A Final Farewell by Clark Pinnock and Tribute to Open Theology

Pinnock, Alzheimer’s, and Open Theology

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/pinnock_alzheimers_and_open_theology/#.UXBqrKKsiSo

 

by Thomas Jay Oord

March 24, 2013

 

I received sad news in an email recently: Clark Pinnock is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Clark sent John Sanders and me the following note:

 

Dear Tom and John:

 

I want to inform you that I am now middle stage Alzheimer’s. I will not be able to do my writing etc. I am 73 years now, and I've enjoyed my biblical three score and ten. I am not bitter. I have had a good life. I'll meet you over Jordan if not before.

 

You are free to make this news known.

 

With love,

 

Clark

 

Clark Pinnock is a theological giant in our day. His influence has been great, especially in Evangelical circles. This news of Alzheimer’s disease indicates that his active contribution to theology will now diminish if not cease.

 

Pinnock’s personal theological journey has been intriguing. He moved from affirming a more or less conventional and/or fundamentalist view of God to the Open view he considers more faithful to the biblical witness.

 

In this journey, Pinnock consistently considered the Bible his primary source for theology. He gave particular weight to biblical narrative and the language of personal relationships found in Scripture. Although he rejected a Fundamentalist view of the Bible, he remained committed to honoring the Bible as his principal authority for theology.

 

Open theology offers a coherent doctrine of God, says Pinnock, in which each divine attribute “should be compatible with one another and with the vision of God as a whole.” For instance, Pinnock wishes to offer a vision of the God who “combines love and power perfectly.” Unless the portrait of God compels, he says, the “credibility of belief in God is bound to decline.”

 

Open theology as Pinnock presents it depicts God as a self-sufficient, though relational, Trinitarian being. God graciously relates to the world as one self-limited out of respect for the genuine freedom of creatures. Creatures genuinely influence God. God is transcendent and immanent, has changing and unchanging aspects, gives to and receives from others, is present to all things, and has supreme power. God’s love, says Pinnock, includes responsiveness, generosity, sensitivity, openness, and vulnerability.

 

Open theology rejects traditional theologies that portray God as an aloof monarch. Influential theologians of yesteryear often portrayed God as completely unchangeable, ultimately all determining, and irresistible. By contrast, Pinnock says the biblical vision presents a loving God who seeks relationship with free creatures. “The Christian life involves a genuine interaction between God and human beings,” he says. “We respond to God’s gracious initiatives and God responds to our responses... and on it goes.”

 

The future is not entirely settled, according to Open theology. This means that while God knows all possibilities, God does not know with certainty what free creatures will actually do until creatures act. Classic views of God’s foreknowledge are incompatible with creaturely freedom, says Pinnock. “If choices are real and freedom significant,” he argues, “future decisions cannot be exhaustively known.”

 

Open theology does affirm that God is all knowing. God knows all things knowable. Believers should not understand divine omniscience as the idea God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events, says Pinnock. After all, future possible events are not yet actual.

 

Biblical evidence for Open theology’s view of omniscience comes in many forms. Dozens of biblical passages, for instance, record God saying “perhaps.” This uncertainty [allowance for free will interaction on the part of man - res] on God’s part means the future remains open, and not completely certain [knowable; nor is it necessary that it be knowable - res]. The Bible also says God makes various covenants. These covenants suggest God does not know with certainty everything to occur in the future. God often asks Israel to choose one course of action over another.

 

For instance, Jeremiah records God offering two possible futures for Israel: “If you will indeed obey this word, then through the gates of this house shall enter kings who sit on the throne of David…. But if you will not heed these words, I will swear by myself, says the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation” (Jer. 22: 4-5). God’s particular course of future action depends in part upon Israel’s choice. God apparently does not know with certainty what Israel’s choice will be. Other Old Testament passages exhibit covenant language in which the future is yet to be decided, and God does not know with certainty what will actually occur.

 

God cannot be in all ways timeless, say Open theologians. We best conceive of God’s experience as temporally everlasting rather than timelessly eternal. To say God is in all ways timeless implies God is totally actualized, immutable, impassible, and outside of time and sequence. Such a God is static and aloof, says Pinnock, not relational and responsive. The temporally everlasting Lord is the Living God of the Bible.

 

Those who embrace conventional theology have difficulty accepting Open theology. This difficulty arises because Open theology challenges certain well-established traditions, argues Pinnock, not because it opposes the Bible. Open theology themes appear throughout the biblical witness: “the idea of God taking risks, of God’s will being thwarted, of God being flexible, of grace being resistible, of God having a temporal dimension, of God being impacted by the creature, and of God not knowing the entire future as certain.”

