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

 

 

Book Promotion

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/08/shameless-promotion-of-my-forthcoming-book-about-modern-theology/

 

by Roger Olson

August 25, 2013

Comments

What’s a blog for if one cannot use it to promote his books? The new InterVarsity Press catalog (“New Title Announcement/Winter 2014″) has just been published. It includes (on page 28) my forthcoming magnum opus The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction which will actually be about 710 pages in length (scheduled for publication in November). It’s a radical revision of Stan Grenz’s and my 20th Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age published in 1992. I would say this is a whole new book as you can tell by comparing the two books’ tables of contents. Some of the subjects are the same (e.g., Schleiermacher, Barth, and Tillich) but the chapters about them have been completely rewritten.

 

Below I paste here the book’s Table of Contents for your perusal. But please go to amazon.com and read the four outstanding recommendations of the book by leading theologians including Francis Schussler Fiorenza (Harvard) and Veli-Matti Karkkainen (Fuller). This book is the culmination of years and years of study and teaching modern theology–from the Enlightenment to postmodern theology. The organizing theme is “Christian theological responses to modernity.” In each chapter I discuss how the theologian or movement under consideration responded to the “acids of modernity” (which I explain in the first chapters).

Table of Contents

Preface.…………………………………………………………………………………………

Introduction.……………………………………………………………………………………

1. Modernity Challenges Traditional Theology: the Context of Early Modern Theology……

1.a. Science Revises the Heavens………………………………………………………………..

1.b. Philosophers Lay New Foundations for Knowledge………………………………………..

1.c. Deists Create a New Natural Religion………………………………………………………

1.d. Critical Philosophers Limit Religion to Reason…………………………………………….

1.e. Realists, Romanticists and Existentialists Respond………………………………………..

2. Liberal Theologies Reconstruct Christianity in Light of Modernity…………………………

2.a. Friedrich Schleiermacher Launches a Copernican Revolution in Theology………………

2.b. Albrecht Ritschl and His Disciples Accommodate to Modernity…………………………

2.c. Ernst Troeltsch Relativizes Christianity……………………………………………………

2.d. Catholic Modernists Attempt to Bring Rome up to Date………………………………….

3. Conservative Protestant Theology Defends Orthodoxy in a Modern Way………………….

3a. Charles Hodge Constructs a Modern Form of Protestant Orthodoxy……………………

4. Mediating Theologies Build Bridges between Orthodoxy and Liberalism………………….

4a. Isaak August Dorner Bridges the Gap between Liberal and Orthodox Theologies………..

4b. Horace Bushnell Searches for a Progressive Orthodoxy…………………………………..

5. Neo-Orthodoxy/Dialectical/Kerygmatic Theology Revives the Reformation in a Modern Context

5.a. Karl Barth Drops a Bombshell on the Theologians’ Playground………………………….

5.b. Rudolf Bultmann Existentializes and Demythologizes Christianity………………………

5.c. Reinhold Niebuhr Rediscovers Original Sin and Develops Christian Realism……………

6. Chastened Liberal Theologies Renew and Revise the Dialogue with Modernity…………..

6.a. Paul Tillich Describes God as the Ground of Being, a “God above God”……………….

6.b. Process Theology Brings God Down to Earth…………………………………………….

7. Radical Theologies Envision a Religionless Christianity (includes Bonhoeffer)…………….

8. Theologians Look to the Future with Hope…………………………………………………

8.a. Jürgen Moltmann Renews Confidence in the Final Triumph of God……………………..

8.b. Wolfhart Pannenberg Revitalizes Rational Faith in History’s God……………………….

9. Liberation Theologies Protest Injustice and Oppression…………………………………….

10. Catholic Theologians Engage with Modernity……………………………………………..

10.a. Karl Rahner Finds God in Human Experience……………………………………………

10.b. Hans Küng Advocates a New Paradigm of Catholic Theology………………………….

10.c. Hans Urs von Balthasar Bases Christian Truth on Beauty……………………………….

11. Evangelical Theology Comes of Age and Wrestles with Modernity………………………

12. Postmodern Theologians Rebel against Modernity…………………………………………

12.a. Postliberal Theologians and Stanley Hauerwas Develop a Third Way in Theology……..

12.b. John Caputo Deconstructs Religion with the Kingdom of God………………………….

