I make a lot of excuses for not posting regularly. Lately the problem has been my preoccupation with the election. Considering my last couple of posts, I thought that I should make a list of those issues that I felt were important to think about in determining the choice of president (without the party divisions). I did, and intended to post them, but came to the conclusions that this was not the appropriate forum. In any event, the election results are coming in as I type, and as such they were only helpful to myself. If anyone would like them, however, let me know.

One of my online classes is required to do a review of Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation, Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Baker, 2005). Enns makes an interesting point regarding the nature of Scripture. He recalls a professor in graduate school who made the comment that “For Jews the Bible is a problem to be solved. For Christians, it is a message to be proclaimed.” Enns applies this point to the differences between Jewish and Christian interpretation of the Scriptures. Ancient Jewish interpreters were not largely concerned with solving the problems of interpretation once and for all but rather “upholding a conversation with Scripture with creative energy” (pg. 72). They were quite comfortable with the unresolved tension exhibited in the way that many of their major texts proposed different and even contradictory interpretations of the Old Testament. Seemingly irreconcilable interpretations of the scriptures stood side-by-side without a felt need to be reconciled. Modern Evangelicals, Enns remarks, are not so happy when faced with similar situations.

As quite distinct from Jewish interpretation, the history of modern evangelical interpretation exhibits a strong degree of discomfort with the tensions and ambiguities of Scripture. The assumptions often made are that Scripture should have no tension and that any such tension are not real but introduced from the outside, namely by scholarship hostile to evangelical Christianity . . . . If the Bible is written ultimately by one author, God, there is little room for tensions (pg. 72).

I have thought about this idea for some time, especially with regard to the way Evangelicals see the Bible. Evangelicals tend to see the Bible as God’s instruction book of life. It is not something we are in dialogue with but rather something that with a unified message instructs us on all matters of life. I often hear the Bible referred to as “The Owners Manual of Life.” By this it is meant that the Bible contains the answer for every life question and problem. Just like your car’s owner’s manual tells you how to change the oil, the Bible tells you how to have a good marriage. The owner’s manual tells you how to adjust the radio, the Bible tells you how to raise good children. The owner’s manual tells you when to have your car serviced, the Bible tells you how to handle your finances. All the questions of life are addressed in a neat and unified fashion; you just need look inside. In fact, the Bible not only tells you how to do these things, it tells you how to do them better than any other source.

A while back I received an edition of a denominational journal that was dedicated to addressing issues of family and society. As I perused the journal every article was introduced with the phrase, “The Gospel and…” followed by a list of the numerous subjects such as family, social issues, finance, work, and so on. Each article showed how the Bible addresses these subjects in an authoritative way. The Bible appeared to be more of a “how to” book than the message of redemption. The reader was left with the impression that it was as an all-inclusive manual: a book about family, business, finances, politics, ethics & morals, etc.

I am coming to the opinion that looking at the Bible as a “how to” book may be one of greatest obstacles to understanding it. When this is done the “how to message” usually takes president over “the message.” The theology of the creation narratives become a scientific polemic against evolution. The story of Joseph is about his virtue rather that God’s covenant keeping character. Jesus’ parables on the nature of the kingdom become lessons on personal finance. This mistaking of the point is seen most prominently in church curriculum. Every lesson is an encapsulated truth about family, finance, church, friends, relationships, and on and on. Stories and teachings are rarely if ever set within their setting of redemptive history.

The fact is, the Bible is not a book about finance, marriage, business, and so on; it is primarily about God’s unfolding plan of redemption. Certainly portions of it touch on subjects peripheral to this, but when the peripheral becomes the center, we all loose.

Posted by Dwight at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Does it ever bother you that almost everything you know about what is happening in the world, all of the information about events and happenings that go on everyday, are mediated to you through people who want you to see the meaning of those events the same way as they do? Just the thought of it drives me crazy. My turmoil is only exacerbated during election time. I am sick to death of the entire thing! Discerning what is true has become almost impossible. Do you really know that what you're hearing is true? Are you convinced that turning to your favorite news channel solves the problem?

Posted by Dwight at 1:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A colleague sent me a link to today’s edition of Zondervan Academic’s Koinonia blog. One of the blogs by Roger Olson is entitled “10 Questions to Consider Before Voting”. Quoting from the site: “Roger E. Olson (PhD, Rice University) is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University in Waco, Texas and author of the recent book, How to be Evangelical without being Conservative.”

Olsen was asked to give "food for thought" in guidance of how to vote in the upcoming elections. He put his advice into the form of ten questions, five for Republicans and five for Democrats. They are:

5 Questions to consider before voting Republican:
1) What will happen to the poor in a Republican administration?
2) Will a Republican administration pursue world peace?
3) How will a Republican administration promote mercy, compassion and justice for all?
4) Is a Republican administration likely to be unduly influenced by large corporations?
5) Can a Republican administration show respect for every human person's dignity and rights?
5 Questions to consider before voting Democratic:
1) What will happen to the not-yet-born in a Democratic administration?
2) Will a Democratic administration keep America and others safe from terrorism?
3) How will a Democratic administration promote security and safety for Americans and others?
4) Is a Democratic administration likely to be unduly influenced by liberal special interest groups?
5) Can a Democratic administration show respect for traditional family values?