 

One of Open theology’s greatest assets is its fit with Christian experience. It addresses well the demands of ordinary life and practices of the saints. “It is no small point in favor of the openness model,” Pinnock argues, “that it is difficult to live life in any other way than the way it describes.”

 

Open theology releases people to live their lives meaningfully, says Pinnock. “As individuals we are significant in God’s eyes… the things we do and say, the decisions and choices we make, and our prayers all help shape the future.” Our lives and life-decisions really matter.

 

Open theology is preferable in other ways. It points to a friendship with God possible in cooperative relationship. Most conventional theologies implicitly or explicitly reject friendship with God. Open theology emphasizes the reality of freedom we all presuppose. Many conventional theologies directly or indirectly reject creaturely freedom vis-à-vis God.

 

Open theology corresponds with our intuition that love ought to be persuasive rather than coercive. It emphasizes sanctification in the sense of growth in grace and decisive moments. Open theology corresponds with the view that God calls and empowers growth in Christ-likeness.

 

Christians should especially prefer Open theology to conventional theology on the issue of petitionary prayer. Most Christians believe their prayers make a difference to God, including influencing at least sometimes how God acts. Pinnock argues that petitionary prayer does not genuinely influence now the God who foreordains and/or foreknows all things. Petitionary prayer cannot change an already settled future.

 

“People pray passionately when they see purpose in it, when they think prayer can make a difference and that God may act because of it,” argues Pinnock. “There would not be much urgency in our praying if we thought God’s decrees could not be changed and/or that the future is entirely settled.”

 

Above all, Open theology emphasizes love as God’s chief attribute and priority for theological construction. “God created the world out of love and with the goal of acquiring a people who would, like a bride, freely participate in his love.” Love was God’s goal, and giving freedom the means to that goal. “God is inviting us to join in his own ongoing Trinitarian communion and conversation,” says Pinnock. God “wants us to join in and share the intimacy of his own divine life.”

 

God’s loving nature is unchanging, but God’s experience, knowledge, and action change in the divine give-and-take of interactive loving relationship. “The living God is . . . the God of the Bible,” says Pinnock, “the one who is genuinely related to the world, whose nature is the power of love, and whose relationship with the world is that of a most moved, not unmoved, Mover.”

 

Because of this, Open theology “is a model of love.”

 

 

*Comments mine own - R.E. Slater (res)

 

 

 

3 Lies Porn Tells You

 

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/whole-life/3-lies-porn-tells-you

 

By Justin and Trisha Davis

April 18, 2013

Justin and Trisha are bloggers, authors, speakers and founders of RefineUs Ministries. Sharing their story of pain, loss and redemption, RefineUs is igniting a movement to build healthy marriages and families. They are the co-authors of their first book, Beyond Ordinary: When a Good Marriage Just Isn’t Good Enough, published by Tyndale House Publishers.

 

 

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

 

 

Three years into our marriage, my wife, Trisha, woke up in the middle of the night and realized I wasn’t in bed. She walked out into the living room and as soon as she looked at the TV, I quickly changed the channel.

 

She began to question me about what I was watching, why I wasn’t in bed, and why I would immediately change the channel. Then came the repeated question: Do you struggle with lust and pornography? The more she asked the more intense the conversation became.

 

So I denied everything. I told her I was just channel surfing. I argued with her about what she saw. I convinced her that I didn’t struggle with porn or lust. She had nothing to worry about. I was lying.

 

For the amount of people who struggle with this, we don’t talk about it near enough.

 

I didn’t know it at the time, but that night was the first of many opportunities I had over the first 10 years of our marriage to be honest about my porn addiction. I was a pastor and pastors don’t struggle with lust or porn. At least, no other pastor I knew struggled with it, I felt all alone.

 

The truth was, I wasn’t alone. I had friends I could have talked to. I had accountability partners I lied to. I had other pastors I blew off when asked about sexual sins and struggles.

 

In my mind, my intentions were good—I was trying to protect my marriage. The reality is, porn was telling me lies and I was buying right into them.

 

For the amount of people who struggle with this, we don’t talk about it near enough. We don’t talk about it in our families. We don’t talk about it in our churches. We think avoiding it will make it go away. Statistically speaking, over 50 percent of the men reading this post have had exposure to pornography recently. And it’s not just a “man’s problem,” either. About 30 percent of porn users online are women. It isn’t going away.

 

Here are the three lies porn told me and will tell you as well.

 

1. That was the last time.

 

No matter how many times you’ve looked at pornography, that was your last time. Because you truly believe it is your last time buying the magazine, going to the web site, downloading that movie—you don’t need to confess it, because it was the last time. Until tomorrow or next week or next month. It is the last time—until the next time. If porn can convince you that “this time is the last time,” you’ll never tell anyone.

