California

Esther and I are here on vacation in Scotts Valley, California, near Santa Cruz. We’re staying at the same Conference Center that we met at, almost exactly 7 years ago. Its been fun to explore — I really like this part of Northern California. We’re surrounded by beautiful, soaring redwood trees, but only 10 minutes from the beach. What a deal! Its been fun to re-connect with old friends, explore with Esther and Isaiah, and work on some scholarly projects.

I love living in California. I know we have a lot of economic problems, and there is a lot of cooky stuff out here. But the natural beauty of it has won me over, and I’m fascinated by the people, the gospel need, and the ever evolving culture. California feels like home, and I hope Esther and I can stay here for a long time, if not for the rest of our lives.

One my favorite things to do lately is take a day off to travel somewhere else in the Greater Los Angelos area. I’ve been to Simi Valley, Santa Clarita, and Rancho Santa Margarita. I like driving around and seeing the homes, the lay out of the town, the coffee shops. California is such an interesting place because it has relatively little history (excluding native American history) and yet has grown so rapidly, and because of the huge waves of immigration and the resultant diversity, and because its a melting pot for so much innovation, so much new culture, so many unique people. Its an interesting experiment of diversity and innovation. Its unlike any other place I know.

The best way I can describe the beauty of the mountains is to call it a desert version of Scotland — but the orange and brown instead of green don’t feel lifeless to me, they just have their own kind of beauty. At sunset, when I’m coming back from a hike on one of the trails near my house, the sky turns a kind of purple, and the temperature falls rapidly. That’s my favorite time of day.

Above all, California strikes me as a place where many misfits go. People who don’t find a place anywhere else often seem to find there way here. Its a place for quirks, oddballs, and people who don’t have the family or personal trajectory to keep them wherever they moved from. Especially Santa Cruz – there lots of interesting people here!

The more I drive around and explore out here, the more I feel like this is where I belong. I have a deep burden to see renewal in this part of the world. Lots of people from our area are moving to Texas or Colorado or somewhere cheaper. I totally understand that. But I hope we can stay in California for the long haul.

Read Full Post »

Why I find the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator Helpful

I used to be a bit skeptical about the value of personality tests like the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Then one of my professors in seminary, Dr. Phil Douglass, gave my wife and me a short article on “how INFJs and ENFPs relate to one another.” (I’m an INFJ, and my wife is an ENFP.) I read the article, and was shocked at how accurately it described our relationship: it felt like someone had been studying Esther and me for a while and written the article specifically about us. I began to study more, and the more I read, the more what I read hit home and helped me understand myself. Obviously personality is not our sum total, and the value of labels like “INFJ” is approximate and general. But I have found Meyers-Briggs so helpful that its almost impossible for me now to imagine processing life and relationships without reference to it. Here is a brief rundown of how I articulate the four dichotomies that make up the sixteen basic types of MBTI:

I (introversion) vs. E (extraversion). This dichotomy has to do with what energizes us. Introverts are energized by being alone; extraverts, by being with people. Introverts’ natural habitat is the internal world of their thoughts and ideas, extraverts natural habitat is the external world of people and things around them. Note that introversion is not the same as disliking people or being reclusive.

S (sensing) vs. N (intuition). This is, in my opinion, the least intuitive and initially clear of the four dichotomies, but perhaps the most important. It has to do with how we take in information. Sensing types tend to observe details; intuitive types tend to observe the relationships between details. S’s tend to like facts and data; N’s tend to like theories and the “big picture.” If I have learned one thing from MBTI, it is that communication between N’s and S’s can be very challenging.

T (thinking vs. F (feeling). This one concerns how we make decisions. Thinkers tend to make decisions in a more detached, logical way, based upon what is determined as best; feelers tend to empathize with a situation and make a decision based on harmony and feeling. This distinction has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.

P (perceiving) vs. J (judging). This one refers to our habits and daily modes of operating. J’s tend to be more structured, while P’s are more fluid. J’s are generally more on schedule, P’s are generally more adaptable to changing circumstances. Some people claim that this dichotomy is the sort cumulative net of the previous three: thus, it measures whether we extravert (everyone extraverts some of time) when we are making decisions (T/F) or when we are taking in information (N/S). But I’m not sure I fully understand that.

Here are the main ways MBTI has helped me:

1) It helps us not moralize personality strengths and weaknesses

No personality trait has any moral superiority to any other; God simply makes people differently. And yet it seems to me that we all tend to think that the way we operate is the “normal” one. For example, as a J, structure and discipline in my use of time come a bit more naturally to me. I generally stick to my Google calendar and enjoy crossing things off my to do list. For this reason, I could be tempted to look down on those who struggle with disorganization or procrastination, assuming they are lazy or negligent. On the other hand, many P’s I know find it easy to “go with the flow.” They are laid back, adaptable, open. These people may be tempted to view J’s as uptight or overly rigid or even controlling.