See the full blog here.

I think these are very good questions that everyone should ask. I only have one problem with them and that is the way they are divided into political parties. For some time I have been troubled by those who in stereotypical fashion divide questions like this. I have seen very similar stereotyping from evangelical watchdog types, people I highly respect, but who seem to think they know what all Republicans and Democrats are concerned about. List like this reflect what they believe are the concerns of those on each side of the political debate. Quite frankly, I think they are wrong in their assumptions and by doing this commit the very sin they hate the most -- the categorizing of people according to some preconceived notion. The fact is that when I talk to my democratic friends, most of them are concerned about all of the things that are on the “Republican list,” and the same can be said when I speak to my Republican friends. They too are concerned about the things on the “Democrat list.” There is a broad mainstream in this country that is concerned about the whole list. I know of few Democrats who like abortion, and few Republicans who are not concerned about world peace. The idea that Republicans are not concerned about the poor is just as ludicrous as the idea that Democrats are not concerned about terrorism. The problem that I see with lists like this is that they perpetuate a mythical idea about the differences between people in this country. It’s a shame. It makes me think that some of these people never get out and talk to their neighbors, or more probably that they have chosen to live and work among people who think only like themselves. I don’t know if this is true of Roger Olsen, but I do wish that the list didn’t include the party divisions.

Posted by Dwight at 3:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Just a bit of an update: we finally bought a house and moved! Five 28 ft. truckloads and three days was all it took to totally wipe us out. In the process our oldest son Noah got very sick and was admitted to the hospital. At first the doctors feared that he had meningitis. He was immediately taken to the emergency where they gave him a whole host of tests. Thank God, they eventually ruled it out. They were unable to diagnose his symptoms, however, leading to a weeklong stay in the hospital. They finally concluded that he had a staph infection combined with a reaction to an antibiotic he had been taking. He’s now back at it and for this we are very thankful. As a parent, events like this shake you; your sick child usually deals with it much better than you do. Among the many things that kids usually do not know about their parents, heading the list is surely how much their parents love them. As a kid I always knew my parents loved me, but it wasn’t until I had my own that I knew how much.

I wish I could say that I was upbeat about the political and financial situation of our nation/world right now. I have been very skeptical of our political system for some time. Although we have probably had eras that were more partisan that today, that is no relief to me. I am so disappointed with a political system in which important issues cannot be dealt with because one side or the other refuses the to allow their opponents to get the credit. Nothing important gets done and each side blames the other. I want to scream when I hear otherwise intelligent people blathering on the airways that one side is “totally to blame” for the mess we are in. It is shocking how many people buy into the rhetoric.

I am looking forward to SBL this year in Boston. Have been teaching six classes this semester, something I told myself I would never do again (frowning face here). I enjoy the time to get away and be challenged as I listen to others talk!

Posted by Dwight at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have been asked by a number of friends if I have fallen off the edge of the earth. No, that’s only the U.S. economy and the stock market. I am here, busier than ever. I have a lot to post and will be again making regular idiotic rants beginning this week. Thank you to all my wonderful friends who have wondered if I had given up. NO! I have not. In the words of Arnold, "I'll be back."

Posted by Dwight at 9:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Among many churches it is a strongly held belief that people must always be given a chance to respond to the preaching of the word. The churches I grew up in were of this persuasion. This meant that just about every service would conclude with a time to respond to the message by coming forward and praying and/or being prayed for. Quite often the message that elicited the response was a general call to "get right with God" because (and this was always tagged on even if it was not part of the message) "Jesus is coming soon." It could be any time, and if he came when I was not right I would miss the rapture and be left to face the wrath of God and the Antichrist in the horrible seven years of the Great Tribulation.

When faced with various decisions of life people sometimes ask, "What's the worst that could happen?" For me missing the rapture was the worst thing that could happen. I know of few who grew up with this teaching that have not experienced the horror of coming home fully expecting family to be there, only to find no one . . .yet signs indicating they should be (food cooking, doors unlocked, etc.). The primal fear that comes over the "rapture children" (as I call them) has few comparisons. I remember loosing our firstborn in the mall for a short time and after finding him realizing that I had not felt such panic and fear since my childhood "left behind" experiences.

Eschatology was a basic staple of the altar call, but especially the altar call of prophecy teachers. I grew up with them. When I was a kid Jack Van Impe came to my hometown of Salem, OR (youtube search the name!). He preached a full week about end-time events that were quickly rushing to their fulfillment. At the end of the Friday night sermon I vividly recall the statement that he could see no way that Jesus would not return before the end of 1972. It was 1969. People didn't walk to the altar; they ran. I was in the 7th grade and those services had a profound impact on me. I link the eschatological subject of my PhD dissertation to events like that. On that regard I'd like to say it did some good.