Conclusion………………………………………………………………

Book Description

Modernity has been an age of revolutions--political, scientific, industrial and philosophical. Consequently, it has also been an age of revolutions in theology, as Christians attempt to make sense of their faith in light of the cultural upheavals around them, what Walter Lippman once called the "acids of modernity." Modern theology is the result of this struggle to think responsibly about God within the modern cultural ethos. In this major revision and expansion of the classic 20th Century Theology (1992), co-authored with Stanley J. Grenz, Roger Olson widens the scope of the story to include a fuller account of modernity, more material on the nineteenth century and an engagement with postmodernity. More importantly, the entire narrative is now recast in terms of how theologians have accommodated or rejected the Enlightenment and scientific revolutions. With that question in mind, Olson guides us on the epic journey of modern theology, from the liberal "reconstruction" of theology that originated with Friedrich Schleiermacher to the postliberal and postmodern "deconstruction" of modern theology that continues today. The Journey of Modern Theology is vintage Olson: eminently readable, panoramic in scope, at once original and balanced, and marked throughout by a passionate concern for the church's faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This will no doubt become another standard text in historical theology.

Reviews

"In this highly readable and stimulating volume, Roger Olson navigates the nuances and complexities of modern theology with the aplomb of a seasoned scholar and the sensibility of an expert guide. The result is the best narrative account of the subject available today. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a better introduction to the sweep of modern theology being written anytime soon." (John R. Franke, Yellowstone Theological Institute)

"Having used for years and years 'Grenz and Olson' as a classroom resource, I am enthused about this rewrite which, indeed, is such a complete rewrite that it has made an already great text even better! What distinguishes this survey of contemporary theology from all others is not only Dr. Olson's insightful and balanced critique of views but also its integral narrative structure. Similar to its predecessor, this one is likely to become a standard resource for years to come." (Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, professor of theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, and docent of ecumenics, University of Helsinki)

"Originally intended as a revision of 20th-Century Theology, The Journey of Modern Theology makes a unique and independent contribution to the study of modern theology. Olson has focused upon the diverse reactions to modernity. The book includes a more extensive treatment of nineteenth-century theology, and it engages in detail with contemporary postliberal, postmodern and deconstructive endeavors. The volume exhibits the passion of Olson's commitments and the clarity of his writing. Both make the volume extremely useful and helpful for beginning students. Olson is clear in his advocacy of orthodox and neo-orthodox theological positions as he is in his criticism of liberal theories. He does so in a way that fosters and encourages a dialogue with diverse theological options." (Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, Stillman Professor for Roman Catholic Theological Studies, Harvard Divinity School)

"This is an exceptional achievement--the fruit of many years of diligent labor in the classroom and study. From Descartes to Hauerwas, and just about everyone in between, Roger Olson provides a travelogue that covers the many routes taken in the journey that is modern theology. Through learned and appealing descriptions of the landmarks along the way, Olson invites his readers to take up their own explorations of key theologians and movements. This is an engaging and readable survey, which will serve as an able guide for students of modern theology for many years to come." (David Lauber, associate professor of theology, Wheaton College)

Product Description

Hardcover: 690 pages

Publisher: IVP Academic (December 1, 2013)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 0830840214

ISBN-13: 978-0830840212

 

Discussions in Science and Religion - An Introduction

 

Evolutionary tree showing the divergence of modern taxonomic  groups from their common ancestor
in the centre (black line). The three domains are bacteria blue, archaea green and eukaryotes red.

Introduction

After writing or publishing over 164 articles on the topic of science and religion the past 2 years it seems appropriate that I might take a brief break and study this subject from yet another viewpoint of one well-versed in the trade of (postmodern) theology and philosophy. Especially as it pertains to the idea of theological exploration, examination, and exhortation of the many substantive ideas that we have considered in previous discussions related to the biblical themes of God as Creator, the world as God's creation, and man as God's handiwork. And more especially as it pertains to the troubled areas of biblical examination of the ancient texts of Genesis utilizing more appropriate tools of historical criticism, ANE research, and a developing anthropological hermeneutic that is set amid a sea of multi-vocal narrations beginning from the creation-story's first recitation to ancient listeners to even now as it is pondered deeply by postmodern ears, minds, hearts, and souls far removed from the originating narration's first composition (which is where a diversified, flexible hermeneutic can lead us when appropriately applied).