But while the disputes that can occur between a J and a P can touch upon moral issues, they are not necessarily moral issues. The line between “personality” and “wisdom” or “personality” and “right/wrong” is not always crystal clear. When is a P being last minute or lazy, and when are they simply operating as God designed? When is a J being too uptight, and when are they simply following their God-given internal clock? The same issues apply with the other letters: when is a T being unloving, and when are they simply being more direct in their communication? When is an I being reclusive or rude, and when are they simply functioning within their God-given independence?

I don’t always know the answers to these questions. But what personality studies like MBTI do is put the question on the table. They remind us that not all of our differences are moral differences, and thus help us not make unnecessary judgments. They help us leave room for God-given differences, and thus learn from others where we might be tempted merely to criticize, and be cautious to assume our way is always the right way.

2) It helps us understand and relate to people who are different from us.

It can be a disconcerting and even painful experience to just not “click” with someone. I find that when I understand more fully why a person operates differently than I do, it frees me to love and serve them without constantly analyzing what is going on. For example, as an IJ, I am naturally a bit more sensitive to interrupting. Its instinctive for me to approach conversations in a more deliberate, structured kind of way, waiting for someone to finish speaking and thinking in advance what I am going to say. Other personalities, such as EPs, tend to be more fluid and back-and-forth in their conversation style. I’m a mental processor (I think and then speak); EPs are usually verbal processors (they think by speaking).

I’ve discovered a brilliant tactic for relating to EPs in a way that leads to minimal frustration and miscommunication: I adopt their communication style. I step outside of myself and into their world by interrupting them as much they interrupt me, by chasing the conversation down whatever rabbit trails come up, by letting the conversation go wherever it goes. Its fun to be pulled out of the tediously narrow orbit of how I operate and enter into another (equally valid) planet in God’s solar system. And it makes for better and more balanced conversations. For example, if I did not understand MBTI, I would still be spending only 5% of my conversations with EPs talking and 95% listening. I used to rarely interrupt people, because I hate being interrupted (because I think and speak in complete, closed, connected thoughts). Now I know that interrupting rarely annoys EPs, because they think and communicate in open, expansive, fluid thoughts. In fact, it sometimes helps them — it assures them we are still engaged, and helps them process further what they are saying.

Similarly, when communicating with S’s, I try to bombard them with details. I give them way more than I would ever want to hear. If an S asks for a summary of my day, where I would normally compress it down into a two sentence propositional overview, I instead tell a narrative about something that happened (usually with another person) and walk through the specifics of the conversation. Whereas I might be bored by that detailed of an answer, S’s tend to enjoy it and take it all in. Knowing MBTI information draws me out of myself and helps me enter into others’ world. Its freeing.

3) It helps us understand and deal with our limitations and weaknesses.

There are many things in life that are extremely challenging for me that other people tend to find very easy and natural. (Hence the picture of the square peg above.) My intuition and sensitivity (NF) make me acutely aware of the emotional non-verbals others put off. When I’m sitting in a circle, I can read how people how are feeling. But my (strong) introversion and structured habits (IJ) make it difficult for me to fit into groups easily. I am fiercely independent. I think many people have often perceived me as stubborn. I’m sure I can be stubborn, but more often than not I think its an incapacity to blend in rather than a volitional choice to not blend in. So I live in the tension – the at times the seeming contradiction – of this acute sensitivity and fierce independence. I take in emotional information constantly, but sometimes so strongly that I feel overwhelmed by it. I have compassion towards people, but come across as aloof. I long for meaningful connections with others, but find there are precious few people with whom it happens. I feel awkward and anxious in situations others find easy, and comfortable in situations others find daunting. My least favorite scenario: unstructured group conversations with people I don’t know well, about topics I don’t care about. Ugh. Life has too many of these moments. On the other hand, I am very comfortable with public speaking, and get energized by long periods of study. Writing also comes naturally for me.

Until about age 25, I lived under the laborious assumption that this tension occurred because something was wrong with me. It was not until seminary that I began to realize that the way God has wired me is not an accident, but a strategy. My personality is well suited for my vocation: preaching, teaching, writing, discipling. I know why I have the weaknesses I do, so I’m less ashamed of them, and better able to compensate for them.

4) It helps us understand group dynamics.

In ministry, I’m often put in situations where I have to think about how different people will relate to one another. A classic example is leading a small group. I’m always amazed at how widely the group dynamic varies from week to another depending on who is there. Even missing or adding one person in a group of 20 changes the whole “feel” of the room. Knowing MBTI helps me understand why groups operate the way they do. For example, I think leading a small group composed entirely of extraverts is overwhelming, but leading one without any extraverts is almost impossible. They require two very different kinds of leadership! One is like fishing for fish that aren’t hungry, the other like harnessing a group of stampeding horses. Even one extravert helps a ton, because they often are quicker to answer, which helps the introverts talk more. When I started in ministry, I thought primarily in terms of the “content” of a lesson/study/group. Serving as a youth pastor has helped me learn to ask these kinds of “context” questions. Context matters because it affects how much of the content actually gets through to people. It doesn’t matter how great your message is if people don’t hear you. MBTI is a “context” issue when leading a small group.

Two questions about MBTI that fascinate me:

1) To what extent do ethnicity, nationality, culture, language, and family of origin yield similar differences?

