drawn with biblical studies.

To be sure, the Bible is not remotely as technical a field as the sciences. There is a true sense in which most anyone has access to the Bible and can understand it, which is definitely not true of the sciences.






Still, the academic study of the Bible—which is a necessary requirement in the Adam discussion—requires certain skills that take years of training to acquire.

Simply gaining some facility with Hebrew and Greek takes years, not to mention a grasp of the diverse cultural, literary, and historical contexts of Scripture. Many debates about biblical interpretation (Adam being just one of them) involve us right away in some involved and complex areas that very serious scholars invest a lot of time (whole careers) and energy trying to understand.

Again, I am not saying that the Bible is closed to all but experts. I am saying that there are areas of biblical study that require a level of expertise.

Biblical scholars can normally tell whether or not someone has dealt with biblical languages and the cultural backgrounds to the Bible. And, I will say candidly, we can sometimes get frustrated with those who “don’t know what they  don’t know” [(re: academicians and technical scholars) - res].

As much as biblical studies requires some training and expertise, it is much more the case in the sciences. The years of training and experience required of those who work in fields that touch on evolution rules out of bounds the views of those who lack such training.

This is certainly the case with those who have no scientific training whatsoever beyond basic high school and college courses. I fall into that category. I remember being handed the periodical table of the elements in seventh grade and told to memorize it. I told the teacher if he thought this was so important he should memorize it himself and leave me out of it.

My science career ended before it began. It didn’t help that I had to take calculus twice before getting a C or that I conducted puppet shows with the lab animals in sophomore year biology.

My point is that serious scientific questions require serious scientific training—which only a fraction of the earth’s population can claim to have.

My point is that most of us do not have a place at the table where the assessment of evidence is the topic of discussion. The list of non-participants includes the following:
  • biblical scholars,
  • pastors,
  • the self-taught,
  • science hobbyists,
  • church historians,
  • theologians,
  • philosophers,
  • politicians,
  • celebrities,
  • seminary administrators,
  • musicians,
  • neighbors,
  • mathematicians,
  • physicist,
  • engineers,
  • best friends,
  • parents,
  • grandparents,
  • that cool website.

You get the idea.

Some have earned the right to take a seat near the table but not at it. High school or college biology teachers, for example, even if they are not practicing research scientists, are people I am going to have to listen to, especially if they are keeping up with the literature. But they are not going to be able to speak with as much conviction as those who are on top of their fields.

I also include here philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science (“science” modifies all three). These scholars look at the philosophical, historical, and sociological conditions within which scientific work takes place. They give us the big picture of what is happening behind the scenes intellectually and culturally.

Science is not a “neutral” endeavor, and these fields are invaluable of putting science into a broader intellectual context. I am all for it.

But here is the problem I have seen. Practitioners of these disciplines overstep their boundaries when they pass judgment on evolution on the basis of the big-picture context these disciplines provide.

I am going to guess that those who make such claims are likely not trained well enough to understand the boundaries of their disciplines, but that is another topic.

Even though it is very helpful to understand what may (or may not) be happening behind the scenes of scientific research, evolution cannot be judged from 30,000 feet. You still have to deal with the scientific data in detail.

I think I stand on very solid ground when I say that the three disciplines I mentioned and technical scientific practitioners need to be in conversation with each other, not one standing in judgment over the other.

Anyway, short story: you have to know what you are talking about if you want to debunk evolution. The problem is that, most trained, practicing, scientists have concluded that evolution is true.

If you want to argue with them, you have to argue better science that stands the test of peer review, not better ideology.


XI. Believing in evolution means giving up your evangelical identity.

Many arguments I have heard against evolution come down to this: my evangelical ecclesiastical group has never accepted it, and so, to remain in this group, I must reject it too.

It is never stated quite this bluntly, but that is the bottom line.

But everything depends here on what you mean by evangelical. In recent decades, the term has become a moving target. Just Google “evangelical identity” or “evangelical controversy” and you will see what I mean.

What is up in the air is whether evangelicalism is a stable, unchanging movement, or whether built into evangelicalism is an openness to change.

More importantly, it all depends on whether holding on to evangelical identity should be our primary concern, or, whether as God’s creatures we should pursue truth wherever it leads—even if it disrupts familiar paradigms.

We all need to make that choice.