But it also did a lot of bad. Who of this generation has not been manipulated by the phrase, "Jesus could return before we leave this room tonight"? And who wouldn't respond to the altar after an hour and a half of hearing about how the then Soviet Union was poised to invade Israel; the Antichrist was ready to appear somewhere in Europe, even naming the names of prominent up-and-coming figures; the plans for the third temple in Jerusalem were in the finishing stages and stood ready for implementation. The only event in God's eschatological timeline between heaven and me was the rapture. The world crisis du jour was easily fit into the preacher's scenario of the end while the audience, mostly in awe, sat devouring the message as if it were from Jesus himself. Eschatology and the return of Jesus were used as a club to beat people to the altar; the Holy Spirit was not needed, fear worked much better. You may as well have put a gun to the audience's head and told them to convert or die.

From hindsight, other than the reestablishment of Israel, I cannot think of one prediction of the prophecy teachers that actually came to pass. Their record is so dismal that if it were not so serious, I would have to laugh. It is serious because I believe it has had a very detrimental effect on the preaching of the gospel over the last generation. The boy cried wolf just too many times, and people quit listening to everything he had to say.

I have been saying the above for some time, but I ran into a book the other day that was written by someone who said it long before me. The book was written by Dwight Wilson (great first name!) an Assemblies of God minister and former professor of history at Bethany University in Santa Cruz, CA. The book is entitled Armageddon Now! The Premillennial Response to Russia and Israel Since 1917 (Baker 1979, reprinted in 1991, but available free online here). When I first saw the title I thought, "Oh, just another crazy screaming that the end is near." I like to collect books of this genre because unlike many, I don't want to forget what these preachers have said in the past. But this book was entirely not what I expected. The book is about how the Bolshevik Revolution, leading to the rise of modern Russia, and the Balfour Declaration, which led to the return of Jews to Israel, had been exploited by prophecy teachers as a tool of evangelism to the detriment of the gospel message. Wilson was more of a prophet than any of those he wrote about. In the final chapter of the book he gives one of the most eloquent synopses of the failure of prophecy teachers that I have ever read:

"The premillenarians' credibility is at a low ebb because they succumbed to the temptation to explain every conceivably possible prophetic fulfillment for the sake of the prime objective: evangelism. The doomsday cry of "Armageddon Now!" was an effective evangelistic tool of terror to scare people into making a decision for Christ and to stimulate believers to "witness for Christ" to add stars to their heavenly crowns before it was everlastingly too late. Voices of moderation were less likely to find mass appeal. Times of crisis tend to produce feelings of insecurity in the general populace as a matter of course. The evangelical message was found to be most effective when couched in terms of confident, dogmatic overstatements, rather than a carefully reasoned moderate theology that offered indefinite conclusions. The success of such evangelistic approaches was to the premillenarians well worth the risk of false identifications in the interpretation of prophecy. It would be unfair to accuse any one preacher or writer of such insincerity; they were True Believers (sometimes caught up in the snare of their overtly zealous rhetoric), but, nevertheless, the result as a whole has been gross opportunism" (p. 218).

In other words, when it came to getting people saved the ends always justified the means.

2 Peter 3:3-4 warns, "that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, 'Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!'" Scoffers exist today, but I would suggest that many of the scoffers in our own day were created by the dogmatism of the prophecy teachers in the last generation.

With this I end. I grew up being taught that I should live every day as though Jesus would return tomorrow. I just cannot live that way. I tell my students to live as though you are going to die of old age. Look to the path that God has set you on and work toward the long-term goals to which that path leads. If Jesus comes in the middle of that time (an event I still believe in), he will be pleased. Doing the work of God takes time and people who believe they only have until tomorrow will not do it. The kingdom parables of Mathew 25 all speak to this effect. As you walk the path take your oil, multiply your talent, and show God's kingdom to all you encounter.

Posted by Dwight at 8:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

One of the biggest struggles Sue and I have had raising kids is trying to discern what is right and wrong. The fact is, not everything is wrong (quite a statement for someone raised in a conservative Pentecostal tradition). Some things are perfectly okay but can become a problem if taken too far or if discernment and discipline are not exercised. We struggle with to what extent video games, TV & movies, the Internet, and the like are appropriate. One thing we don't want to do is make whole categories of activity wrong without discerning that some elements of it may be just fine. I got to thinking about this a lot over the last couple of days, especially as it pertained the things I was taught in church.