2) To what extent can corporate entities like families, churches, businesses, communities, cities, or even nations, be characterized by personality traits? If the backbone presupposition of personality theory is that varied behavior is organized into patterns, couldn’t this apply to groups of people just as naturally as individual people? For example: I think Washington D.C. is an ENTJ city, and my current church is an ESFJ church. I think Great Britain is more introverted as a culture, and America more extraverted. I know these generalizations can be pushed to the point of absurdity – but I find they really do help you understand a culture.

Read Full Post »

If I were teaching a systematic theology class…

This quarter I had the privilege of TAing in a systematic theology class, and it got me thinking of how I would structure such as a class if I were teaching at a seminary. So the other night I planned out a rough sketch of how I would organize systematic theology classes, if I were teaching any of the main three that most seminaries offer. This assumes that I would be teaching at an institution on a 10-week quarter system, and at an institution which was evangelical and Protestant, and open to a broadly reformed approach. In the first two classes I have a number of shorter readings from throughout church history, and one lengthy contemporary book, because I think historical readings are often more helpful for learning theology than contemporary books. In the last class I chose only contemporary books because it seemed like the subject matter made it more appropriate. This is a very rough sketch, and it could probably be filled in with a lot more detail. But it was fun to plan a basic outline.

Systematic Theology I: God and Humanity (Theology and Anthropology)

Lectures:
1) Introduction and Theological Method
2) The Knowledge of God

Assignment: read St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 ways in Summa Theologica, write one page response

3) The Revelation of God

Assignment: read Anselm’s Proslogion, chapters 1-4, write one page response

4) The Trinity

Assignment: read C.S. Lewis’ “Beyond Personality: Or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity,” in Mere Christianity, write one page response

5) God’s attributes
6) Creation

Assignment: Book Review of Robert Letham’s The Holy Trinity due

7) Providence, including prayer and miracles

Assignment: Read Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy, Book 5, write one page response

8) Angels and Demons (Angelology and Demonology)
9) The Doctrine of Humanity (Theological Anthropology)

Assignment: Research Paper due

10) Sin (Hamartiology)

Assignment: read Augustine’s Confessions, Book 8, write one page response

Assignments:
-5 Readings and one page responses (15%, due throughout)
-Book Review of Robert Letham’s The Holy Trinity (3-4 pages, 15%, due week 6)
-Research paper (15 pages, on a topic of student’s choice, 35%, due week 9)
-Final Examination (from lectures, worth 35%)

Systematic Theology II: Christ and Salvation (Christology and Soteriology)

Lectures:
1) Introduction and Christ’s Person (1): Christological Heresies
2) Christ’s Person (2): Chalcedonian Christology

Assignment: Read Chalcedonian Creed, and Mark Noll’s “Doctrine, Politics, and Life in the Word: The Council of Chalcedon,” in Turning Points, write one page response

3) Christ’s virgin birth, incarnation, and earthly life

Assignment: Read Athanasius’ On The Incarnation of the Word, chapters 2-3, write a one page response

4) Christ’s atoning death (1)

Assignment: Read John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.16, write one page response

5) Christ’s atoning death (2)
6) Christ’s exaltation (including resurrection, ascension, intercession, and second coming)

Assignment: Book Review of Robert Peterson’s Salvation Accomplished By the Son due

7) The Doctrine of Election

Assignment: Read Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 2.2., paragraph 33, section 1, “Jesus Christ, Electing and Elected,” write one page response

8) Applied Soteriology (1): Regeneration, Conversion, and Justification
9) Applied Soteriology (2): Union with Christ, Adoption, and Sanctification

Assignment: Research Paper Due

10) Applied Soteriology (3): Perseverance and Glorification

Assignments:
-4 Readings and one page responses (15%, due throughout)
-Book Review of Robert Peterson’s Salvation Accomplished by the Son (3-4 pages, 15%, due week 6)
-Research paper (15 pages, on a topic of student’s choice, 35%, due week 9)
-Final Examination (from lectures, worth 35%)

Systematic Theology III: Spirit, Church, and Last Things (Pneumatology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology)

Lectures:
1) Introduction, and the Holy Spirit’s Person and Work
2) Spiritual Fruits and Gifts
3) The Nature and Marks of the Church

Assignment: Book review of Sinclair Ferguon’s The Holy Spirit due

4) Church Government and Discipline
5) Sacraments of the Church (1): Baptism
6) Sacraments of the Church (2): The Lord’s Supper

Assignment: Book Review of Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper due

7) The Worship of the Church
8) The Return of Christ

Assignment: Book Review of Four Views of the End Times due

9) The Millennium and Intermediate State

Assignment: Research Paper due

10) Heaven and Hell

Assignments:
-3 Book Reviews (3-4 pages each, 30%, due weeks 3, 6, and 8)
-Research paper (15 pages, on a topic of student’s choice, 35%, due week 9)
-Final Examination (from lectures, worth 35%)

Read Full Post »

Study Plans

I’ve been planning out a tentative schedule for the structure of my PhD. Here’s what its looking like so far, with notes below:

Fall 2012: seminar on the Doctrine of the Atonement, and Latin
Winter 2013: Independent Reading I
Spring 2013: Independent Reading II
Summer 2013: German
Fall 2013: Historiography seminar
Winter 2014: seminar on the Doctrine of the Trinity
Spring 2014: seminar on Calvin/Calvinism
Summer 2014: French
Fall 2014: Independent Reading III, and preparation for comprehensive exams

Then I would take my comps and start my dissertation on St. Anselm’s Proslogion. Here is what I am thinking for my Independent Readings:

Independent Reading I: “Fides Quaerens Intellectum Sola Ratione: St. Anselm’s Theological Epistemology in Historical Context”

This reading would concern the often disputed meaning of Anselm’s claim to argue sola ratione (by reason alone) in Monologion and Proslogion. This phrase is difficult because it seems superficially at odds with his stated method of “faith seeking understanding.” I want to argue that in a medieval world in which florilegia were among the most common theological documents and citing authorities was considered standard theological argumentation, “by reason alone” meant reason apart from authoritative church tradition, not reason apart from faith.  In historical context, it was a statement of method more than epistemology. By it Anselm signified his intention not to assume Christian authorities in his argumentation (so that an unbeliever could be convinced), not to take a position on the “faith verses reason” discussions one finds in a Philosophy of Religion textbook.

Independent Reading II: “God as Author, Creation As Story: Test Cases in a Theological Metaphor”

This reading would examine the Creator/creation relation in Boethius’ doctrine of divine foreknowledge, Calvin’s doctrine of the incarnation (particularly the so-called extra-Calvinisticum), and T.F. Torrance’s doctrine of Christ’s ascension. Each of these doctrines would be examined through the lens of an author/story metaphor for God/creation, as a way both to test this metaphor as well as to understand these doctrines more clearly.

Independent Reading III: “The Supremely Simple Unity: Divine Simplicity and Trinitarianism in Anselm and John of Damascus”

This reading would analyze the relation of divine simplicity and trinitarianism in St. Anselm’s Proslogion, chapter 23 and John of Damascus’ An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, chapters 9-10, as a sort of compare and contrast.

For my atonement seminar, my research paper is a rebuttal of two prominent critics of St. Anselm’s satisfaction theory, Gustav Aulen and (more recently) J. Denny Weaver. For the seminar on the Trinity, the paper I am thinking is “Developments in Trinitarianism, East and West.” I would examine different leanings in the formulation of Trinitarian theology in the East and West, looking especially at Augustine vs. the Cappadocian Fathers, but also Tertullian and John of Damascus a bit.

All of this, is, of course, if God permits! Its exciting to have it planned out a bit.

Read Full Post »

Vacation

For the past week Esther and I have been in Tennessee. We spent a few days in Knoxville for a wedding, and then a few more at my parents’ house near Nashville. It is so refreshing to be back in a cooler climate (as opposed to the constant heat back home), especially as the leaves are changing. I forgot how much I miss four distinct seasons. The first night we were here, I went on an hour and a half walk in the pouring rain throughout my parents’ neighborhood. Great time for prayer and reflection on life. Its rained almost everyday, and I’ve loved every minute of it. Being in a new region feels life-giving and life-enlarging – its a reminder of how much there is to the wide world, and it puts the grind of my daily routine into perspective. Right after we landed Esther and I ate at Cracker Barrel with Esther’s dad – man, it was culture shock just watching people. Cracker Barrel in Nashville! What a culture. Its weird to think I used to live here in the South, and in some ways I’m from here! I’ve spent the week watching Band of Brothers, studying Latin, going on lots of long walks, catching up with friends, and going on a date with Esther every night. Its refreshing to be away. I didn’t know how badly I needed it until I was here. But I’m also excited to be going home.

My Latin study has basically been translating a bunch of medieval and late patristic poetry, and bits from the Vulgate. My favorite poem right now is A Solis Ortus, a 5th century poem by Sedulius. My favorite line is palamque fit pastoribus pastor, creator omnium: and to the shepherds becomes clear the shepherd, the creator of all. Its interesting to detect the central place of the Incarnation in the historic worship of the church. In these readings I am again and again confronted with the paradox of Creator becoming creature for the salvation of the world. I sense a slight difference of approach and emphasis here from my evangelical and reformed upbringing. I’m more accustomed to put the focus on the cross, with the incarnation as a sort of precursor; these readings are more accustomed to put the focus on the incarnation, with the cross (and resurrection) as aspects of this broader movement. This relates to a more general question I’ve been asking throughout my atonement seminar: what is the best way to construe the various saving deeds in the life of Christ? Is the cross the epicenter, and the incarnation a precursor; or is the cross simply a climactic event in a larger whole, to be located in relation to the incarnation, the true epicenter? Or is this whole approach of seeking a center misleading insofar as it potentially flattens or chops up what should instead be a dynamic, seamless whole? I want to keep exploring this question, and keep grounding myself in thought and worship of the church over the centuries.