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


For further review from a biblical, historical viewpoint please refer to -







When Reading the Bible Learn to Discern Biblical Genre


Biblical Genre and Relational Truth
November 7, 2011


Narrated by Chris Tilling
NT Tutor for St. Mellitus College & St. Paul's Theological Center,
London, England
on reading the text of Scripture



*Today's video is courtesy of filmmaker Ryan Pettey, director  | editor of Satellite Pictures



In today’s video, theologian Chris Tilling, New Testament Tutor for St Mellitus College and St Paul's Theological Centre in London, discusses biblical genre and the relational truth of Scripture. Tilling notes that when we read the Biblical text, we bring our own presuppositions and assumptions to the text (what theologians call “eisegesis”). The genre of the text is central to how we understand the Bible. For example, we read poetry very differently than we would read a phone book.

The text often contains clues to how it was intended to be read. The rhythmic nature of Genesis 1 and 2 hints to the hymnic and poetic functions of the text.  However, the Gospels parallel ancient biographies, which were concerned with historic factuality in a way symbolic theological accounts were not.

Ultimately, Tilling notes, it boils down to the questions that we ask of the text. The author of Genesis was not asking biological questions but theological ones. To stay true to the text, we too must be asking the theological questions, because theological truth is always more than information; it is transformation . The Truth (capital T) of Christian theology is relational truth which addresses us, which has us as the objects. That Truth is a person. That Truth is one to whom we relate. What kind of truth are we talking about?


Transcript

Dr. Chris Tilling: “The crucifixion is detailed in the gospels. We assume that the suffering of the cross, that the physical agony, is the main focus of the crucifixion. This may tie in with various theological commitments, but it also ties into our own world view in various ways. Yet, when we actually go to the gospels, they focus more on the shame of the crucifixion, and less on the pain of the crucifixion. So there is an example where it is just a subtle difference, but it does illuminate how we read a text or how we misunderstand a text.

Now, to come to the question of historicity—what it means to write history—we have particular presuppositions about what makes history work. Today, we would prefer (to a greater or lesser extent) some kind of unbiased, impartial observation of evidence, but what we are actually doing is what scholars would call eisegesis: we are bringing our own presuppositions and assumptions into a text and reading it in light of that as if it were in the text. One way of responding to that is to point to the centrality of genre in understanding the Bible. We read poetry in a way that is very different to the way we read a phonebook, and there are clues in a text as to how the text should be read. So with Genesis—the rhythmic nature of Genesis one and two—the almost poetic and hymnic effect it would have played in the liturgy of the earliest Jewish lives. There is liturgy of life, there is the snake which eats dirt, there is God walking in the garden…it seems to me that there are clues here that it should be read in a theological way.

When you get to the gospels, however, the closest parallels that we have for the gospels is ancient biography—they seem to look like the way ancient biographies were written. In other words, they were concerned with what was happening in a way that a symbolic theological account would not. So, the genre of the different parts of the Old Testament will determine to what extent there was historical factuality involved. It boils down, ultimately—though we might not like to put it so sharply—it boils down to the questions that we are asking. The author of Genesis was not asking the kind of questions that we are often asking in a biological sense. These were theological questions that were being asked, and our questions, if we want to stay true to the text, likewise, need to be theological…because truth is always more than information, it is transformation.

It isn’t just about things that we can look at and that we can put in a test tube—small “t” truth if you like. Capital “t” truth is relational…is the truth which addresses us, which speaks to us, has us as the objects. That truth is the subject. Jesus Christ speaks of himself as the truth, the way, and the life…that truth is a person, that truth is one to whom we relate. What kind of truth are we talking about?”

Comments (10)



Thursday, November 10, 2011

Taylor Swift - "Mean"






Taylor Swift
Mean



Mean lyricsSongwriters: Swift, Taylor;

You, with your words like knives and swords and weapons that you use against me
You have knocked me off my feet again got me feeling like I'm nothing
You, with your voice like nails on a chalkboard, calling me out when I'm wounded
You, pickin' on the weaker man

Well, you can take me down with just one single blow
But you don't know what you don't know

Someday I'll be living in a big old city
And all you're ever gonna be is mean
Someday I'll be big enough so you can't hit me
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?

You, with your switching sides and your walk-by lies and your humiliation
You, have pointed out my flaws again as if I don't already see them
I'll walk with my head down trying to block you out 'cause I'll never impress you
I just wanna feel okay again

I'll bet you got pushed around, somebody made you cold
But the cycle ends right now 'cause you can't lead me down that road
And you don't know what you don't know

Someday I'll be living in a big old city
[ From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/t/taylor-swift-lyrics/mean-lyrics.html ]
And all you're ever gonna be is mean
Someday I'll be big enough so you can't hit me
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?