 

2. You can stop anytime you want.

 

You know what pornography has done to other marriages, to other friends, to other families, to other church leaders…but you aren’t really “addicted” to pornography. You can stop anytime you want. Besides it doesn’t have the same effect on you that it does on other people. It won’t hurt your life, your marriage, your kids, your church, your ministry like it has other people. You are in control of porn, it doesn’t control you.

 

Freedom costs something upfront, but not as much as bondage costs over time.

 

3. Confessing your struggle with cost you too much.

 

Porn wants you to live in secret. Porn causes us to weigh the cost of confessing against the cost of hiding and convinces us that hiding will be less painful. You think you are helping yourself and your marriage by hiding your porn addiction. Your wife—or husband—won’t understand. Your marriage won’t recover. Your credibility won’t be able to be rebuilt.

 

Something I’ve learned the hard way: Hiding sin never provides us with the power

to overcome it. The freedom you long for is found in confession. Freedom costs

something upfront, but not as much as bondage costs over time.

 

Believing these lies will never give you the power to overcome them. Trying to quit will not give you the power to quit. But freedom is possible.

 

Here is what I believe with all of my heart: If you struggle with pornography, God isn’t disappointed in you; He is fighting for you. He died and conquered sin and death so you can have victory in this area of your life.

 

Where do we begin? How can we overcome something that grips our heart and keeps us living in shame and guilt? The first place I suggest everyone that struggles with pornography start is with a Christian counselor. Both my wife and I needed someone with greater perspective and wisdom than we had to help us overcome this struggle in my life.

 

Beyond that, I want to share one principle with you that I believe has power to bring freedom, hope and healing to your heart. It won’t be easy, but it will be worth it.

 

Healing comes through confession and prayer. I know that sounds very churchy, but take a look at this Scripture: “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (James 5:16).

 

The type of confession that James is talking about isn’t a confession for forgiveness; it is confession for healing. There is a healing that comes to our heart as we confess our sins with one another.

 

Most of us have the “forgiveness” part of confession down. We know that in order to get forgiveness from God, we have to confess our sins. Maybe you grew up confessing to a priest, maybe it is something that you do in your quiet time with God, maybe it is something that you do after you’ve made a huge mistake. Most of us know that forgiveness from God comes through confession.

 

We don’t talk about the “healing” type of confession in the Church very often. In fact, we have built a religious system that tries to find healing through hiding our sins, not confessing them. The sins we do confess are “safe” sins: bitterness, jealousy, materialism, anger and selfishness.

 

I was the master at this. I appeared “authentic” for confessing socially acceptable sins while I lived as a prisoner to sins I wasn’t willing to confess. For years, I forfeited the healing that God longed to bring to my heart not because I didn’t confess my sins to Him; but because I refused to confess them to anyone else.

 

But here’s 3 truths porn will never tell you:

• Temptation loses its power when we confess.
• Sin loses its ability to keep us fractured when we confess.
• Addictions lose the control they have in our lives when we confess.

The secret sin you keep only has power as it remains a secret. The Light will always overcome darkness. The difficult decision we face is allow that Light into the darkest, most embarrassing parts of our heart. God can’t heal the parts of our heart we refuse to bring into the Light. But when we do, we can be healed.

 

Asking Questions of Evolutionary Creationism

 

"I am not of the opinion that evolutionary theory poses no challenge to Christianity, but neither am I of the opinion that evolutionary theory can be ignored or dismissed. The questions therefore that must be answered, among others I'm sure, are: 1. Is evolutionary theory necessarily teleological for the Christian? 2. Is there a place for natural theology or general revelation in light of evolutionary theory? 3. What priority is to be given evolutionary science in determining Christian dogma?" - Mark Quanstrom

 

 

A Much Needed Conversation

http://exploringevolution.com/essays/2013/04/17/much-needed-conversation/#.UW7dvedkgNZ.facebook

 

by Mark Quanstrom

April 17, 2013

 

I am appreciative to those who recognize that there ought to be a place where serious conversation can take place regarding the relationship between evolutionary theory and Christianity's faith affirmations.

 

I'm appreciative because I am not of the opinion that evolutionary theory poses no challenge to Christianity. I don't think that if we just appropriated the right Biblical hermeneutic, or understood the respective epistemological domains of science and religion, or insisted on science recognizing its "faith" presuppositions, then all would be well.

 

I'm appreciative because neither am I of the opinion that the challenges that evolutionary theory pose to creedal Christianity can be ignored or dismissed. (And just for the record, I am using the word "theory" here in its scientific sense, not in the "detective novel" sense.) I am not in agreement with the young-earth creationists who dismiss or explain away the scientific evidence for evolutionary theory, even if I am sympathetic to their recognition of the problem evolution poses. Evolutionary theory must be taken seriously, as it is providing the best theoretical framework for understanding biological life on this planet.