 

As such, Philip Clayton will be leading a discussion group with Homebrewed Christianity's Tripp Fuller in this much debated area of Christian Creationism into which I wish to provide a weekly diary coupled with mine own thoughts, passions, interests, and absorptions that have percolated over a lifetime of reading, studying, listening, examining, dialoging, and reflection.

 

From the outset my own views of biblical creation is that of Evolutionary Creationism, meaning that from the evidence obtained by present-day science across the genomic, biologic, geographic, geological, anthropological, cultural, quantum, and cosmological spectrum (to mention just a few scientific disciplines), it seems most statedly true that we live in a world begun by applied evolutionary systems onto our present form of cosmos, beginning with the cosmos itself in its pre-postmordial form of quantum soup and multi-verse.

 

Moreover, we use the term creationism to convey the idea that God designed, initiated, developed, maintained, sustained, and produced this cosmos that we live in by His own will, mind, heart, and passion. This is the old idea of Theistic Evolution. But to that idea is the process by which God has developed, which is why we should more rather use the newer term "evolutionary creationism." So that when combining both ideas of Creator (the who) and the process (the what) we are left with a more complete idea of biblical creation as we understand it before us today through our lenses and telescopes, computers and sonic instruments, chalkboards and focus groups, quantum and biological laboratories, and theological and philosophical think tanks.

 

Naturalist Charles Darwin

Thus, to say that evolution was divinely created is to say that we intend to elaborate a theistic system of evolution, and not a non-neutral, nor atheistic system, nor even an agnostic one. Even as the descriptive expressions of Darwinian evolution, or natural selection, or even scientific naturalism have come to be associated with a discipline which remains neutral to personal biases and neutral to unprovable philosophical assumptions... as well it should. And yet, Charles Darwin himself was a 19th century Christian naturalist and biologist believing in God's creational handiwork through natural selection even as he wrote of his theories in strict accordance with scientific principles. Even so, because his theories disavowed the more popular idea of biblical creationism without mediated generation, he was vilified and by passionate Christians wishing to demonize him and his theories (we see Darwin's public characterization  brought to life during the Scopes-Monkey Trial in the early 20th Century). Thus to speak of Darwinian evolution is to tell of a Christian scientist whom the church disqualified on the grounds of a perceived godless theology that went against their understanding of science. Making Charles Darwin not unlike past recepients of this dubious honor like Copernicus and  Galileo whose scientific discoveries drastically altered the way the church viewed itself, its God, its mission, and the world.

Moreover, evolutionary creationism implies God's mediating presence and direction in the formation of life and soul, being and end, as versus the more popular (but unscientific) past ideas of im-mediate formulation by spontaneous generation (as in "poof!" here is the sun, moon, stars... or "poof!" here is man formed complete... or "poof!" here are past fossils and geologic formations locked in the soils of evolutionary drift describing time but denied by Christian 7-day creationists). Between these ideas of a mediated evolution or a spontaneous/immediate generation comes a whole host of in-between Christian theories making allowances for older homo sapien life forms, Earth's biologic development, and the universe's cosmic formation. However, to each of these may be applied the theological idea of a theistic creation - that is, God is viewed as creation's Creator. Not nature per se. Nor cosmic force alone utilizing random chance through chaotic process. But by God Himself as declared within the biblical page.

But, for the evolutionary theist we have a problem. Because s/he must admit at once that evolution occurs within nature by cosmic force, by random chance and by chaotic process. If not, then we do not have the strict application of evolution but an application of some other kind of quasi-evolution that goes beyond the scope and bounds of scientific evolution as begun by the study of natural selection. And so, for the Christian evolutionist we must at all times allow for the fullness of scientific evolution theory without admixture, distillation, dilation, dilution, or synthesis from what has firmly been stated by-and-within evolutionary theory itself  (for a fuller discussion as to what evolution is I suggest Wikipedia's handy summation as found here).

So then, do we have a paradox? Yes and no. Yes if we allow it to become one. And no when we stand back and admit that the entirety of this process was designed, implemented, and ruled over by our Creator God. To admit that God chose all of these processes - and in this way - to form and fashion the earth and ourselves... incredible as it seems. As paradoxical as its mysterious. And yet, for the Christian believer it gives to us an even more amazing God than one that magically conforms to what we think His definition of Creator/creation should be.... By limiting God's definition of Creator-Redeemer to our own imagineless imagination by restricting Him to our own planes of finitude and simplicity.