And I can see you years from now in a bar, talking over a football game
With that same big loud opinion but nobody's listening
Washed up and ranting about the same old bitter things
Drunk and grumbling on about how I can't sing

But all you are is mean
All you are is mean and a liar and pathetic and alone in life
And mean, and mean, and mean, and mean

But someday I'll be living in a big old city
And all you're ever gonna be is mean, yeah
Someday, I'll be big enough so you can't hit me
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?

Someday, I'll be, living in a big old city
(Why you gotta be so mean?)
And all you're ever gonna be is mean
(Why you gotta be so mean?)
Someday, I'll be big enough so you can't hit me
(Why you gotta be so mean?)
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?












 

"Mean"-ingful moment

Even the darkest cloud has a silver lining —
and in Taylor Swift's case, a CMA Award nomination as well
  • AP
  • Published: 00:02 November 10, 2011
Taylor Swift turned a negative into a positive, and it has netted her a special nomination at this year's Country Music Association Awards.

Swift received her first CMA song of the year nomination for Mean, her spunky rebuttal to cynical criticism. That trophy goes to the writer, not the artist, and is among the most coveted awards in a town where the songwriter is celebrated and revered.

"Respectfully, it's about time," said Scott Borchetta, head of Swift's label, Big Machine Records. "I don't think she gets near the props she deserves for her songwriting. I've been in the business with Taylor for almost seven years now and her songs were great when I met her at 14."

Swift has gotten her share of love for her songwriting. She won a Grammy for best country song in 2010. Nashville Songwriters Association International has named her songwriter/artist of the year four of the last five years — and at 21 she remains the youngest winner of that award. And BMI, the performing rights organisation, has awarded her all-genre song of the year once and country song of the year three times.

She's won a trunk full of CMA trophies, including top award entertainer of the year in 2009. But she's never broken through in that songwriting category.

Mean, a retort to nit-pickers, bullies and perhaps curmudgeonly commentator Bob Lefsetz, was hard to resist. It shows Swift at her best. It's both vulnerable and confident, with an infectious chorus, an upbeat, empowering message and among her most countrified instrumentation built around Swift's six-string banjo line.

The song went to No 1 on the country and adult contemporary charts.

"Getting a CMA nomination for Mean was definitely a jumping-up-and-down moment for me because this song is really close to my heart," Swift said.

"I'm so thrilled it was nominated for song of the year because it's a song that I wrote on a really, really bad day, but it has produced so many happy days for me since."

With more to come perhaps. Brad Paisley, a six-time nominee in the category, believes Swift has been unfairly overlooked as a songwriter among the industry voters who make up the CMA. He points out that most of the voters are in their 30s and 40s, and older. This year's nomination could be a breakthrough.

Groundbreaking

"There's no 18-year-old in the world that you talk to who doesn't relate to some of her lyrics," Paisley said. "And in that sense, though, she's laughing all the way to the bank as the voters might be saying, ‘Well, you know, that's not for me.' That's not fair. In some ways it's even more groundbreaking what she's done. I'm proud of what she's done."

Other nominees in the category are Zac Brown, Coy Boyles, Wyatt Durette and Levi Lowry for Zac Brown Band's Colder Weather, Kimberly Perry for The Band Perry's If I Die Young, Brantley Gilbert and Colt Ford for Jason Aldean's Dirt Road Anthem and Deana Carter and Matraca Berg for Kenny Chesney's You and Tequila. The field can be considered wide open with Berg the only previous winner, in 1997, as co-writer of Strawberry Wine.

Swift might not win, of course. But like the song points out, she's already a winner.

"She's just been on an amazing streak," Borchetta said. "Whatever her surroundings, wherever she happened to be, this is what she saw. And [the songs] are very sophisticated. They're very catchy. She's a brilliant songwriter and if you ask any of the other artists who are hip to her, they know. So I'm thrilled the CMA has acknowledged her."


 

Kelly Clarkson - "Stronger"





Kelly Clarkson
"What Doesn't Kill You (Stronger)"









"What Doesn't Kill You (Stronger)"

You know the bed feels warmer
Sleeping here alone
You know I dream in colour
And do the things I want

You think you got the best of me
Think you had the last laugh
Bet you think that everything good is gone
Think you left me broken down
Think that I'd come running back
Baby you don't know me, cause you're dead wrong

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
Stand a little taller
Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone
What doesn't kill you makes a fighter
Footsteps even lighter
Doesn't mean I'm over cause you're gone

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, stronger
Just me, myself and I
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
Stand a little taller
Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone

You heard that I was starting over with someone new
They told you I was moving on, over you

You didn't think that I'd come back
I'd come back swinging
You try to break me, but you see

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
Stand a little taller
Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone
What doesn't kill you makes a fighter
Footsteps even lighter
Doesn't mean I'm over cause you're gone

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, stronger
Just me, myself and I
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
Stand a little taller
Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone

Thanks to you I got a new thing started
Thanks to you I'm not the broken-hearted
Thanks to you I'm finally thinking about me
You know in the end the day you left was just my beginning
In the end...