 

So this is a much needed conversation, and for that reason, I would like to raise a few of the issues that I believe confound an easy reconciliation between evolutionary theory and Christianity. I don't think that the three questions I am raising exhaust the issues, but in my mind, they seem to be three that are worthy of reflective consideration by Christian theologians and Christian biologists alike.

 

 

1. Is Evolutionary Theory Necessarily Teleological for the Christian?

 

The first question that I believe is relative to some sort of rapprochement between creedal Christianity and evolutionary theory concerns how evolution is to be understood itself. There is considerable conversation among evolutionists about whether or not evolutionary theory is teleological in nature; that is, whether the theory necessitates purpose or direction, or whether it is simply descriptive of a blindly mechanistic universe. John Dupre, Professor of Philosophy of Science at Exeter University, in his review of John O. Reiss' Not By Design: Retiring Darwin's Watchmaker, stating the facts of the matter, writes:

Followers of the debate between evolutionists and various waves of creationists, most recently the advocates of "intelligent design," will have been struck by one curious convergence between the views of the opposing parties. Both sides agree that life, whether or not literally designed by an intelligent agent, seems just as if it had been designed.¹

This philosophic presupposition that evolutionary theory is guided by some teleological principle ("survival of the fittest" or "natural selection" for example) is being rejected by many evolutionists precisely because a teleological principle cannot be empirically verified.

So John O. Reiss, Chair of the Biology Department at Humboldt State University, believes it absolutely necessary that evolutionary theory be understood non-teleologically. In the first chapter of his book, he explains his project.

In this book, I try to show that the concept of natural selection is often invoked to explain evolutionary transformations for which we have no evidence that the mechanism of natural selection, as currently understood, was wholly or even partially responsible for the transformation. I argue that we have never been able to overcome the major weakness of this metaphor... This weakness is the implication that there is, in nature, an agent with actions analogous to those of the breeder in artificial selection, a teleological agent that intentionally, and with foresight, 'selects' variations directed toward the improvement of the organism.²

Reiss insists that evolutionary theory, for it to be coherent, must reject any implication or indication of purpose.

 

David Hanke, Senior Lecturer of Biology at the University of Cambridge, goes further and insists that the whole evolutionary theory is compromised precisely because evolutionists infuse it with purpose.

In a chapter titled "Teleology: the explanation that bedevils biology," he writes:

Biology is sick. Fundamentally unscientific modes of thought are increasingly accepted, and dominate the way the subject is explained to the next generation... One major reason is the manner in which Natural Selection slipped seamlessly into the place of the Creator: the Natural Selector as the acceptable new face of the Great Designer... Predictably enough, anthropomorphizing Nature as your selector leads inevitably to the false supposition that there exists the quality of selectability, called 'Fitness' on the basis of which Nature selects... 'Fitness' does not exist – it is another phantom construct of the human mind...
 

There is no selection, only differential survival... ...both 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' amount to no more than survival of the survivors, reflecting the uncreative emptiness of the continuous sieving of living things...³

According to Hanke, there is no "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest," as if "selection" was the means and "survival" was the end. No, it was simply "survivor of the survivors."

 

It seems to me problematic if the future paradigm for evolutionary biologists necessarily precludes a telos or teleological principle. Those who adhere to theistic evolution will necessarily be engaged in conversations about the definition of evolution itself and how the presupposition of purpose affects the scientific methodology. So the first question that I have is this one: "Is evolutionary theory necessarily teleological for the Christian?"

 

Comment 1

 

The last article I have listed below is by an evolutionary scientist/philosopher who

actually proposes the idea of teleology being central to the "bones" of evolution.

Many Evolutionary Creationists also feel this same way as do I.

 

- R.E. Slater (res)

 

 

2. Is there a place for natural theology or general revelation in light of evolutionary theory?

 

The second question I have concerns the place of natural theology or general revelation in an understanding of the Christian Faith. I should confess at the outset that I am not Barthian in this matter. While I recognize the absolute and definitive uniqueness of the special revelation of God in Christ, and while I understand the Reformed rejection of natural theology per se, I would like to accept as true Paul's word in Romans 1:20a, which says: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen..." (NIV)

And I should note that our theological tradition acknowledges the place of general revelation to a knowledge of God. H. Orton Wiley wrote:

The Scriptures recognize the fact that nature reveals God, not only by frequent references to the work of nature but also by direct assertion. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night... The Apostle Paul... makes it clear that nature reveals God sufficiently to lead men to seek after Him and worship Him...⁴

However, in light of what evolution has taught us about "creation," I'm thinking I might need to be afraid to ask what nature teaches us about the Creator. How is Hume's critique of the teleological argument for God's existence to be answered by Christian evolutionists who embrace natural theology or general revelation?