 

Consequently, for the Christian we will have a distinct difference of opinion as to whether evolution was left to itself to run itself (a Christian Deism as versus an agnostic/atheistic position). Or whether there was always involved an end, a plan, a purpose, to which creation was made and is moving towards. To attend to this latter idea will subsequently require one of two kinds of divine sovereignty. Either a meticulous sovereignty wherein God controls all events and outcomes regardless of the indeterminacy He has built into nature, and to the denial of man's own free will. This might be better described as divine determinism. Or rather posit a God whose sovereign rule shows to us His willful submission to His own decrees; who comes into partnership to those same decrees; and thus, limits Himself in a kind of divine weakness before His holy being and essence (as demonstrated most beguilingly through His own incarnation in Jesus). This idea is what is meant by relational (process) theism as versus its more classic, modern forms (sic, see sidebars for further discussions under Theism). Moreover, this then would interplay the ideas of strict Calvinism (God rules against our own freewill and subtends over that of creation's indeterminacy with meticulous disregard to its very nature) against the more pliable doctrines of Arminianism (which more fully leans towards the fullness of meaning implied by human freewill and creational indeterminacy) (cf. both sidebars and index).

To this idea of divine sovereignty I would like to add one further idea to the idea of evolution - that evolution might bear within itself a latency towards teleology. What? A divine plan and purpose within its random, chaotic process of indeterminate mutation, whereby competitive Natural Selection is predisposed towards the creation of life as fully, and purposely possible, within any given context of (hostile) environment. Curiously, some agnostic and atheistic evolutionists are admitting to this nuanced idea of late - though in a non-Christian context (cf. Evolution and the Separate Problems of Teleology and Human Consciousness). Still, as a Christian evolutionist I could more fully accept the process of evolution should I find behind (or within) this process a Sovereign God who has been directing it towards some meaningful end. Even unto His own Kingdom of Light-and-Life where sin and death are swallowed up before His majesty and glory.

Now how "death" may cease to exist is beyond my imagination because by its very nature of our cosmos "death" inhabits all of its natural processes: from its quantum processes of destruction and annihilation; to its geologic processes with its gross residual affects; to even its biologic process involving death and mutational migration. "Death" is everywhere abounding. However, perhaps God's redemptive removal of "sin and death" may be more a reference towards humanity's "spiritual death" separated from its Creator God - especially as its connected to the immediately preceding descriptor of "sin." From the Bible we know that any fellowship with God would disallow sin's presence within that relationship. As such, the idea of a "new heavens and new earth" would portend a unity of fellowship between God and humanity where sin has been washed away in Jesus's atonement. And with its cleansing, death's presence between man and God no longer withholds man's redeemed (and restored) relationship from God, nor God from man. Truly, "sin and death" have been removed. Moreover, this theologic idea would also affect humanity's caretake of this Earth, remaking it so that it becomes "renewed" within itself, thus creating a renewed Garden of Eden as it were. At least this is how I could imagine a completing (or actualized) evolutionary process that evolves - or emerges - from death-to-life, and from life-to-life-everlasting. Such a process would henceforth bear within itself a teleological process of purpose and means.

And with that I must conclude this summary introduction to await the golden cusps of wisdom from those more learned than myself (and if you detect a bit of cynicism here than I know that you-and-I will agree that men are but mortal and must ever rely on God's own wisdom for our direction and purpose). But if you cannot await Part 2 several weeks from now - and wish to read on - there are 164 articles that may be read as contained here on Relevancy22 by referring to the sidebars under "Science." Moreover, I would encourage all prospective students to join with me and others to reflect upon evolution through Philip Clayton's lifetime of reading, studying, writing and lecturing. We may, or may not, agree with him, but it would behoove us to understand some of the timely issues involved pertaining to Science and the Bible. As ever, may God bless those of His little ones, and the shepherds of their estates, unto the green pastures of His fellowship. That we might together behold His wonder, beauty and majesty. His nearness and weakness. As found within our present-day, and very mortal, lives' filled with His glory and grace. Amen.

 

R.E. Slater

September 10, 2013
edited September 23, 2013 re "teleology"

 

*ps - the books listed below will be part of the online class undertaken.
 

 

 

Biography

Philip Clayton is the Dean of Claremont School of Theology and Provost of Claremont Lincoln University. He also holds the Ingraham Chair at CST. Clayton earned a joint PhD in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Yale University and has held visiting appointments at Harvard University, the University of Cambridge, and the University of Munich. He has published over 20 books and hundreds of academic and popular articles.