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
Stand a little taller
Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone
What doesn't kill you makes a fighter
Footsteps even lighter
Doesn't mean I'm over cause you're gone

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, stronger
Just me, myself and I
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
Stand a little taller
Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone



latimes.com

Kelly Clarkson, 'Stronger' than ever

Nearly 10 years after becoming the first "American Idol,"
the singer says she feels great about her new album as well as her career.

October 26, 2011
by Gerrick D. Kennedy, Los Angeles Times


Kelly Clarkson was three songs into a stripped-down set at West Hollywood's Troubadour last week before she offered a declaration.

"This is my new CD. I just got it today," said Clarkson, barefoot and giggly after a pre-show shot (she prefers vodka), clutching a copy of "Stronger," released on Monday. "I'm in love with [it]."

Nearly a decade has passed since the 29-year-old was crowned the first "American Idol." Though she's since become a force on the charts with her sassy pop-rock anthems (her biggest record, "Breakaway," has sold more than 6.1 million copies), she admits the disc is a first of sorts for her. It's the first she's released without having to battle label brass. And the record is already garnering acclaim from critics praising its catchy pop hooks and dance-floor punch on songs like the second single, "What Doesn't Kill You (Stronger)," "You Love Me" and the deceptively titled "Dark Side."

"Literally every album, except this album, I've had to really push for songs or say no on certain stuff," Clarkson said. "It's very easy, obviously, for people when their main goal is to make money. But I don't want to do the same formula as someone else. I want to do my own thing. This album has been a piece of cake. There's no way to describe it. I'm just waiting for the kick in the butt."

Clarkson has never been shy about fighting for her music. There was that infamous clash with legendary music mogul Clive Davis — the only blip of controversy in her career — over her darker, rock-driven 2007 album, "My December," which she spent most of the promo cycle defending. The spat was quickly forgotten when she released 2009's "All I Ever Wanted," which featured the massive hit "My Life Would Suck Without You."

The new album sees her in a better place professionally, and she assures that the empowering title doesn't allude to any specific event from the past year. She simply comes off as more confident now and able to make choices based on experience. Though she worked with hit makers such as Max Martin/Dr. Luke and Ryan Tedder on her last album, this time she tapped a more eclectic team of talent, including Greg Kurstin, Ester Dean, Toby Gad and Bonnie McKee for the disc.

"I've just been doing this for 10 years, and looking back, the past four albums were kind of … everybody going against the grain on each other," she said. "This album, I'm getting along with everyone, everyone is loving the same stuff and the stars are aligning. I think it's because people know me better as an artist now. Producers and writers know me more. I'm not walking into a room and they don't know a thing about me."

Clarkson's relationship with the label might be at its best, but the release of "Stronger" still came with some hurdles. The disc is out nearly a year after it was originally slated, and the lead single, "Mr. Know It All," a mid-tempo R&B-driven pop tune, hasn't caught fire despite falling nicely in the vein of brazen kiss-offs she's known for. Plus, more than an album's worth of songs leaked onto the Internet earlier this year.



Wednesday, November 9, 2011

God's Role in Creation

What role could God have in evolution?

Image for: What role could God have in evolution?

Divine Action

Divine action is defined as God’s interaction with creation. Divine action figured prominently in early discussions of Darwin’s theory in the late nineteenth century. For some theologians, evolution was compatible with theism only if God acted supernaturally at discrete points in the evolutionary process.1 Other theologians saw the uninterrupted process of evolution as being fully compatible with Christian doctrine. They understood evolution to be “the silent and regular working of him who, in the fullness of time, utters his voice in Christ and the cross.”2

We still seek to understand God’s involvement in the world. BioLogos readily affirms that the Creator can act outside the created physical laws. However, we must not say that miraculous events outside the laws of nature are the only instances of God’s involvement—we believe God is actively sustaining all things (Col 1:17, Heb 1:3), even in regular, well-understood processes. For this reason, BioLogos does not require miraculous events in its account of God’s creative process, although they certainly may have occurred.


God’s Sovereignty and Creation’s Freedom

BioLogos affirms that God has endowed nature with a certain degree of freedom. This is not to say that nature has a mind of its own, but only that nature is not restricted to a machine-like, redetermined evolution. On the other hand, BioLogos also affirms that God has a plan and a purpose for creation. The Bible affirms both the freedom of nature (including human freedom) and the sovereignty of God.