We are visiting Pennsylvania this week. We came to attend the wedding of our friends Ben and Molly and to visit friends. For our boys Pennsylvania is home; we were all very excited to make the trip. The wedding was great. My good friend Dr. Joe Modica (the father of the groom and chaplain at Eastern University) did the homily. He was short, gave sound advice, was funny, and very sentimental (= perfect). The reception was a lot of fun. It was relaxed and unlike the weddings I attended as a kid growing up, included lots of dancing. Everyone had a great time. I could have had more fun, though. Let me explain. When I was growing up, in the churches that we attended, dancing was wrong. It may as well have been a creation of Satan himself, and to participate in the activity certainly required a trip to the altar on Wednesday night youth meeting. We were told about the evils of dancing, the feelings that it stirred up, and the activity it would lead to. I remember hearing that Jesus would leave me at the door of the dance; he would not go. If I went there I went alone. Somewhere along the line I came to realize much of that idea was bogus, and yet by that time I just never had the time, opportunity, or even desire to dance. That is the background for the wedding last Saturday night. As I sat watching everyone having so much fun, I began to be a bit annoyed with myself. I wanted to dance, but I was clueless as to how to do it. It seemed like everyone on the floor knew all the moves and the right time to do and say everything. I had no idea what to do, and I guess I'm just too prideful to make a fool out of myself. So my wife and I sat there like boors wishing we had the guts to hit the floor. I was a little miffed that early on I had been fed so much hooey about the evils of dancing. Every form of it was painted with the same evil brush. No discernment whatsoever was exercised as to how some forms might be wholly appropriate and other types not so much. It was all bad, real Christians wouldn't do it.

I love tradition, but not when it simply means one generation passing on its scruples to the next without taking into account the serious questions about why something is right or wrong, important or less so. Every generation has the responsibility to ask these questions. There is nothing more frustrating for a young person than to be told that thus and so is wrong only to find later that whether purposely or not they were misled by those who did not want to do the tough work of discernment. Sue and I have surely been wrong about some things with our kids, but no one can say that we didn't go through the process of asking the serious questions with them as we made our decisions. The good thing is that together we actually found out among other things that Pokèmon cards didn't have demons, Harry Potter was just a story, and that reading The Da Vinci Code wouldn't cause our faith to crumble. Small stuff really, makes you wonder why so much was made of them. Dancing with the Stars is not in my future, but maybe I'll at least give dancing a try at the next wedding I attend.

Posted by Dwight at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I am teaching a class in New Testament Theology this fall. Although it is getting a bit dated, I am going to use George Eldon Ladd’s A Theology of the New Testament as the main text. So much could be said about Ladd's impact on Evangelical theology, not only during his lifetime, but also the legacy he left for those who came after him. Ladd’s Theology and his work The Presence of the Future had a profound impact on my understanding of the entire Bible. It was Ladd who once and for all rid my theology of any vestiges of Dispensationalism. Although Ladd was not a Pentecostal by any stretch, his work on the kingdom of God, especially in The Presence of the Future, provided Pentecostals with a badly needed approach, structure and system to their own theology. For a long time Pentecostals tried to mix their Pentecostalism with Dispensationalism, resulting in a hodge-podge of contradiction. Ladd’s emphasis on the presence of the Kingdom provided a theological foundation for a Pentecostal understanding of spiritual gifts. His did this all the while interacting with critical historical methods, showing how they can serve to benefit the Evangelical rather than work against them. Ladd did not dismiss the “liberal” theologian but rather did his theology in conversation with them, taking what was good because there was good to take. He was a theologian a generation ahead of the rest of Evangelicals, and for that he was criticized from both the right and left. He was the embodiment of much of what Fuller Theological Seminary has been during its history. I only regret that I am too young to have ever sat in his classroom. In a PhD seminar at Fuller Robert Guelich spoke so highly of Ladd that we all saw devouring his Theology as sort of a rite of passage. The little part that I had with a few other PhD students updating the bibliographies while my mentor Donald Hagner edited the revised edition of Ladd’s Theology made me feel like I had a small (tiny) connection to his legacy.

A biography has recently been published on the life of George Ladd by John A. D'Elia entitled A Place at the Table: George Eldon Ladd and the Rehabilitation of Evangelical Scholarship in America (Oxford, 2008). I have the book on order and will comment more on it after I read it. For now I will only refer to Michael Bird’s Blog where he has reviewed the book (http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2008/06/book-review-place-at-table-by-john.html). I had heard of some of Ladd’s struggles, but this book apparently reveals a side of Ladd that was not the subject of public conversation, at least not when I was at Fuller. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the book and yet, even if all of Ladd’s shortcomings are true, it only confirms to me something I see all the time. I never cease to be amazed at how able God is to use those who some would wish to deem “disqualified”. I am thinking about reading excerpts from the biography to my class this fall in hope of clarifying this point to my students.

Posted by Dwight at 2:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

With gasoline at or near $4.00 per gallon, this is something that just about everyone has said before, but I just have to say it myself. If you were driving in the early 70’s (1973) you surely remember having to get up at 4:00AM to get in line at the gas station and wait hours for your turn to fill up. The cause was purely political; the U.S. (and others) aided Israel in the Yom Kippur War and for that OPEC decided to punish those nations that helped, an event called the Arab Oil Embargo. Rumors at the time pointed to an even greater problem--the world was running out of oil. People began to think about conservation. They bought smaller cars and solar panels, drove 55 mph (but not by choice!), turned down their thermostats, etc. We needed to be energy conscious because there was only so much oil left; we needed to conserve. Deep down in the minds of the average person there was this belief that “top people” were working on a fix. Oil was going to run out but surely our finest minds would come up with a new source of energy that would solve the problem and bring us into a new energy era. Cars that ran on water, solar power, nuclear power, and the like were thought to be on the horizon because “top people” were working on it. Every president, every senator, every congressman, you name it; everyone gave the impression that energy independence was a high priority.