Read Full Post »

The Gospel Defines Contextualization

From D.A. Carson’s The Cross and Christian Ministry: Leadership Lessons from I Corinthians (Baker 1993):

“When the pressure to ‘contextualize’ the gospel jeopardizes the message of the cross by inflating human egos, the cultural pressures must be ignored…. However great Paul’s flexibility and cultural sensitivity, they are not open-ended; he draws the line where he thinks the gospel might be jeopardized” (34-35).

“Although Paul was an extraordinarily flexible apostle and evangelist, he had sorted through elemental Christianity in a profound and nuanced way so that he knew when he could be flexible and when he should not bend.  In other words, his grasp of theology enabled him to know who he was, what was expected of him, what he was free to do, and what he should not consider doing under any circumstances” (120-121).

Read Full Post »

Thoughts on Gay Marriage

I’ve been thinking about the issue of gay marriage lately. It seems like an issue that is going to be an increasingly divisive one in our culture, and in other post-Christian cultures, as secular and religious values become more and more polarized. Obviously its a hot issue in America in light of President Obama’s recent change of position, the Chick-Fil-A controversy, and the upcoming election. I recently watched a brief clip about how the issue fares in Australia. The majority of the public there supports legalizing gay marriage, and the news program showed four anchors interviewing a politician who favored gay marriage, and then discussing the issue among themselves afterwards. All four anchors were in favor of gay marriage, and spoke about it in such a way that made the issue sound obvious: if people are in love, shouldn’t they have the right to get married like everybody else? Shouldn’t people be treated fairly and equally? At one point one of the anchors even expressed impatience at having any more debate about gay marriage. The way the issue was cast seemed to have the subtle effect of making gay marriage look humane, compassionate, and fair, and the traditional view out of touch and even bigoted. As one who holds to a traditional definition of marriage, I remember thinking, “if I were there in that studio right now, I would probably be viewed as intolerant and judgmental before I ever opened my mouth, simply because of the view I hold.” It was quite an odd feeling, and it has motivated me to think through how I would seek to defend my view on this issue. Its not an easy issue to speak to, partly because some Christians have done so without love and humility, and partly because the issue itself seems to me to be a bit more complicated than some other social issues (such as abortion). I share these thoughts to seek the truth in my own thinking, and to offer some encouragements for others who hold to the traditional view, but may not have thought about how best to defend it. If anyone who supports gay marriage reads this post, I hope it comes as across as a courteous and respectful explanation as to why so many of us have not abandoned the traditional view. Even when we don’t change our minds, its still productive to seek to understand each other better.

First of all, I think its extremely important for those of us who come at this issue from a Christian worldview to be sensitive to our context when we are dialoging about it. If Christians are talking with other Christians, they naturally reason from the Scripture and from other aspects of a Christian worldview. But when Christians are dialoging in the public forum, quoting Bible verses is probably not going to make for a winsome or helpful case. It may even do more harm than good. Instead, there must be an appeal to arguments premised in common grace and natural law, and a case that will be compelling to someone who does share Christian presuppositions. We must start with sociology and statistics, not with Scripture. We must being with where people are already at, like Paul did in Acts 17. I don’t think this means the Bible can never be used in a debate, but too often Christians start with special revelation in a context when it would be wiser to argue from general revelation. Part of a Christian doctrine of love, it seems to me, defined in light of the Incarnation, is the entailment that we are intellectually generous in dialogue with those who think differently. This means we listen carefully. We rejoice over common ground. We eagerly seek to understand. We move towards people. We build bridges. We show concern. We think strategically about what will work in a given scenario, or with a particular person or group of people. We present the truth in a way that is least difficult (without compromising the truth). We seek not merely to be right, but to be persuasive – not merely to be faithful in proclaiming truth, but also to be effective in how we do so.

In addition, our speech must display compassion, tact, and humility. Christians have often offended the gay and lesbian community by speaking to issues related to homosexuality with a loveless self-righteousness that singles out homosexuality as a greater sin than their own. That is a violation of the heart of the gospel. It gives an impression of what Christianity is all about that is the exact opposite of the impression we want to give. That is like a pacifist spreading his message by picking fights, or charitable ministry funding itself by stealing from the poor. Jesus said, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). The gospel should so constrain our words and our tone that we are gracious in the face of hostility, and totally lacking in smugness or superiority. That is itself part of our case, and it alone will probably be more effective than any argument.

Before giving any reasons for or against gay marriage, I think its helpful to frame the issue historically. Until recently, virtually no civilization in the history of humanity advocated a definition of marriage including two people of the same gender. Various kinds of same sex-unions have existed in certain cultures in one form or another, but the idea that same sex unions be granted the same legal recognition as traditional heterosexual marriage is a recent, Western idea (and even here we are torn on it). This is helpful to draw out because it adds some weight to the traditional view: if it is inherently bigoted, then that means that the vast majority of human beings who have ever existed have been bigots. The traditional view may look like it is on the defensive in certain parts of the world today, but when seen against this broader historical backdrop, it is gay marriage which stands out as the radical minority view. Unless we assume that our cultural values in the modern West are superior to those of other cultures (and that would be bigoted), shouldn’t we humbly consider why so many other civilizations saw this differently, and be cautious about making a radical, unprecedented change?