BioLogos does not conceive of a God who is involved at certain times and who only observes at other times. BioLogos affirms a God who is at all times involved, yet who still allows a degree of freedom to the creation.


Providence and the Laws of Nature

If the laws of nature can explain an increasing number of natural phenomena, how is God involved? The laws of nature do not exist apart from God. They are a reflection of the activity of God. If God ceased to uphold the laws of nature, there would be no universe.

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col 1:16, 17 NASB)

…in these last days [God] has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. (Heb 1:2, 3a NASB)
If we were somehow able to fully explain the operation of the physical universe, we would not have explained God out of the picture. Rather, we would have explained the regular and repeatable sustaining activity of God.

Theologians speak of “ordinary providence,” whereby God uses means (such as natural laws), “yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.”3 We can therefore distinguish between the natural and supernatural activity of God. The natural activity of God is simply that which occurs in a regular and highly repeatable fashion. Because of its regularity over eons of time, it can be studied and understood through the scientific process.

What about the supernatural activity of God? In the words of Ard Louis, “Miracles occur when God chooses to sustain the world in a manner that is different than what He normally does.” Supernatural activity is not somehow more God’s activity than natural activity. Both types fully reflect God’s character and accomplish his purposes.


Notes
  1. David N. Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1987), 118.
  2. A. H. Strong, as quoted in Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders, 129.
  3. Westminster Confession of Faith, “On Providence” (V,3).

Further Reading

Websites

Articles
Books
  • Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action Series. Edited by Robert John Russell, et al. 5 vols. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Foundation, 1997-2002.
  • Falk, Darrel. Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds between Faith and Biology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
  • Polkinghorne, John. “Creation and Creator.” In Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding, 63-82. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2006. First published 1988 by SPCK.
  • Polkinghorne, John. Science and Providence: God’s Interaction with the World. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2005. First published 1989 by SPCK.



Christian Misconceptions About Evolutionary Creation


Where We Come From and Who We Are
October 19, 2011




Narrated by Ard Louis
Theoretical Physics | Oxford

http://biologos.org/blog/where-we-come-from-and-who-we-are

*Today's video is courtesy of filmmaker Ryan Pettey, director/editor of Satellite Pictures.




In this video, physicist Ard Louis discusses the misconceptions about evolution and what it says about our purpose. A lot of the young earth arguments against evolution, says Louis, can be beneficial to those promoting atheism. According to Louis, both sides are attempting to extract theology from the natural world and wrongly accept the premise that where we come from determines who we are and how we should live. However, that’s not what the Bible tells us; rather, our value comes from God, and God determines who we are and how we should live.

Many understand evolution as a theory underlined by the idea that our existence is purposelessness. But our value and purpose do not come from whether or not we were created by an evolutionary mechanism. Evolution may tell us something about how we were created, but it is not the source of our worth. That worth comes from God.

For more from Ard Louis, be sure to read his white paper for BioLogos.





Evolution: Is God Just Playing Dice?


October 11, 2011       
          
Evolution: Is God Just Playing Dice?                                         
Today's entry was written by Matt J. Rossano. Matt J. Rossano is Professor of Psychology at Southeastern Louisiana University and author of Supernatural Selection: How Religion Evolved.
This article first appeared on The Huffington Post.
"Reply the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again" (Stephen Jay Gould from "Wonderful Life", 1989 p. 289, Harvard University Press.).
With his standard panache, the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould argued strenuously that evolution had no inherent directionality. It was a cosmic crapshoot - in no way destined to produce anything complex, self-conscious or human.

We are mere accidents; a "tiny twig on an improbable branch of
a contingent limb on a fortunate tree" ("Wonderful Life" p. 291).

Highly fortunate indeed! Eons ago, a dinosaur-dominated earth held little promise for mammalian ascendancy (let alone primates or humans). Our distant ancestors might have remained little more than scurrying nuisances nipping at the feet of giants if not for a most unlikely calamity - a massive meteor strike which swept away the dinos and forever altered the earth's bio-saga. Who would have guessed?

Evolution's capricious nature seemed to represent a severe stumbling block for the Abrahamaic religious traditions. In their narrative, humans represented the culmination of God's creative work - the very purpose for creation itself. But evolution is an awfully shoddy way of enacting a divine plan. Gould delighted in annoying the faithful by emphasizing this very point:
"Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution - paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce" ("The Panda's Thumb", 1980, pp. 20-1).
Theologians, however, were quick to point out that the chance element in evolution was neither new nor necessarily contrary to the Judeo-Christian view of God. Human history was replete with chance; evolution only extended the theme. Moreover, chance allowed for freedom - a virtue high on God's agenda. However theologically sound these retorts may have been, their force was often lost on the average believer. The accidental nature of human existence provided just another reason to reject evolution altogether in order to preserve God's special concern for humanity.