Look around this universe. What an immense profusion of beings, animated and organized, sensible and active! You admire this prodigious variety and fecundity. But inspect a little more narrowly these living existences, the only beings worth regarding. How hostile and destructive to each other! How insufficient all of them for their own happiness! How contemptible or odious to the spectator! The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind man, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children.⁵

If general revelation, through creation, is a true revelation of the divine nature of God, then are we not with Tennyson, who wrote that nature was "red in tooth and claw" and who then was compelled to ask:

Are God and nature then at strife,

That Nature lends such evil dreams?

So careful of the type she seems,

So careless of the single life.⁶

Indeed, Jerry Coyne, Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, calls into question the natural theology/general revelation of the Christian community in his blog when he challenged BioLogos' use of evolutionary science to draw conclusions about God's character. BioLogos, which is a "community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith," argued on their web page that God's character can indeed be discerned from evolutionary science. Specifically, they posited that God is "Extravagant" (in light of the diversity of life), "Patient" (in light of the length of time evolutionary processes take) and a "Provider" (in light of the complex ecosystems that are necessary for individual species to survive).⁷ Coyne responded:

As an evolutionary biologist, I would see this as deliberate humor if I didn't know better. For I could think of several not-so-nice characteristics of God also manifested by "studying evolutionary science." But I'll leave this amusing exercise to the readers...

And then Coyne asks: "What characteristics of God do you see from studying nature and evolution?"⁸

 

And so the second question I have concerns the place of general revelation/natural theology in light of evolutionary theory? Can we continue to look to nature to discern the Creator?

 

Comment 2 

 

I have attempted some answers to these very same questions which can be found under the

sidebars of "God," "Sin," "Sovereignty," "Theism (both Relational and Process)," and such

like. I believe that God's handiwork does reveal God as it must, but I also believe that His

handiwork has been corrupted by sin.

 

- res

 

 

3. What priority is to be given evolutionary science in determining Christian dogma?

 

The third question I have concerns the specific challenges evolutionary theory poses to the affirmations of the Christian Faith. I'm not speaking of those affirmations that are dependent on a fundamentalist hermeneutic, but rather those creedal affirmations that are grounded in the Bible-entire and not in any one particular passage or dependent on any one particular hermeneutic.

 

For example, granting that the first three chapters of Genesis are primarily theological in nature, how is the doctrine of original sin or inherited depravity to be understood? If Adam and Eve are archetypes, then how is the "fall" to be explained? Is a primeval paradise from which humanity fell and to which it longs to return essential to the Christian Faith as it has been understood in the West?

 

Related to the above questions is the question of death. Christian Faith teaches that death was an intrusion on the created order. Death was the consequence of the fall, is judgment on sin and is an enemy to which the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the victorious answer.

 

Evolutionary science demands that death be understood as an essential part of the biological world. If death is essential to God's creation and therefore a necessary good, then why is there a need for resurrection from the dead? Why has the Christian Faith considered death to be an enemy? Evolutionary science poses challenges to the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ as well. In short, was He the God-man, the prototype of a restored humanity, a second Adam? Did all the fullness of God dwell in human form? Or was he a homosapien on the evolutionary continuum? If so, was He perhaps an exception to evolution and therefore a "tertium quid," which means not fully human after all? If He wasn't human as we are human, then we must rethink atonement as well as Christology.

 

The real issue for Christians which I believe confounds an easy reconciliation between evolutionary theory and Christianity is nothing other than the incarnation. The first confession for Christians is the confession that "Jesus is Lord," that "the Word became flesh." I believe this foundational confession precludes Gnostic answers to the challenges that evolutionary theory poses, for example, that death must be understood in a spiritual sense; that resurrection is symbolic; that the new creation is immaterial. If we take incarnation (and therefore Christianity) seriously, we must take Christ as fully human seriously, and we must take creation as good creation seriously.

 

So I am not of the opinion that evolutionary theory poses no challenge to Christianity, but neither am I of the opinion that evolutionary theory can be ignored or dismissed. The questions therefore that must be answered, among others I'm sure, are:

1. Is evolutionary theory necessarily teleological for the Christian?
2. Is there a place for natural theology or general revelation in light of evolutionary theory?
3. What priority is to be given evolutionary science in determining Christian dogma?
 