In addition, I think its helpful to distinguish between the official definition of marriage and same-sex unions. Some people frame the issue as, “why should the government tell me who I can have a relationship with?” But the issue is not whether people are free to have same-sex relationships, but whether the official definition of marriage should be altered. This is a minor point, but its important because many people speak of the traditional view as though it were the government over-stepping its bounds. In reality, it is those who support gay marriage who are asking the government to do something, namely, alter the definition of marriage it has always had, which establishes the fundamental and most influential building block of society, the family. The issue is not simply about people being free to make their own choices. Its about the government making a radical change in how society is structured, which will exert significant influence on society as a whole. (As a youth pastor, I am passionately convinced that youth workers, social workers, and teachers can only ever have a fraction of the impact on a child’s life that their family has. I believe in what I do. But my ability to influence a teenager vs. their parents’ ability to influence them is about 3% to 97% at most. A person’s family is the primary molding influence on them.)

I think the strongest argument for traditional definition of marriage stems from a complementarian understanding of gender roles. I believe that male and female function in complementary ways towards each other: they are equal, but not interchangeable. You don’t need the Bible to see that men and women are different. The sociology is overwhelming. And if men and women are different, then it makes sense that they each have something unique to offer within the family. You can’t swap male and female in and out of roles without consequence. If your football team is comprised entirely of players who are more skilled at offense, or entirely of players who are more skilled at defense, you won’t have as strong of a team. Its not because defense or offense is better than the other, or more important. Its simply because they play different roles, and therefore you ideally want them both. Similarly, on the question of adoption, I think gay couples can be great parents. But on balance, an adopted child who had 2 dads or 2 moms is going to miss out on something that a child has with a mom and a dad. The two dads can be great dads, and two moms can be great moms, but no matter how great they are, you don’t have the complementarity a mom and a dad offer. (Of course, this doesn’t mean that all gay couples are bad parents, or all heterosexual couples are good parents.)

This complementarian understanding of gender is also why gay marriage cannot be compared to racial equality. Gender and race are not the same. There are no essential, structural differences between people of different race. There are essential, structural differences between male and female, and making that recognition (which is basic to the sociology) does not make one a sexist unless one believes the differences entail superiority and inferiority.

There are other arguments that can be made against gay marriage, but this is the one which I find most convincing. Its helpful for me to formulate my thoughts, and maybe its helpful to someone else out there. I fear that the debate over this issue will grow increasingly rancorous in the years ahead. Hopefully those of us who hold to the traditional view can make our case in a calm, reasonable, gracious, and effective way.

Read Full Post »

Latin Worship

My preparation for my Latin test last week required me to spend a lot of time in the “Further Readings” at the end of Collins’ A Primer on Ecclesiastical Latin. There were selections from the Vulgate, Aquinas, and the contemporary Roman Catholic church, but the larger majority were medieval or patristic hymns and poems. Because most of my exposure to patristic and medieval church writings has been in the realm of theology, it was fascinating to be immersed in these writings and encounter the worship of the early church. I found, first of all, the readings to be very inspiring and beautiful. Some “hymns only” advocates criticize contemporary praise songs for being historically short-sighted. But depending on what hymns we sing, this can also be historically short-sighted. Worship pre-dates the 1970′s, but it also pre-dates the Second Great Awakening. God has not gone without witness in any generation of the church. I wish David Crowder would make some of these medieval poems into worship songs. Seriously.

Second, I was struck by the prominent position of Mary in these writings, and in particular the doctrine of the Virgin birth. While I’m familiar with Roman Catholic Mariology, I was surprised at how interwoven Mary is with the worship and devotion and piety of the early and medieval church. I don’t believe in the veneration of Mary, but I certainly believe in the Virgin birth as a stimulus for worship, and spending time in these readings made people like Brunner look quite foolhardy for their attempt to maintain orthodoxy while denying the Virgin birth. When you discard a doctrine like the Virgin birth, you are not simply butting against the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, and the early creeds. You are butting against the weight of Christian worship and devotion over the centuries. You are not merely moving the train tracks; you are derailing the train that runs on those tracks. Look out.

Third, as I also experienced in my foray into the church fathers earlier this spring, I caught a vision of “mere Christianity” from these readings. This is not at all to downplay the importance of Reformation doctrine. I am Protestant, and the Reformed tradition in particular is a part of my heritage. Nevertheless, I am increasingly convinced that it is possible to be distinctly Protestant and, at the same time, have a solid appreciation for the steady progression of the Christian church throughout the centuries. The church did not disappear for a millennium as sola fide became obscured and church structure became complicated. Christianity did not sink into the mud during the era of castles and feudalism, only to re-emerge with Luther. No, there is a solid, steady chunk, that is called Christianity, that subsists through the middle ages. The 16th century Reformation of the church should not be re-named the Recreation of the church. For anyone who doubts this, all I can say is, read medieval worship!