Gould was a talented science writer, but he overplayed evolution's whimsy. Increasingly, science is showing that the evolutionary process has many built-in constraints which limit its possibilities and bias its pathways. Take, for example, the ubiquitous phenomenon of convergence - the tendency for highly diverse species to independently evolve similar adaptive (analogous, not homologous) traits. Most of us are familiar with the saber-toothed tiger, the scourge of our hominin ancestors. Less familiar are a group of South American marsupials called the thylacosmilids who independently evolved similar protruding saber-teeth. Convergence can also be seen in a number of specifically human traits. For example, we share a mode of locomotion, bipedalism, with birds, kangaroos, and some dinos. The lateralized and convoluted structure of our brains can also be found in octopi, this despite the fact that vertebrates and cephalopods diverged from one another over 450 million years ago.

In his book "Life's Solution" (2003, Cambridge Press) Cambridge Palaeobiologist Simon Conway Morris documents scores of examples of convergent evolution from insect body designs to the social systems of dolphins and chimpanzees (both fission-fusion). The important lesson [of convergence] is that there are only a limited number of ways that evolution can solve the adaptive problems posed by the earth's ecosystems. Time and again, evolution stumbles upon the same general design features from which to fashion adaptive traits.

Now add to this the Baldwin effect - an idea originally proposed in 1896 wherein organisms are posited to actively shape their own selective forces. For example, suppose some fairly intelligent primates begin fashioning tools, giving them access to new resources and a competitive advantage over non-tool users. Any genetic predisposition facilitating tool use would also be positively selected. A severe limitation on Baldwin effects has always been the unpredictability of genetic mutation. For any heritable genetic changes to occur (so the thinking has always been) our tool wielding primate would just have to wait around and hope for a lucky "tool use" mutation to pop up. But maybe not. Two recent books, Jablonka and Lamb's "Evolution in Four Dimensions" (2005 MIT press) and Kirschner and Gerhart's "The Plausibility of Life" (2005, Yale University Press) discuss connections between recent work in genetics and Baldwinian processes. What if the primate's tool use actually raised the probability that a tool-relevant genetic change would take place which could then be passed along to offspring?

Recent genetic research (in a field called epigenetics) shows that experiences occurring over one's lifetime can produce heritable genetic changes. For example, mice exposed to two weeks of environmental enrichment (more social interaction, activity, novel objects to explore) show evidence of enhanced memory function (not surprising). More surprising is that their offspring also show evidence of enhanced memory even though they were never exposed to environmental enrichment (Journal of Neuroscience, 29, p. 1496). Thus, the increased environmental stimulation created a genetic change in the parents that was then transmitted to offspring. This change appears to involved altered patterns of gene regulation (how genes are turned on and off during development). Similar effects have been noted in humans (see European Journal of Human Genetics, 14, p. 159).

Convergence, epigenetic inheritance, and Baldwin effects are only a few of the mechanisms serving as directional constraints on evolution's pathways. In his review of the various factors affecting the evolutionary process, anthropologist Melvin Konner concludes:
"There are no intrinsic driving factors in evolution, but there are intrinsic constraints and canalized paths along which either evolution or development may more easily proceed" ("The Evolution of Childhood," Harvard Press, 2010, p. 59, emphasis in original).
Of course, none of these constraining factors guarantee our arrival on the evolutionary stage. They do, however, raise the odds that in time a complex, rational, self-aware creature capable of entertaining both scientific and religious ideas might emerge.

The more we understand evolution, the less it seems like neither the bogeyman creationists fear nor the universal God-dissolving acid some atheists crave.




A Proper Biblical Epistemology v. Christian Certainty

Certainty Not (another one of those pesky pre-biblical theological decisions)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/04/certainty-not-another-one-of-those-pesky-pre-biblical-theological-decisions/

A strong dose of intellectual humility, rooted in acknowledgment of
one's own fallibility, would save the world around them a lot of trouble.

by Roger Olson
posted April 19, 2011

Some time ago I wrote here about two important theological decisions the Bible does not help us solve. The first one was (1) nominalism/voluntarism versus realism (with regard to whether God has a nature) and the second one was (2) whether the church of the New Testament was the church in embryo or the mature church. Where a person comes down on these issues inevitably influences much of his or her theology, but the Bible does not directly (or perhaps even indirectly) tell us what the right view is.