 

Over the course of 25 years of teaching and researching, Clayton's interests migrated gradually from philosophy through the science-religion debate to constructive theology.Explanation from Physics to Theology: An Essay in Rationality and Religion (Yale 1989) and several dozen articles explored similarities and differences in how knowledge and explanations function across the disciplines.The Problem of God in Modern Thought (Eerdmans 2000) and a series of accompanying articles explored the fall and rise of theistic metaphysics in the modern era. Clayton then moved into a variety of leadership positions in the international debate on the science-religion relationship, including Principal Investigator of the Science and the Spiritual Quest program. He has been an outspoken advocate for multi-cultural and multi-religious approaches to the field. Clayton has written or edited over a dozen books in this field and spoken on the topic in almost every continent. Recent works include Adventures in the Spirit (Fortress 2009), In Quest of Freedom (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2009), The Predicament of Belief (Oxford 2012, with Steven Knapp), and Religion and Science: The Basics (Routledge 2012).

 

A series of events precipitated the most recent turn: leading the Ford Foundation grant "Rekindling Theological Imagination" with Marjorie Suchocki; lecturing around the country on emergent Christianity; organizing the "Theology After Google" event; and launching the "Big Tent Christianity" movement with Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Tripp Fuller, and others. Transforming Christian Theology: For Church and Society (Fortress 2009) argued that seminaries should help prepare Christian leaders for an unheralded transformation in the church, which has already begun in our culture. Soon thereafter the invitation came to help lead Claremont School of Theology as it becomes the Christian member of an interreligious consortium of schools known as Claremont Lincoln University. The offer was too tempting to refuse.

 

 

Book Description - Religion and Science

 

Publication Date: September 22, 2011 | ISBN-10: 0415598567 | ISBN-13: 978-0415598569

 

Religion and science are arguably the two most powerful social forces in the world today. But where religion and science were once held to be compatible, most people now perceive them to be in conflict. This unique book provides the best available introduction to the burning debates in this controversial field. Examining the defining questions and controversies, renowned expert Philip Clayton presents the arguments from both sides, asking readers to decide for themselves where they stand:

• science or religion, or science and religion?

• Intelligent Design vs. New Atheism
 
• the role of scientific and religious ethics – designer drugs, AI and stem cell research
 
• the future of science vs. the future of religion.

 

Viewpoints from a range of world religions and different scientific perspectives are explored, making this book essential reading for all those wishing to come to their own understanding of some of the most important debates of our day.

 

 

Book Description - The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (Oxford Handbooks in Religion and Theology)

 

Publication Date: July 15, 2008 | ISBN-10: 0199543658 | ISBN-13: 978-0199543656

 

The field of "religion and science" is exploding in popularity among academics as well as the general reading public. Spawning an increasing number of conferences and courses, this field has shown an unprecedented rate of growth in recent years. Here for the first time is a single-volume introduction to the debate, written by the leading experts. Making no pretense to encyclopedic neutrality, each chapter defends a major intellectual position: at the heart of the book is a series of "pro" and "con" papers, covering each of the current "hot topics" (such as evolution versus creation, naturalism versus the supernatural). In addition to treatments of questions of methodology and implications for life and practice, the Handbook includes sections devoted to the major scientific disciplines, the major world religions, and the main sub-disciplines in this exciting and ever-expanding field of study.

Index to past discussions -

 

Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Arminian Ordo Salutis (Order of Salvation)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/08/an-arminian-ordo-salutis-order-of-salvation/

 

by Roger Olson

August 23, 2013

Comments

 

I was recently asked here to provide an Arminian order of salvation (ordo salutis).

 

First, what is an order of salvation? In theology the technical term is “ordo salutis.” From now on, here, I’ll simply refer to it as “ordo.” An ordo is an attempt to put into logical, not chronological, order the events that lead up to, and take place in, and follow, a person’s initial salvation. But these are chronological terms, of course, and there isn’t any way to delineate an ordo without using chronological language at least some of the time. Many theologians, however, would argue that, like the decrees of God, these ordo events are not necessarily chronologically sequential—especially from God’s point of view.

 

The Bible and Christian tradition use many terms to identify things God does - and things the person being saved does - in relation to turning from being “lost” to being “found” (to use evangelical language) or from being “damned” to being “redeemed.” The Bible nowhere lays out a single, clear ordo, so a major task of systematic theology has been to bring together all the biblical concepts of personal salvation and put them in logical order.