Comment 3

Most specifically does Evolutionary Creationism affect classical Christian doctrine... as well it should. Dogmas which are not biblical must fall, and more  helpful descriptions of God, His Word, and His creation, be allowed in. We  live in a world that must now admit this and can no longer consider relevant the older, cherished, Christian doctrines that were concluded during non-scientific eras (nor even our most recent modernistic era of the past 100 years!). However, as I, and others, have shown, through our words and blogsites, what results will be a far richer, more deeply relevant Christian faith than first thought imagined. And that without giving up the fundamentals of our faith... just the fundamentals of our religious ideologies and inaccurate biblical descriptions.  - res

 

 

¹ John Dupre. "The Conditions for Existence," American Scientist, Volume 98, Number 2 (March-April 2010): 170
² John Reiss. Not by Design: Retiring Darwin's Watchmaker. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009) 4.
³ John Cornwall, ed. Explanations: Styles of Explanation in Science. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 143-155.
⁴ H. Orton Wiley. Christian Theology, Vol 1. (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1940) 51-52.
⁵ Dorothy Coleman, ed. Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Other Writings. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 86.
⁶ Alfred Lord Tennyson. In Memoriam A.H.H., LV, http://www.online-literature.com/donne/718/
⁷ http://biologos.org/
⁸ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/biologos-goes-all-natural-theology/ 

 

 

 

Mark Quanstrom

Olivet Nazarene University

Professor of Theology and Philosophy

 

Rev. Mark R. Quanstrom, Ph.D. is a full-time professor of theology and philosophy in the School of Theology at Olivet Nazarene University. He is also the University Campus pastor at College Church of the Nazarene in Bourbonnais. He began teaching at Olivet in the fall of 2005.

 

Prior to coming to Olivet, he was pastor for 23 years at the Belleville, IL First Church of the Nazarene. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Olivet, a Master of Divinity from Nazarene Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from St. Louis University.

 

His Ph.D. dissertation was published in 2004 by Beacon Hill Press under the title A Century of Holiness Theology. His second book, From Grace to Grace, is a call to holiness which places priority on grace (hence the title) and was published by Beacon Hill Press in October of 2011.

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Additional Articles for Exploration

 

 

"What is Evolutionary Creationism?" A PowerPoint Presentation by Denis Lamoureux

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-is-evolutionary-creationism.html

 

 

Differences between Evolutionary Creationism and Darwinian Scientific Naturalism

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/01/differences-between-evolutionary.html

 

 

YEC or Evolution? Breaking Away from a False Dilemma

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/03/yec-or-evolution-breaking-away-from.html

 

 

There is No Conflict Between Science and Faith

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-god-of-science-and-of-faith.html

 

 

Ask an Evolutionary Creationist

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/09/ask-evolutionary-creationist.html

 

 

What Do We Mean by God as "Creator-Redeemer"?

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/11/evolutionary-creationism-what-do-we.html

 

 

How Evolutionary Creationism Will Require Rethinking Scriptural Doctrine

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/04/how-evolutionary-creationism-will.html

 

 

Common Christian Mistakes Made about Adam and Evolution

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/recurring-responses-to-adam-v-evolution.html

 

 

Evolution and the Separate Problems of Teleology and Human Consciousness

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/01/evolution-and-separate-problems-of.html

 

 

 

 

Interview with Makoto Fujimura, "A Journey of Faith, Art and Culture"

 

"The Four Holy Gospels" - Makoto Fujimura

 

 

A beautiful video on the convergance of modern art and
Christian worship, in the work of artist Makoto Fujimura.

 

 

Ask an artist (Makoto Fujimura)... Response

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-an-artist-makoto-fujimura-response

 

by Rachael Held Evans

April 16, 2013

 

Today I am pleased to share Makoto Fujimura’s responses to your questions for “Ask an artist…” as part of our ongoing interview series.

 

Makoto Fujimura is an artist, writer, and speaker who is recognized worldwide as a cultural shaper. A Presidential appointee to the National Council on the Arts from 2003-2009, Makoto served as an international advocate for the arts, speaking with decision makers and advising governmental policies on the arts. Makoto’s work is exhibited at galleries around the world, including Dillon Gallery in New York, Sato Museum in Tokyo, The Contemporary Museum of Tokyo, Tokyo National University of Fine Arts Museum, Bentley Gallery in Arizona, Gallery Exit and Oxford House at Taikoo Place in Hong Kong, and Vienna’s Belvedere Museum. He is one of the first artists to paint live on stage at New York City’s legendary Carnegie Hall as part of an ongoing collaboration with composer and percussionist Susie Ibarra.

 

Makoto founded the International Arts Movement in 1992, a non-profit whose “Encounter” conferences have featured cultural catalysts such as Dr. Elaine Scarry, Dennis Donoghue, Billy Collins, Dana Gioia, Calvin DeWitt and Miroslav Volf. His second book, Refractions: A Journey of Faith, Art and Culture, is a collection of essays bringing together people of all backgrounds in a conversation and meditation on culture, art, and humanity.