Another such pre- or extra-biblical theological decisions every thinking Christian makes and that influences his or her theological thinking is whether certainty is a human possibility. I often find myself bemused about a theological discussion or debate and then figure out that my lack of understanding my debate partner’s point of view relates to (3) our different views of certainty.

I am a fallibilist; some Christians aren’t. That is, (1) I believe, because of our finitude and fallenness, all human beings are fallible all of the time with exceptions of Jesus Christ and the writers of Scripture. I admit it is possible that some other human persons have infallible revelation, but I doubt it.

I am also convinced (fallibly!) that (2) finite and fallen human beings are not capable of certainty without an immediate, supernatural gift of certainty. And I don’t think I know anyone who has that and I’m alway suspicious of claims to it.

Two books have been especially helpful to me in this regard: Dan Taylor’s The Myth of Certainty and Lesslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence. These are excellent, small treatments of the subject of certainty from a Christian perspective.
  • Taylor’s is a semi-autobiographical, narrative-shaped discussion of certainty. In place of "certainty" the author recommends that we settle for "the risk of commitment".
  • Newbigin says “Christian faith is not a matter of logically demonstrable certainties but of the total commitment of fallible human beings "putting their trust in the faithful God who has called them.” (99)

[Summary position]. I believe we can have blessed assurance and proper confidence in God and God’s revelation, but absolute certainty that transcends all possibility of being wrong is normally unavailable to mere mortals, at least in this life.


On Capital Punishment

We have all experienced THINKING we knew something FOR SURE and then finding out we were wrong.

Does denial of certainty amount to lack of commitment? No. Commitment takes on special significance in the absence of absolute certainty. In the absence of certainty I must sometimes take the risk of commitment to a cause, but I CANNOT take another person’s life based on my uncertain “knowledge” of their guilt (to use one example of the practical implications of my epistemology). Neither should anyone, because no one has that kind of certainty.

Am I absolutely certain that capital punishment is wrong? I can only say that I am as certain of that as I am of almost anything I believe. But of course my certainty falls short of absoluteness. To claim absolute certainty about anything is, my opinion, tantamount to claiming to have God’s own knowledge of it.

Lack of absolute certainty requires humility and humility requires circumspection in all decisions and actions. Taking another person’s life when you could be wrong about their guilt is, I believe, a sin. (That’s not the only reason I think it’s a sin, but it’s one reason.)

On the other hand, lack of certainty does not paralyze; putting someone in prison for life without the possibility of parole when you think they deserve death is an act the risk of commitment in the face of lack of absolute certainty. It leaves open the possibility of reversal of judgment if it should turn out that the person was not guilty (however unlikely that may seem).

[Captial Punishment] is just one case study in proper confidence rather than absolute certainty. I am always a little afraid of people who claim to have absolute certainty about anything. I’ve known too many people who claimed to have “the mind of God” (and really seemed to believe it!) who went off on crazy crusades involving absurdity and/or abuse. A strong dose of intellectual humility, rooted in acknowledgment of one's own fallibility, would save the world around them a lot of trouble.

None of this means we shouldn’t act. What it means is, as we act, we should be aware that we are taking a risk and that God is both our judge and the giver of mercy when, by his light and help, we do the best we can.