 

Why? Because inquiring minds want to know what God does and what we do in our becoming saved persons.

 

This issue of a proper ordo became pressing during the Protestant reformation which is not to say it want't an issue before. However, Protestants, with their emphasis on grace alone and faith alone, felt the need to offer an alternative ordo to the typical Catholic ordo which emphasized sacraments and works of love as instrumental causes of saving grace. Calvinists worked out their own ordo (with some variations) that emphasized the priority of grace over human decisions or actions.

 

Arminianism, and Remonstrantism [(sic,  Dutch Arminianism's doctrinal differences with strict Calvinists as set forth in c.1610)], was, in many ways, simply an attempt to mediate between Catholic and Calvinist ordos - both of which were viewed by Arminius and the Remonstrants as imbalanced.

 

To put the matter simplistically, Arminians have always viewed the Catholic ordo as over emphasizing Philippians 2:12 to the neglect of the immediately following verse and the Calvinist ordo as over emphasizing Philippians 2:13 to the neglect of the immediately preceding verse. According to classical Arminianism, the biblical ordo must do justice equally to God’s action and ours in salvation with priority being given to God’s without neglecting ours as essential. [Essentially, this is the difference between Faith and Works.... That is, if a believer has faith then there should proceed from his/her's life works of the Spirit, and without those works that believer's faith had never occurred.  - R.E. Slater]....

Philippians 2

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

Christ's Example of Humility

2 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, ² complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. ³ Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. ⁴ Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. ⁵ Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,^{[a] 6} who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁷ but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,^[b] being born in the likeness of men. ⁸ And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. ⁹ Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, ¹⁰ so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹ and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Lights in the World

¹² Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, ¹³ for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

¹⁴ Do all things without grumbling or disputing, ¹⁵ that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, ¹⁶ holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. ¹⁷ Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. ¹⁸ Likewise you also should be glad and rejoice with me.
 

 

So here is my attempt to lay out an Arminian ordo:

 

1) God’s electing grace in Christ of all who will believe in him;

 

2) Christ’s atoning, reconciling death for all sinners;

 

3) Prevenient grace given by God to sinners through the Word [and perhaps, "through baptism by water"*] (calling, convicting, illuminating, enabling);

 

4) Conversion (repentance and faith) enabled by assisting, prevenient grace;

 

5) Regeneration, justification, adoption, union with Christ, indwelling of the Holy Spirit;

 

6) Sanctification;

 

7) Glorification.

 

Remember—these are not necessarily chronologically sequential. Especially 3, 4, 5 and 6 may be temporally simultaneous. (Of course, some Arminians will view all as temporally simultaneous in God’s awareness as God does not experience temporal sequence of events.)

 

- *Now, some Arminians, especially high church, sacramental Arminians, will want to insert baptism into the ordo. I would simply say they include that with 3—baptism as a means of prevenient grace but they will want to add “the water” after “through.”

 

- Some Arminians will view 6 as a process beginning with 5 and ending only with 7 while others, especially Wesleyans, will view 6 as potentially complete before 7.

 

The main point is this: In this Arminian ordo, in contrast to a typical Catholic one, a clear logical distinction is made between 4, 5 and 6. 6 is in no way a cause of 4 or 5. And in contrast to a typical Calvinist ordo, 5 logically follows 4.

 

Why does this matter? Well, Arminians believe this is the pattern of evangelism in the Bible—the call to repent and believe is serious; without repentance and faith, enabled by prevenient grace, one cannot be fully saved (regenerated, justified, etc.).

 

Nor may one cannot count on God doing that for him or her apart from his or her free acceptance [that is, the usage of one's free will as given him/her by God to actively and willfully choose for God. - RE Slater]. There is urgency to the call to conversion. It is something we do, enabled by God, in response to God’s call, and not something that just happens to us. It is freely entering into a new relationship, not just having a new condition imposed.

 

 

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discerning the Christian Meaning of Targeted Words

Literally Changing What It Means
http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2013/08/22/literally-changing-what-it-means/

by Bo Sanders

August 22, 2013

Comments

 

Yesterday it came out that the definition of ‘literally’ was literally being changed in the dictionary. A CNN report said in places  as informal as Google and as official as  Mariam-Webster and Cambridge dictionaries it is now “”Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.”