 

In celebration of the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible, Crossway Publishing commissioned and published The Four Holy Gospels, featuring Makoto’s illuminations of the sacred texts. In 2011 the Fujimura Institute was established and launched the Four Qu4rtets, a collaboration between Makoto, painter Bruce Herman, Duke theologian/pianist Jeremy Begbie, and Yale composer Christopher Theofanidis, based on T.S. Eliot’s Four Quartets. The exhibition will travel to Baylor, Duke, and Yale Universities, Gordon College and other institutions around the globe. Bucknell University honored him with the Outstanding Alumni Award in 2012. He is a recipient of two Doctor of Arts Honorary Degrees, from Belhaven University in 2011 and Biola University in 2012.

 

You asked some fantastic questions, and I hope you are challenged and inspired by Makoto’s responses.

 

From Red: I have always felt that Christian art (particularly music and written fiction) is of a much lower quality than what you find in the 'secular' world. Despite growing up in church and being fairly comfortable with the church culture, Christian music, novels, and other forms of art have always left me feeling bored, restless, and honestly, a little fed up. I've had many conversations about this over the years, and most people seem to believe that Christian art has become anemic because Christians are afraid to look at the "tough stuff" in life and want everything to be safe and sugar-coated. Others suggest that North American Christians are trained from childhood to follow all the "rules," and that this attitude can subconsciously hinder adults from knowing how to truly "create" apart from a pattern. I was wondering if you have noticed this anemia in the Christian arts, and if you have a theory about the cause?

 

Let me first address some "macro" issues regarding faith and culture issues. Since I am from a theological perspective that sees culture as a good gift from God, I do not seek to define "Christian culture" verses "secular culture." In John 10, Jesus speaks of leading the sheep out of the gate; thus, in this case, the sheep are led out into the wider pasture of culture. Why? It's because the sheep need to find nourishment outside of their pens that they cannot otherwise find. I believe that Christians’ response to culture need to be the same: We need to be let out, guided by the Holy Spirit, and be nourished by the greater culture - otherwise we will starve!

 

So in answering the weakness of Christian creative output, I would say that we shouldn’t have a mindset in which we categorize, "Is this Christian, or not?" But instead ask, "Is this good and point toward our thriving?"

 

From Eric: One thing I appreciate about your art is that it's refreshingly free of what people often think of as Christian clichés. How would you advise artists (and musicians, writers, etc.) to create works that reflect Christianity without restricting their vocabulary to that overly-familiar set of religious symbols? (I'm thinking of the prayer-and-conversion scene in every "Christian" novel, the hymn-tunes quoted in "Christian" instrumental music, the sermonizing in "Christian" poetry, and so on.) Is this just a matter of improving our technical skills, or are there intentional strategies you've found for broadening artistic vocabulary?

 

First, I would focus on making our Christianity a noun, rather than an adjective. Rather than creating Christian art, make art that is thoroughly and completely in Christ. That means we need to start with knowing Christ, and walking intimately with God. Second, endeavor to learn symbols from all sorts of cultures, including "pagan" cultures. I believe that all cultures have keys to unlock our deeper understanding of the Gospel, but those nuggets of truth have been twisted. We need to go into the Babylons of the world, like Daniel, and first learn to be a better Babylonian than the Babylonians. Then we need to work to untwist the cultural language, and interpret their dreams. We may even, then, create new expressions and new words, which, it seems to me, the Holy Spirit offers.

 

From Sarah: How can the church start to unleash the artistic talent in the community beyond designing posters and church bulletins (i.e. support the arts in a deeper sense)? What role should the church play in the arts?

 

How we allocate our funding has to do with fundamental bottom line issues. Churches are operating under a utilitarian pragmatism, with a "zero sum game," of resources competing with one another, much like a big businesses. We do not see beauty as valuable. Why? Well, I believe this mindset has as much to do with how we view the gospel as how we view the arts.

 

Jesus commended Mary of Bethany (in John 11-12) for extravagantly offering perfume valued at a year’s worth of wages to anoint him for his burial. She broke open the nard of mystery of our being, of who Christ was, and Jesus stated the she "has done a beautiful thing to me. And wherever the Gospel is told, what she has done will also be told." My question is this: Is our gospel accompanied with just as gratuitous, generous, creative and beautiful acts as Mary's? Perhaps both the quality and the power of our art would reach a different height and depth if we created from that perspective. (See my essay "Beautiful Tears" on my website.)

 

From Rachel: Oftentimes, particularly in a religious community, there is the assumption that artists should essentially work for free. While we wouldn't expect, say, a roofer to put a new roof on a church without compensation, we often expect artists to contribute to our churches/ holy spaces/ programs/ events without getting compensated for their time. How have you navigated this somewhat awkward territory? And why is it important for the Church to support artists, not only spiritually and emotionally, but also financially?