19 Responses
  1. Zach says:
    Great Post! Particularly in regard to epistemology and acting (particularly from a Christian perspective) I’ve always found Reinhold Niebuhr to be top dog; having and not having the truth, the struggle for justice, etc (I have to admit I find the late Niebuhr top dog in most things). What’s your take on Niebuhr? Do you recommend/have found helpful a Christian ethicist who covers this topic well (the extent of our knowledge and how we should act, i.e. ethics)?
    • Roger says:
      I find Niebuhr helpful. A recent Niebuhr-like treatment of Christian social ethics is Making the Best of It by John Stackhouse.
  2. K Gray says:
    Two topics relating to certainty: spiritual knowledge and other knowledge.
    Spiritual knowledge – “Now faith is being sure [assurance] of what we hope for and certain [conviction] of what we do not see.” I do not know Greek so maybe someone else knows whether or not this approximates certainty.
        • K Gray says:
          Professor Olson, do you have any comment on Hebrews 11:1? Also, Jesus promises, and Paul explains, the Spirit will disclose truth to men, as taken from God’s mind. If God chooses to reveal and disclose certain truths, and grants spiritual knowledge, wisdom and understanding more and more (to those who have), should mature Christians remain less-than-certain of those things, e.g. Jesus will return? Maybe this is an issue of semantics. That’s why I was asking about the Greek in Heb. 11:1, for example.
          Ben – Truth for today: Jesus is risen! :)
          • Roger says:
            Perhaps it is an issue of semantics. I don’t know any human being who, in the deepest recesses of his or her thoughts, doesn’t occasionally have a doubt about something revealed. 
  1. Jerry L says:
    Roger, we certainly can agree on this point. A belief in our own fallibility would go along way towards solving many of the useless arguments we have regarding issues of theology. I am always leery of pronouncements from the left, right or middle that they some how, outside of clear scriptural mandate, know the mind of God on a particular issue, this usually results in my asking for a clearly laid out argument from scripture.
    It is also why I think many Evangelicals/Post-Evangelicals/Liberals/You Name the Group, fail us when they don’t also look to the wisdom of nearly 2,000 years of church thinking on many these very same issues, while I am confident that the catholic (small c intentional) church has not always been right or in a position to speak to every issue a little attendance to the wisdom of the whole church might have saved us many an argument. This is one of the reasons I am ill at ease regarding arguments about, capital punishment, just war and many other topics. I can’t fail to listen to Yoder any more than I can to Agustin.
  2. Aaron says:
    “Dan Taylor’s The Myth of Certainty and Lesslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence.”
    – Agreed, great books!
  3. jc_freak says:
    This is my favorite post from you thus far. You have managed to capture something that has always been true for me that I have never thought to articulate, but is at the heart of much of my interactions with other people.
    One of the things that I have been working on in my life is actually taking those risks of commitment that you are talking about. Because I recognize the possibility of being wrong, it therefore means that I often don’t want to act, and I usually prefer decisions that are reversible or at least alterable.
    But what I have become aware of over time is the need of decisiveness(and I mean ‘need’ in the literal sense). This has driven me to take more risks, and to be comfortable walking out on even important issues confidently on probablies and maybes.
  4. Ian Paul says:
    Thanks for this–I love your differentiation between proper confidence and absolute certainty. I wonder if this debate relates to James Smith’ ‘The Fall of Interpretation’ arguing that hermeneutics is pre- not post- lapsarian as an element of human finiteness not human sin?
  5. Taylor says:
    Dr. Olson, I’ve not read Taylor or Newbigin’s books, but I’ll have to add them to my list. A couple of summers ago, I took my Wednesday church crowd through Alister McGrath’s book “Doubting” which includes a marvelous chapter entitled, “Doubt and the Vain Search for Certainty.” The church responded very well to the study. Not only is it freeing to recognize that having faith is not the same thing as being certain, but, like you wrote, it also helps us to live with more humbly with one another.
    • Roger says:
      I’m sure you’ve heard this, Taylor, but I’ll put it here anyway (for others’ benefit). Fred Buechner wrote that “Doubt is the ants in the pants of faith–it keeps it moving.”
  6. Joel Naranjo says:
    I completely agree with you, dr. Olson. For long time i’ve struggled with the issue of certainty, and come to the conclusion that epistemological humility (that would be a fancy way to put it) is actually a christian virtue. But I’m not that sure that the Bible doesn’t say anything about it. When I read passages like Proverbs 9:8 or 21:11 I see that a mark of the wise is willingness to be corrected. And this would imply that the wise is willing to recognize the possibility of being wrong, and therefore would be open to listen closely to other people opinions, to ponder them and even change his mind if there are good reason for it. I’m not sure many people have passages like this in mind when it comes to theological discussions…
  7. Adam L says:
    Hey Dr. Olson!
    Great post!
    I was wondering if you could speak more about why you exempt the writers of scripture from fallibility. I can understand the logic when it comes to Christ (who is God), but I’m not sure how that could be claimed of non-divine beings (such as authors of scripture).
    Thanks!
    Adam
    PS – Great blog! Wow, I didn’t even realize you had one!
    • Roger says:
      Hi, Adam. By faith I accept that God granted the prophets and apostles special inspiration that resulted in infallibility in matters pertaining to salvation. If others have also written or spoken infallibly on such matters (or any other matters) I’m not aware of it.
  8. James W. says:
    How certain is certain? Its only relatively certain, and, yes, fallibly certain, and yet certain. When it arrives, it comes as a gift from God. I have searched my whole life for certainty. It arrived through my baptism with the Holy Spirit. It came as a great surprise, and it is my life’s watershed moment. It happened when I struggled to let go of my heart’s attachment to worldly things, and when I asked Him to fill me with His Spirit. I now carry with me the gift of certainty concerning God’s love for you and me and the presence of his Holy Spirit in our lives.