 

The writer of the article was snarky:

Next thing they’ll be telling us that there’s no ham in hamburger, no egg in eggplant, a boxing ring isn’t round and tennis shoes aren’t just for tennis.

We’re literally over it.

The meaning of words drift, adapt and change over time. There is the famous example of “Thou” that Martin Buber brought so much attention to. The dictionary does not determine their meaning as much as it reflects their use.

 

Today an article appeared over at the Sojo blog by our beloved friend (and co-host of the Culture Cast) Christian Piatt who had a chance to interview Eric Elnes, author of Phoenix Affirmations: A New Vision for the Future of the Christian Faith and Asphalt Jesus, about the changing face Christianity in 21st America.

 

Elnes walked across the country:

  in 2006 with a group called CrossWalk America, which included a network of 150 churches from a dozen or so denominations and over 11,000 individuals. We walked to raise awareness that not all Christians are alike, and that large — and growing — numbers of Christians embrace a more “progressive” vision of Christianity than what one finds portrayed in the media. 

Part of what came out of that experience was an awareness of the need for some new labels and to modify the meaning of some old ones. In both classically liberal/mainline circles and, interestingly, in conservative camps as well.

I will let you read the article for the whole conversation.  The part that stood out to me (and to Geoff Holsclaw who pointed me to it) was the section related to the label ‘progressive’. For the past couple of weeks I have enjoyed a lively set of conversation here about the Liberal Label and ‘progressive’ among others. Elnes explains why he has moved on from simple ‘progressive’:

Don’t get me wrong when I back off of the word “progressive.” This has been my adopted label for years, and the walk was made in the name of Progressive Christianity. But I’ve had to come to terms with its weaknesses. For many Christians, “progressive” is just another term for classic Christian liberalism. They have adopted the label because it’s more publically acceptable than “liberal.” 

Christian liberalism was an important movement in America in the 19th and 20th centuries, and without it, Christianity would be struggling even more than it already does to embrace science and issues of social justice. But like any movement, liberalism has had a certain lifespan. We gleaned the best insights of liberalism and moved on long ago.

My favorite line is “ We also appreciate many of the fruits of liberalism, like social justice, inclusivity, and openness to other faiths. We affirm the positive role that doubt and uncertainty play in a healthy faith, recognizing that faith and science can be allies in the pursuit of truth.”

 

The reason I enjoyed the article so much was that it reflected some classic journeys about how people came to envision themselves as liberal, conservative, and progressive. I hear these stories all the time. I love these stories. Listening to people’s faith journey is one of my favorite things about what I do.

 

The problem is that I do not find myself in those stories – not exactly....

 

I grew up Evangelical with a hint of the charismatic. In my 20′s I went to Bible college was both emboldened in my charismatic leanings and horrified at the conservative nastiness I often encountered by those I shared the classroom with. People who grew up a little more fundamentalist or reformed than me had a very different experience of being Evangelical. There was some type of culture war … we were wrapped up in evangelism, missions, and issues of holiness – but without that culture clash. (in hind site, it was probably because we were allergic to politics).

 

After college I had a decade-long pastorate in an evangelical/charismatic church plant. I loved it. In the final years of that time I started reading N.T. Wright and then Brian McLaren – instead of Josh McDowell and Ravi Zacharias. I was warned by denominational leadership to be careful with that McLaren guy but by then I was on my way to George Fox Evangelical Seminary. I assumed I would study with Len Sweet until I met Randy Woodley.

 

Fast-forward 6 years and I am presently prepping for qualifying exams as a classically mainline grad school and ministering at a mainline church (albs & stoles – stained glass and lectionary). I never stopped praying however. I never went through that predictable thing that Elnes describes. Yes, I moved on from the superstitious elements of the tradition. Sure, I reformatted my cosmology and even adapted my metaphysics. I engaged Biblical scholarship which radically altered my view of scripture. I realized that politics wasn’t just permissible but, as Jesus modeled, was necessary.

 

All of that is to say that I stand by my posts of the past 3 weeks that we need to move on from the Liberal label and with Elnes we need to nuance ‘progressive’ in ways that are more clear.  I like his distinctions within progressive christianity. I know people in all of those camps.

 

I, however, am going to stick with “spirit-filled processy christo-centric hyperTheist” for myself.

 

 

... if by a liberal they mean

someone who looks ahead and not behind,

someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,

someone who cares about the welfare of the people -

their health, their housing, their schools,

their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties...

if that is what they mean,

then I am proud to be a liberal.