As decades went by it became very clear that the “top people” theory was nothing but wishful thinking. In the three plus decades since the early 70’s little has been done and today we are in a situation that is far worse. Today the world’s economy is shaken by the enormous percentage of money that is being poured into the pockets of very few, and at lease some, very dangerous people. Developing countries have created a supply and demand situation that will only get worse. I place the fault for this on the U.S. government and private industry. Energy independence is not something that the individual can accomplish. We can only use what industry gives us, and at this time autos run on gasoline. We can conserve, but all the conservation in the world will not fix the problem, not at this stage in the game. The fix will require many people, a lot of money, and “top people” working toward the goal of finding another source of energy. It boggles the mind why private industry has not seen fit to work toward what could be a very lucrative invention. Whoever the next leader of this country is, if they wish to leave a legacy they will garner the collective will, wealth and wisdom of “top minds” and deal with this issue. It is a matter of ecology, economics and national defense. But I’m not holding my breath.

A couple of weeks ago President Bush said that there was “no quick fix” to the problem. I just wanted to scream. Okay, fine, if there’s “no quick fix” Mr. President then what is the “slow fix” and why has there been no progress on that front? “No quick fix” makes it sound like you just started thinking about the problem.

I should stick to theological issues.

Posted by Dwight at 4:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am a blessed man. I have a wonderful and generous mother who has shown me faith in God and in myself. I also have a loving, patient, and encouraging wife who is an incredible mother to our three boys. Mother’s Day reminds me of these truths, though I see them in action every day. Thanks Mom and Sue for making me a blessed man, husband and father.

One more college year has come to an end. This year differs because it is the end of my first year teaching at Evangel University. People often ask newlyweds questions like “how’s married life?” In much the same I have had a lot of people ask, “How’s Springfield?” wanting to know how my first year at EU has gone. My answer? I don’t really know. It has been very different. I have been far less busy and almost invisible; which is drastically different than what I was used to. In some ways this has been good but in other ways not so good. In any case, neither will last forever. I have had a great deal of time to read and do research, and this was a primary reason for moving. The worst part is that we are still in boxes. For some reason we have not been able to find a home. That may sound odd considering the fact that it’s supposed to be a buyer’s market and we should be able to name our price in a gut of “for sale” homes. Not in Springfield. The housing market doesn’t greatly appreciate here, and the reverse is also true. It’s also the case that we do not want to have a school change for our boys, and thus we have had to limit our area of search. The weather here is also very different for us. I don’t mind the extremes that characterize Midwest weather, but I do not at all like tornadoes. Knowing that you are in tornado country is just part of life here. Many people I ask think little of it and some give no response to the sound of a tornado siren. This year has been very active, and although Springfield has for the most part dodged the bullet, there have been those tense afternoons and evenings when I stay glued to the radar. Saturday afternoon (5/10) was one of those times, today is supposed to be another. I don’t know if I will ever get used to it.

One last little situation: I don’t diet well, but I've found that if I run for an hour a day I generally keep my weight reasonable. I run in the evenings, usually after dark. Over the last few months I have had this situation with a few of the neighbor high school boys. Apparently they believe antagonizing runners is sort of a sport. Completely unprovoked they curve over to my side of the road and floor it as the go by, often yelling some comment or another. Their behavior has grown bolder lately and I am getting the impression that they may want to take things to another level. It is hard to know how to respond. Do you go to their parents, call the police, or just carry a canister of pepper spray? For the summer months I have decided to quit running after dark hoping their behavior will be different in broad daylight. Sometimes I think I am getting old; I just cannot remember a time in my life when I would have thought of such behavior as being funny.

Posted by Dwight at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

My oldest son and I went to Missouri State University last week to hear Bart Ehrman speak on the subject of his new book entitled God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer. The book is Ehrman’s stab at the question of human suffering. Ehrman admits that it is the Bible’s lack of solution to this problem that significantly influenced him to leave the Christian faith and become an agnostic. While being introduced to the audience Ehrman was described as a “rockstar” in the world of all things Bible. I have to admit, the description is apropos, not that I am happy about it. Although I have found his text-critical research to be quite good, I believe he makes enormous unfounded leaps in his conclusions to the meaning of textual differences. When it comes to the subject of theodicy, I was not impressed; he seemed out of his game.

Ehrman began by listing a number of causes typical Christians cite for human suffering. These include free will and the actions of evil human or spiritual forces, God’s punishment for sin, God’s testing of humans, etc. (notably, he never mentioned the Fall). In any case Ehrman sees none of these as adequate, and even mutually contradictory. He went on to discuss the typical solutions given by writers on the subject; God does not exist, so the problem goes way; God is good but not all-powerful, and can’t stop evil; or God is not all good, and actually allows or even causes evil. Ehrman has come to opt for the first of these solutions, but nevertheless went on to consider what he believed to be the two major Biblical solutions for suffering.