Here are some of my favorite quotes:

1) From the Exsultet, an Easter proclamation of praise by Ambrose:

Nihil enim nobis nasci profuit, nisi redimi profuisset. O mira circa nos tuae pietatis dignatio! O inaestimabilis delectio caritatis: ut servum redimeres, Filium tradidisti!

For our birth would have benefited us nothing, if we had not been redeemed. O amazing condescension of your goodness concerning us! O immeasurable delight of love: in order to ransom you servant, you surrendered your Son!

2) From Stabat Mater, a 13th century hymn to Mary by Jacopone da Todi, reflecting on seeing Mary standing at the cross:

Quis est homo, qui non fleret, matrem Christi si videret in tanto supplicio?

Who is the man, who does not weep, if he sees the mother of Christ in such great agony?

3) From Vexilla Regis, by Venantius Fortunatus, 6th century:

Vexilla Regis prodeunt: fulget Crucis mysterium, qua vita mortem pertulit, et morte vitam protulit.

The flags of the King go forth: the mystery of the cross shines, by which life took away death, and gave back life by death.

4) From Pange Lingua, by the same author, celebrating the incarnation of God in the womb of Mary:

Et Dei manus pedesque stricta cingit fascia.

And the hands and feet of God are surrounded with a tight wrapping.

5) From Aquinas’ Verbum Supernum:

Se nascens dedit socium, convescens in edulium se, moriens in pretium, se regnans dat in praemium.

Being born, he gave himself as our companion; eating, he gave himself in food; dying, he gave himself in ransom; ruling, he gives himself in reward.

6) And from A Solis Ortus, by Sedulius, 5th century

Beatus auctor saeculi servile corpum induit: ut carne carnem liberans, ne perderet quos condidit.

The blessed Creator of the world took on a servant’s body so that, liberating flesh by his flesh, he would not lose those whom he had made.

Palamque fit pastoribus pastor, creator omnium.

And to the shepherds became plain the Shepherd, the Creator of all.

7) From Veni, Creator Spiritus by Rabanus Maurus, 9th century:

Accende lumen sensibus, infunde amorem cordibus, infirma nostri corporis, virtute firmans perpeti.

Let light kindle our senses, pour out love on our hearts, strengthening the weaknesses of our body with perpetual strength.

Deo Patri sit gloria, et Filio, qui a mortuis surrexit, ac Paraclito, in saeculorum saecula. Amen.

To God the Father be glory, and to the Son, who rose from the dead, and to the Helper, unto the ages of the ages. Amen.

Read Full Post »

Laboratory

Sometimes the Christian idea that there is life after death can be tough for people in our cultural setting to accept. I think the resurrection of Jesus provides the ultimate basis for the Christian hope, but more basically, within the realm of natural revelation and common grace, I think the finitude of natural reality is also suggestive. If at one time the universe was not, and then at another time it was, then there must be something beyond the universe. And if there is something beyond the universe, its not difficult to imagine that expiring within the universe is a sort of transit to whatever is outside the universe. In other words, if the physical universe is not the ultimate Fact which is, then the best way to see it as a kind of laboratory, preparing us for whatever (or Whoever) put it here.

Read Full Post »

Some thoughts on Noll and Nystrom’s Is The Reformation Over?

I just finished reading Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom’s Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism (Baker Academic, 2005). It was fascinating the learn more about contemporary Roman Catholicism from this book. I leave the book having a working understanding of the rough contours of contemporary Roman Catholic theology, the massive role of Pope John Paul II in shaping contemporary Catholicism, the significance of the Council of Trent and Vatican I and II, the significance of the 1999 “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,” the importance of the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is the Roman Catholic Church’s official statement on its theology), and a general awareness of the numerous Protestant-Catholic councils that have met over the past few decades for the purpose of seeking unity. I also have a greater appreciation for how the differences between Catholics and Protestants often boil down to not just differing specific theological positions, but differing ways of thinking about theology. For example, in commenting on the remaining ecclesiological differences between Protestants and Catholics, Noll and Nystrom write, “for Catholics, the church constitutes believers; for Protestants, believers constitute the church” (238). Thus in our dialogues the need for more than mere proof-texting (though that may have a place): we need to work hard at understanding how the opposing view thinks.

It seems to me that there are indeed numerous and significant areas of common ground between Roman Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism, and that these areas have become much more evident over the past several decades. For one thing, the Catholic Church has gone through massive changes in the last few generations. In addition to the general broadening under Vatican II and the pontificate of John Paul II, the 1999 Joint Declaration and the second Evangelicals and Catholics Together publication have made it clear that the Catholic doctrine of justification has moved significantly towards a Protestantism one (though while sola fide is affirmed in principle, imputation remains a point of dispute, as well as the general soteriological context of the Catholic doctrine of justification, with its view of purgatory, penance, etc.). Secondly, the robust supernaturalism of Roman Catholic theology (e.g., its affirmation of biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth, etc.) makes it a generally more loyal ally to evangelical Protestantism than hard-core liberal Protestantism. Third, the rise of secularism in the West increases many evangelicals appreciation for the Catholic church’s social conservatism, especially on an issue like abortion. Fourth, the political polarization which once exacerbated Protestant-Catholic antagonism in the United States has melted away the second half of the 20^th century (cf. pp. 210ff.). All this has brought about a massive change in Catholic-Protestant dialogue, and its appropriate to revisit this relationship.