 

- President John F. Kennedy, 1960

 

 

 

 

 

NPR Repost: "Making Better End-Of-Life Care Decisions"

 

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-06-17/making-better-end-life-care-decisions

 

NPR: The Diane Rehm Show

Monday, June 17, 2013 - 11:06 a.m.

 

Image used under Creative Commons from Flickr user Rosie O'Beirne
 

Making Better End-of-Life Care Decisions

 

Most Americans say they want to die at home, but few actually do. How movies made by two Harvard doctors can help patients make better end-of-life decisions.

 

Most Americans say they want to die at home, but 75 percent die in hospitals or nursing homes. Hospitalization often means aggressive, high-cost treatment at the expense of quality of life. And life-prolonging care accounts for 30 percent of total Medicare spending. Now, two Harvard doctors are making movies that visually depict common forms of end-of life care in hospitals. The short films show real patients receiving treatment such as emergency CPR and feeding tubes. Clinical studies show that patients who view these movies overwhelmingly opt out of costly, life-prolonging treatment. Diane and her guests discuss how to make better end-of-life decisions.

 

Guests

 

Angelo Volandes - physician and researcher at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital and co-Founder of the Advance Care Planning Decisions Foundation.

 

Aretha Delight Davis - physician at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Advance Care Planning Decisions Foundation.

 

Naftali Bendavid - correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, currently based in Brussels.

• Listen
• Comments
• Transcript

 

 

Inerrantism is more Muslim than Christian

Inerrantism is more Muslim than Christian: a thought from Lesslie Newbigin
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/08/inerrantism-is-more-muslim-than-christian-a-though-from-lesslie-newbigin/

 

by Peter Enns

August 9, 2013

Comments

And speaking of inerrancy….

 

One common defense of inerrancy is that, without it, confidence in Scripture is eroded, which will spread panic and chaos among the masses.

 

The missionary/theologian Lesslie Newbigin–no stranger to the masses–spent much of his life as a missionary in India, and was a strong voice in the need to bring the Gospel to the post-Christian, pagan (his word) western world that has accepted the myth of Enlightenment objectivity.

 

His blunt thoughts here on inerrancy exude commonsense, especially if you read it with a matter-of-fact British accent.
 

 

If the Bible is treated as a compendium of factually inerrant propositions about everything in heaven and earth, then it is impossible to explain both the contradictions between parts of the Bible and things we certainly know as the results of the work of science, and also the obvious inconsistencies within the Bible itself on factual matters. Even the most convinced fundamentalist who lives in the modern world has to rely at innumerable points on knowledge provided by science and not by the Bible. In fact this way of looking at the Bible is nearer to the Muslim way of looking at the Qur’an and prompts the question: “Why, then, did Jesus not write a book as the Prophet did?”

 

- Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 97,

 

The Qur’an-like Bible of inerrantists is an apt observation, and it is not hard to see this mentality at work at some of it most staunch defenders–a book that comes to us whole cloth from the vaults of heaven, always transcending the confines of shadowlands, it’s true home in the Platonic ideal world.

 

If what Newbigin describes above is a, let’s call it, “sub-Christian” view of Scripture, we can gather that:

A Properly Christian View is one that:

• does not treat Scripture as a compendium of  inerrant positions about everything in heaven and earth

• does not ignore advances in science and other fields of knowledge when articulating the nature of Scripture

• is aware, as a simple matter of observation, that the Bible contains contradictions and inconsistencies on factual matters

• understands that there is ultimately no neutrality in knowledge ](that is, we each have our own epistemological socio-economic-political beliefs)], but that does not mean one can take refuge behind “we all have presuppositions” to reject sure knowledge or factual matters derived from science

One can only hold the view of Scripture than Newbigin holds by taking seriously the incarnation and its implications for all of Christian theology. That holds for Newbigin’s view of missions and his view Scripture.

 

The half-serious joke I heard while in seminary (as a student and a professor) was, “Heresy begins in missions.” That’s where you have to deal with actual people. When you do, you may find that you will actually be changed in the encounter at least as much as they, and that your theological system, as airtight and divinely endorsed and immutable as you might think, often does not work when you wander away from home.

 

And so, you need to learn to think differently about yourself, your world, the Bible, even God. The question is whether such shifts are evidence of a move away from pure truth toward heresy, or of growth and humility on the Christian journey.