The first is seen in the prophets. The prophets saw suffering as the result of Israel’s disobedience to the covenant. God was the source of Israel’s suffering. The prophets believed that if Israel repented God would intervene and alleviate all of their suffering (noting especially Amos 4:7-12). Unfortunately, God’s intervention did not happen in Israel’s experience. This led them to reconsider their theology, which in-turn gave rise to the second explanation for suffering, the apocalyptic answer. God’s failure to intervene was explained by apocalyptic thinkers; this world is controlled by evil forces. Suffering comes to those who battle against those forces. Moreover, since humans cannot overthrow the evil forces they cannot alleviate all evil. Yet, vindication will come. God and those on his side will win when he comes in judgment to eternally punish all evil and raise to glory his followers. Thus, in apocalyptic thinking evil forces are the cause of evil but God will make right all that is wrong. Ehrman liked the fact that apocalyptic took seriously the problem of evil, but felt that looking to God alone to ultimately solve the problem would lead to moral complacency. He also felt that apocalyptic perpetuated “the false belief in the end of the age.”

The solution to the problem for Ehrman is found in the book of Ecclesiastes. Ehrman likes the fact that the preacher encourages his readers to enjoy life. All is vanity, there is no justice, and your fate is no better than the animals anyway. Why not just try to make the most of what you have now by enjoying your family, friends, and the good things of life? Yet Ehrman pines that we cannot really do this if we know that others are suffering. Therefore, life must be held in a balance of enjoyment on the one hand, and working to alleviate suffering on the other.

There is much I would like to say about Ehrman’s presentation, but I will only say a few things. The first is that although Ehrman dismissed the causes that Christians propose for human suffering, he admittedly had no answer for it himself. He just didn’t know. He did backhand George Bush as a possible cause, and got a nice round of applause for it; I guess I expected something a little more profound. I think part of the problem is that he seems to be looking for one explanation for suffering, and one solution to the problem. He was unnerved by the idea that there might be a number of explanations and solutions within the Bible. Instead of considering that the multiple explanations might be due to the complexity of the issue, Ehrman treated the variety of explanations as competing and contradictory. Do the most difficult problems of life only have one cause?

Ehrman is an expert on apocalyptic, but his pitting of the prophets and apocalyptists against one another was simplistic. It was a typical atomizing of one group’s thought against another without seeing the development and continuity between them.

I was very dissatisfied with his use of Ecclesiastes. I liked the fact he emphasized the text’s encouragement to the reader to enjoy life. I tire of those who see these statements as the musings of an old and bitter Solomon who had lost his way in life (I actually hear this a lot). There is a wonderful truth here; it is not the least bit “hedonistic.” However, Ehrman conclusion that we cannot enjoy life if we know that others are suffering is plainly wrong. There are many who do so regularly. Even the Preacher recognized this (Ecc. 4:1). It also seems to make guilt the motivation for my response to the suffering of others. My guilt for living good is the motivation to help those who don’t have it so good. This sounds like an old-time fundamentalist altar call. I don't want to misrepresent Ehrman, but this is what it sounded like to me. Should I help those who suffer simply because I carry a sense of guilt about having a better life?

I have not yet read the book and I should probably wait on my critique until I do. I just thought I would give a few of my reactions to his presentation.

Posted by Dwight at 8:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When I was a kid living in Seattle we used to take car trips to Salem, OR, every so often to visit our grandparents. I have fond memories in bits and pieces of those visits in my head to this day. One part of those visits that is not so fond was the drive. It was only about four hours, but from a kid’s perspective it seems like an eternity. Typically, all four brothers would be in the back seat. When we got tired we would stretch out and sleep wherever we could find room. We didn’t have seatbelts in those days, and so sleeping on the floor, or even behind the seat in the space next to the back window was fair game. Obviously, that wouldn’t fly today. If you got caught letting your kids do that today you’d probably be arrested. If the news media got hold of it they’d portray the parents as horrible, having no concern for their children, and may even suggest they be locked up and their children removed from the home. Just recently I saw a news report about parents who don’t strap their kids into their car seat “correctly”. With all the “if you really cared for your child” talk by the news commentator you’d have thought that the violating parents were ignorant barbarians whose most intelligent sound was grunt.

It’s amazing how we change. Even more amazing is how past generations are often demonized because they did not do something that probably never entered their minds. Moderns love to impose their own scruples on past generations as though they alone have figured out truth. I see this happen in so many areas, from social issues to biblical interpretation. Sometimes I think that people who lived in days past need a break. They were them; we are us (not a great sentence, but you know what I mean).