 

In answering the more pragmatic questions about how an artist can deal with "working for free" issues, I have always advised artists to set expectations first, whether the task at hand is a) volunteer work, or b) professional. If I am asked to volunteer, I will say yes or no based on my time commitment availability. If it is professional, I will be honest about how much my work is worth. I am fine to discount so that the church can still afford my work, but they need to know the sacrifice (of me and my family) going into such a project.

 

From Cassie: Growing up Chinese, my parents found any visual depiction of Christianity to be idolatrous, which I believe is due to the fact that much of the trappings of high church tradition were too similar to the ancestor worship with which they grew up. How do you respond to claims that visual art can be idolatrous? And what do you do in your painting process to maintain faithfulness to the text? Do you think being a Japanese artist gives you any unique perspective on religion and art?

 

The Second Commandment does not prohibit making of images. It prohibits making of idols. Idols are "a good gift of God that has been made into an 'only thing.'" (Tim Keller, my pastor). Sex, money, love are all good things that can become idols. The Old Testament is full of images and art, from representational to abstract (see Solomon's Temple). We need to understand that at the same time the Decalogue was given, strict instructions were given to Bezalel and Oholiab to carve the Ark of the Covenant. Thus the expression in the Second Commandment "You shall not make for yourself a carved image," is tied to prohibition of "not bow down to them." Bezalel and Oholiab carved images, but in accordance with God's design. After Christ's incarnation, the author of The Book of Hebrews tells us that Christ, the perfect Temple and Sacrifice, fulfilled the design that Bezalel and Oholiab executed in Christ's Body. I take that to mean that all manner of expressions (much like in Peter's vision of eating forbidden animals) are now freed from the curse.

 

Therefore ALL expressions are permissible, but that does not mean that all expressions are created toward our full thriving. We twist the good gifts of God to make idols (Madison Street Ad agencies do this all the time!) We are to, in Christ, liberate all mediums and expressions from "our bondage to decay...to bring into the glorious freedom of the children of God." (Romans 8:21) We are not only children, but heirs, with full authority to bring to our materials and mediums to steward over them.

 

Ancestor worship, I suspect, began as a good effort to remember and honor the dead, to pass on the family history to the children. It has been twisted into a type of duty, a legalistic bounds that require offspring no freedom toward thriving or full experience of love. We need to remember that our reaction against such idolatry, even in our religious duty, can also become just as legalistic. The enemy, and our orphaned hearts, always twist good intent to create bondage to others and ourselves. Christ came to liberate us from that, and the Holy Spirit guides us to live our identity as Christ's heirs, God's Princes and Princesses, to co-create with the great Artist.

 

From Annie: Your thoughts on creating in a generative way have been transformational for me. How do you hold the tension of sharing your art generously and letting it incubate? Do you always lean towards sharing and giving art, or are their seasons (or pieces of art) that you hold close for a season?

 

The tension between being too generous and cultivating your own work and time is much like being a gardener. First you must spend much time tilling the soil, planting and nurturing. Unless you have a beautiful flower to share, we cannot share beauty at all! It's ok to say "my flowers are not ready to be picked yet...”

 

 

 

 

My Top 5 Books on Creativity

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/march/my-top-5-books-on-creativity.html

 

by Makoto Fujimura

March 27, 2013

 

Literature that reveals what art and beauty ought to be.

 

 

The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World
Lewis Hyde (Vintage)

 

Simply the best book on what art ought to be. An underground best seller among the creatives in New York City since it came out over 30 years ago, The Gift articulates what artists know in their bones—that their creativity is a gift, not a commodity.

 

 

 
 
 

On Beauty and Being Just
Elaine Scarry (Princeton University Press)

 

Though not a Christological reflection, this is one of the most thoughtful, and beautiful, discourses on the value of beauty and how seeking after beauty leads us toward justice. This book was also an underground best seller in the 1980s among creatives.

 

 

 

 

 

Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art
Madeleine L'Engle (Harold Shaw Publishers)

 

L'Engle illumines our creative journeys, prodding and nudging us to consider the mysteries inherent in our everyday lives and to infuse creativity with faith.

  

 

 

 

 

The Mind of the Maker
Dorothy L. Sayers (HarperOne)

 

Sayers, known as an Inklings friend of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien as well as for her popular mystery novels, develops an imaginative and provocative discourse between Trinitarian theology and creativity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Four Quartets
T. S. Eliot (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)

 

Eliot is one of the most important thinkers on creativity in modern times, as evidenced by this mid-20th-century masterpiece. In "Qu4rtets," a collaborative project integrating creativity with various disciplines (fujimurainstitute.org), you can peek into his mind.