For me personally, judging Catholic doctrine by the 1994 catechism, I would position contemporary Roman Catholicism within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy (unlike Mormonism and other cults which deny the doctrine of the Trinity). I can rejoice that evangelicals and Protestants share many of the core elements of the gospel message, such as the deity of Christ and His substitutionary death.  I believe that Catholics can be regenerate and Protestants can and should have unity in the gospel with such Catholics. I look forward to meeting Tolkien, Chesterton, Kreeft, Muggeridge, and Pascal (just to name a few) in heaven.

And yet reading through this book (as well as living in “feel good” Southern California) also increased my concern of the danger of getting swept up into the massive drift toward doctrinal indifferentism and minimalism in our culture. The remaining differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are vast, and should not be downplayed in reaction to the antagonism of the past or in light of our sense of isolation in an increasingly secular culture. The question in the book’s title is in my opinion clumsily worded (how can a historical event of the past not be over?) and ambiguously answered in the book, though in the last paragraph the authors do hint that the gap is being bridged:

Not so very long ago Catholics and evangelicals looked upon each other as orcs and lefs and were as repelled by orc-speech and elf-speech as it was possible to be. Today, it is more like ents and hobbits, not yet speaking the same language and certainly misunderstanding much that the other says but nonetheless communicating quite well and actually learning from the apparent idiosyncrasies of the other tongue. Might God do even more? Look around. Listen. It is happening right before our eyes and ears. Soli Deo gloria (251).

I don’t share Noll and Nystrom’s optimism here, and I think it downplays the significant theological differences which remain between the Catholic church and Protestantism. The issue of the Papacy alone is enough to make continued separation necessary – how could different churches unite under one banner when some believe they must submit to the bishop of Rome as the head of the church on earth, infallible when speaking ex cathedra, and others reject this view as a human tradition without divine warrant? Further outstanding differences include the veneration of Mary, the role of tradition and the church in relation to Scripture as a three-fold source of authority, the number, nature, and role of the sacraments in the life of the church, and traditional Roman Catholic doctrine such as penance and purgatory (both reaffirmed in the 1994 Cathechism). Further, as noted above, important differences on the doctrine of justification remain. While we should rejoice in the common ground we share, its not helpful or wise to downplay these remaining important differences.

On pp. 242ff. Noll and Nystrom interpret different developments in the history of the Christian church as necessary cultural adaptations of the gospel in different settings. So first was Eastern Orthodoxy, which adapted the gospel to the Hellenism of the Mediterranean  in the 3rd to 5th centuries. Second was Roman Catholicism, which adapted the gospel to European forms of church-state Christendom in the medieval era. Then came Protestantism, which adapted the gospel to the vernacular languages of Europe and the modern era. Finally has come Pentecostalism, which is adapting the gospel to the global south. There is an element of truth in this historical presentation. It reminds me of a metaphor I once heard from a well-meaning friend concerning why some Christians are in the Eastern Orthodox Church: “different kinds of sheep need different kinds of pastures.” In this view, I suppose the splits and divisions throughout Christendom are good things – indeed, part of God’s plan for reaching the world.

But in my opinion there are a number of problems with this historical interpretation. First of all, the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are not a matter of historical succession or adaptation to culture. Many of those differences emerged at the same time in relatively similar cultures – Rome and Constantinople in, say, the 8th century were not such different cities as requiring different versions of Christianity. One thinks of differing views of the extent of the authority of the Roman bishop, or different views on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son in God’s triune relations, or different views on what is the acceptable use of icons in worship. The differences here were not successive cultural adaptations, but flat out theological differences that occurred between Christians living at the same time in a relatively similar culture. Second, Pentecostalism is not comparable to the other major developments of Christianity in that it is a kind of Protestantism, not an official break from Protestantism. This relates to a larger point that Carl Trueman hammers again and again in his review, namely, comparing Roman Catholicism and evangelicalism is like comparing apples and oranges, because the former is a specific church with official councils, creeds, rulings, and spokespeople, while the latter is a trans-denominational movement among various kinds of churches.

But most significantly, a belief in the objectivity of truth must restrain Noll and Nystrom’s historical interpretation of the development of Christendom, as well as their entire theological discussion, and whenever the conversation becomes specific, rather than vague, this point comes into clear focus. For example, either Mary was sinless (as Rome teaches) or she sinned (as the Protestant churches teach). It cannot be both ways. Either the Roman bishop has authority over the church or he does not not. Either purgatory exists or it does not. Either justification includes the imputation of alien righteousness or it does not. The truth cannot be both ways, and everyone, whether intentionally or merely functionally, takes a side one way or the other. Theological indifferentism is ultimately no less specific than having detailed theological convictions, because everyone has a functional, default theology. But it is often less carefully thought through.

Read Full Post »