On another note pointing toward the future, I begin teaching a class in church this Sunday on the book of Revelation. I always get a little nervous about teaching the book. It’s not because I don’t think I have a handle on the various interpretations, it’s my own interpretation that makes me nervous. I think John was describing events in his own day that he believed would lead to the coming of Christ. That didn’t happen, and as such his particular expectations were, well . . . wrong (watch for the lightening, it’s going to hit me soon!). I am fully aware that I am not supposed to say that about anything in the Bible. But it seems to me that every New Testament writer probably believed that they lived in the final days before Christ’s return. On that regard, they were all wrong. Rationalizations that try to protect John from his numerous statements regarding the nearness of the Lord’s return are just silly, IMHO (such as Mounce’s comment that “in the prophetic outlook the end is always imminent” [NICNT, p. 41]). Many godly preachers in recent generations have believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime, they too were wrong. Is that really an issue? Did that diminish their ministry? I still think there is a lot in Revelation that helps us to understand the nature of eschatology.

All of this can make some very uncomfortable, especially when you are part of a denomination that is still clinging to elements of dispensational theology. I have been assured that the class is full of well informed, free-thinking, and very nice people.

Posted by Dwight at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Education is one of those wonderful experiences of life. I have been on the college campus now for almost 20 years, not nearly as many years as a number of my colleagues, but enough to teach me a few things. One of the comments I hear regularly from graduates is that college was a defining moment in their lives. It was not the easiest time, but it was the period of time in their life when they matured the most. I feel such a sense of satisfaction to be a part of that time.

In choosing to take on the mantel of education you receive a great blessing, but in a very real way you also take on a curse. The blessing of education is that you are exposed to many different ways of thinking that broaden your perspective on life. Your former ways of thinking are discarded, modified, or strengthened; in each case you change for the better. Then there is the curse. In the process of your education you also begin to see that you had solved some of life's problems far to easily. You find that the simplest answers don’t always explain everything and sometimes the most complicated solutions are best. The world is not black and white anymore; it is multicolored, which makes it more beautiful but at the same time more complicated. You realize that truth can be found in places where many will not look and some don't think you should. You see that you can’t give too much of your mind to God and that worship is something that happens in the library as well as in church. You also find out how much you didn’t know and realize that college is not going to prepare you for everything; it only pushes you in the right direction. There is so much more to do!

For me personally I found that college confused as well as clarified issues in my life. Being interested in theology I think I was more certain of what I believed when I entered college than when I left. I found it distressing when filling out an application for ministerial credentialing that I was given a yes and no box to indicate my beliefs on doctrinal issues that theologians had debated for centuries. It just wasn’t adequate! In college I realized that some of the people I used to think were totally wrong really had a lot of good things to say. The curse was that when I would suggest those areas where they might be right, some would lump me in whole with them and occasionally reject my views entirely. One of my favorite things about Fuller Seminary was that it was a place where things like that didn’t happen.

I love the academic world, I cannot think of ever being anywhere else. Even with its curse, it is truly a great blessing.

Posted by Dwight at 7:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have had the flu for the last two weeks. The strain going around this year is a whopper: terrible muscle ache, headache, cough, fever, weakness.... I just started getting better when it hit me again for another week. I am feeling a little better now, but it did not let hold of me easily. It sort hung on a long as it could making me miserable. If you ever needed a reason to believe in evil, the flu is it. It is the embodiment of evil. What purpose could it possibly have other than making people miserable? The flu delights in the pain of others, it does not know of things like family, friends and happiness. It only lives to do wrong; I hate it. I know there are those who would say that the flu is only doing what the flu does; there are no malicious intentions whatsoever. If you say that, then you are also evil;) That's all I have to say about that.

It's Spring Break this week and I am trying to get caught up on all the stuff I have let go. One major hurdle . . . taxes. This year is a mess. I typically do them myself on the computer, but this year with the sale of our house I am wondering if I am in over my head. Doing your own taxes is a yearly exercise that challenges one's integrity in the area that can hurt the most, your pocketbook. There are so many ways to cheat! Add a little here; take off a little there, and in the end you save yourself hundreds. Those computer programs are great for this because the benefit of those little tweaks can be seen immediately on your screen. There is nothing more painful than inserting the correct numbers and taking it on the chin. The benefit is that it allows you to go bed at night with a clear conscience; that's worth a lot more than a few hundred bucks.

While I'm on the wonderful subject of cheating, I have never gone a semester of teaching without having to deal with it in the classroom. In earlier years I used to let people save face. Somewhere along the line it hit me that I was not doing anyone a favor by not having them face their problem. People face their own breaches of integrity in different ways. I have presented irrefutable evidence of cheating to students only to have them lash out at me with intense anger. On one occasion, with finger pointed in my face, a student blurted "how dare you embarrass me like this!" At other times I see brokenness and humility, and the desire to make things right. I have come to the conclusion that situations like this are really God's way of showing his grace. I often tell people who have "been caught" that what they are seeing is God's marvelous grace in their lives. If God didn't care, he would have let the situation go on forever. Instead he let's people get caught so that they can deal with the character issue now. Any pain someone in their twenties has to face in dealing with ethical and moral issues does not hold a candle to the pain that will be faced in dealing with the same character issues twenty year later. Sure, there is embarrassment but you probably won't loose your family or career in your early twenties, you may well later. Sometimes God lets people get caught just because he loves them so much.

Posted by Dwight at 8:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

People who teach at small Christian colleges are not known for their wealth; I am no exception. The people I know who have done well have done so through publishing, speaking engagements, and the like. Having blogged a few weeks back about how much I despise the health a wealth gospel, I may sound like a hypocrite in what I am going to say, but I don't think so. I am not against making money; I am against making the gospel about making money. Making money? I'm all fine with that! Which leads me to my topic.

When I speak with college students about "my journey" I usually bring up a few things that I think I would have done differently. One of those things is that I would have taken more chances with my money. I have always thought that I should have gotten more familiar with the stock market and tried some investing. The problem is that when I was young, I didn't, and when we started having kids the little money we had (emphasis on little) I couldn't afford to loose. This year, along with loosing weight and having more fun, I made a New Year's resolution to give investing a try. I am doing okay on the first, I'm not sure about the second, and last week I plunged into the third. I set up and account and bought my first stock.

I don't know what I was thinking.

I have been watching this particular stock for a long time (several years) and it seemed like it was time to buy since it was down. It had always made money before, so I thought I could only stand to gain. To make a long story short, I didn't. I lost a little money, but in the process I found an even worse problem. From the moment I clicked "buy" I could not take my eyes off of it. I almost continuously had to be looking at how it was doing. When it went up a bit I was happy, but when it went down (as it more often did) I sat there and worried about loosing money; not much, but enough to make me upset. I am a cheapskate and I hate loosing money. On top of it all, I have work to do! I don't have time to look at a computer screen all day watching numbers. Finally, this morning I sold.

I'm now questioning whether I'm up to this. I'm not saying I'm out, but I wonder if I have the heart or money for it. Maybe if I had a little more faith . . .

Posted by Dwight at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

James Dunn has written a little book entitled A New Perspective on Jesus, What the Quest of the Historical Jesus Missed (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology, Baker Academic, 2005). The book is a much smaller version of his larger work Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, vol. 1). In the book Dunn points out the flaws in the Quest for the Historical Jesus. This is nothing new, many have written on the subject. But Dunn not only points out the problems, he also provides a "new perspective" for the study of gospel texts that is sane and makes sense, two things often missing in this area.

Those who are familiar with gospel research know that the main question that scholars have asked about the gospels for the last two centuries is the question of whether the Jesus that we read about in the gospels is the same Jesus who actually lived and walked on the earth 2000 years ago. "Does the Jesus of history equal the Christ of faith?" is a question that has received so much attention that one is utterly bewildered by the amount of material on the subject. The answer to this question by much of "Quest" scholarship has been a resounding "no".

Dunn presents three major criticisms of "Quest" scholars. The first is that they assumed that the faith of Jesus' followers was a hindrance that obscured an accurate picture of him. This criticism could not be truer. The real Jesus, it is said, is buried under layers of faith-tradition, a faith that made him a savior when in reality he said or did nothing to imply this as his mission. The "savior-Jesus" was created post-Easter by the faith of his earliest followers. The real historical Jesus is hidden to us and can only be found by stripping away those elements in the text that betray the faith of his followers. When this is done the Jesus of the gospel accounts typically gets well-deserved "demotion" (note #6 of Robert Funk's "Twenty-One Thesis", in The Fourth R, Vol. 11,4 July/August 1998). Dunn counters that Jesus made a faith impact on his followers from the very beginning, not just after the Resurrection; attempting to strip that away in order to find the real Jesus is not only futile, but removes the very historical foundation of the gospel tradition.

The second criticism is that, although acknowledging that the traditions about Jesus were transmitted orally, the "Quest" scholars did not take into consideration just how much the oral character of the tradition shaped and at the same time preserved it. Many scholars have seen the oral transmission of the Jesus tradition as a detriment that guaranteed its corruption. Dunn seems to say that the stories of Jesus were passed in community and preserved in much the same way as a modern worship choruses. There are those who preserve the integrity of the song but there is also fluidity to each performance.

Finally, Dunn is very critical of the way in which scholars have accepted as authentic only those parts of the tradition where Jesus is unique or distinctive from his own world. The historical Jesus is the non-Jewish and non-Christian Jesus; the rest is embellishment. I liken this to using a nuclear weapon to get rid of the ants in your house. It will certainly work but little of the house is left! It's with the little bit left over that many have reconstructed an "historical" Jesus who, although a really great guy, most often looks very much like the ideology of the scholar who created him. Dunn turns the so-called criterion of dissimilarity on its head. It's not in the "distinctive Jesus" that we find the authentic tradition so much as the "characteristic Jesus." The gospels preserve those elements of Jesus' characteristic acts and words. These made a lasting impression on his followers and were preserved in their memory of him.

The book is worth reading for anyone who is interested in Gospel research. It would also be helpful to those in a situation where they find the reliability of the gospels being questioned. Although different, I liken it to reading Birger Gerhardsson's, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001).

Posted by Dwight at 7:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)