Child sponsorship and hope

Christianity Today has a number of articles in their June 2013 edition about child sponsorship programs. The lead article touts research published in the Journal of Political Economy concerning the outcomes of child sponsorship. The supervising researcher, Bruce Wydick, notes of the initial study on kids in Uganda, "You could beat the data senseless, and it was incapable of showing anything other than extremely large and statistically significant impacts on educational outcomes for sponsored children" (22). Because the initial study was so promising, it was expanded to countries around the world. The results were the same. Wydick summarizes, "We're not just finding positive correlations, but substantial causal effects from the program--in every country--especially Africa." Simply, child sponsorship works. Especially for the poorest, but it works for everybody. Wess Stafford, the former president of Compassion International, the organization that was confident enough in what they were doing to open themselves up to this type of scrutiny (kudos to them for being willing to confirm their stewardship of our resources and of our God-given vision for bringing about change and relief to so many who need it!), says he attributes much of the improvement to one thing . . . hope. "The big difference that sponshorship makes," he reflects, "is that it expands children's views about their own possibilities. . . . We help them realize that they are each given special gifts from God to benefit their communities, and we try to help them develop aspirations for their future" (24). Compassion, hope, fulfilling basic needs, all permeated with the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's exciting stuff! So if you aren't already doing it, sponsor a child.

A Moment of Witness

As seems to be the case with every election cycle, we have just survived another contentious contest. I've been prompted over the last couple of days to think Christianly about the Christian life, political engagement, and particularly about the Christian stance regarding issues of homosexuality as a test-case and refining fire for these thoughts, or maybe more importantly, as a human face and immediate application of them. So what does it meant to be a Christian in a democracy (of course more properly, for us Americans, a presidential republic)? How does our Christianity inform our political engagement, and how is this related to our larger Christian witness in the world?

I wonder if Christians in the United States (I speak as an American, and that is thus where my situation gives me the best fodder for reflection) is approaching a watershed moment in terms of cultural engagement. That is, I wonder if the veneer of "Christendom" is beginning to fall (or well on its way to falling) away. We live, whether we like it or not, in a pluralistic country. Yes, Christian principles informed our founding to a greater or lesser extent, an interesting discussion I'd rather not belabor here because I am not entirely sure it's relevant. But, our country is made up of people from many cultural and religious perspectives. What does it mean to be a Christian in the public square in that type of setting. 

First, let me say that I think this is a genuine opportunity for Christianity and for Christians. I read a great blog post this morning by New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado in which he speaks of the importance of the second century for the development of Christianity. In reflecting on the development of Christian theology in this somewhat neglected century, and interacting with a book by Eric Osborne, he quotes, “This is one of those brief periods of human invention when earlier concepts become museum pieces.  Any such expansions requires at least four things:  some thinkers to think, new resources to use, questions to answer, and an opposition to challenge.” (p. 1) “Fortunately for posterity, Christian apologists [the second-century figures he studies] had to argue for their lives.” (p. 3)

I feel that we are approaching a place where Christians will need to argue for their legitimacy, if not their lives. Why is thinking about things in a biblical or Christian way a legitimate way of thinking? Does it have a legitimate place in a university setting? And, of course, this likewise comes to a head in politics: are Christian perspectives valuable or legitimate in political discourse? Gone are the days (if they ever truly existed) of saying that a law or policy is biblical and thus legitimate solely on those grounds. But, though not necessarily an "easier" context than that of the say fifty years past, I think this could provide a genuine opportunity for witness for Christians. For thinking Christianly about politics does bear startling fruit, and I think it does so particularly in a liberal democracy. For a Christian perspective values and loves the other, even those with whom we disagree (they aren't the enemy to be destroyed), and seeks the benefit of those in need and justice for the oppressed (even at great expense to oneself). These values could shine brightly in the face of the tyranny of the majority and the politics of self-interest. But Christianity also takes into full account the sinfulness of all people, those of "my" party as well as of "their" party. That can be a gateway to (if not a mandate for) genuine humility and substantive cooperative engagement not easily arrived at by other philosophical means. And exhibiting these Christian perspectives in the public square could be both beneficial for the being of the state but also a genuine opportunity for the church to let the light of Christ "shine before others, that they may see [our] good deeds and glorify [our] Father in heaven" (Mt. 5:16). 

So what of the Christian engagement with issues of homosexuality? I admit right up front, I'm reluctant to wade into these waters because so much needs to be said. And what follows is merely a sketch, so please take it as such. It seems every word requires nuance. But I think there are some larger contours that can be enumerated in a fruitful way, and that's what I'm trying for here. 

In preparation (remember what I said about nuance), I think there are numerous layers or facets making up the Christian engagement with issues of homosexuality, and I'd like to enumerate four of them here (there may be more). First, there is the interpersonal, direct engagement. How does an individual Christian or a body of believers treat a person who is a practicing homosexual? Second, or maybe part of the first, how does an individual or a church treat a fellow Christian who is a practicing homosexual? Third, how does a church respond to homosexual practice or homosexuality with regard to blessing of marriages and ordination of individuals for church leadership? And fourth, how do Christians engage with the wider culture on a political and cultural level about these questions? 

Even enumerating the list is hard, because there is interrelation between the facets. But I think understanding that there may be different responses at the different levels is absolutely essential to forming a robust Christian response. I don't want to sketch responses at each of the levels I've outlined, but instead want to outline an arc of engagement at three different levels, which I'll roughly construe as the interpersonal, the ecclesial, and the political. First, the interpersonal. Christianity has a lot to say about sin and the holiness of God, but the first word it speaks to the world is one of love, of invitation. For Christianity is first and foremost a live lived in Christ. I think Christians too often speak judgment first, and often judgment only, losing entirely the love of neighbor that is so fundamental to how a Christian embodies the image of Christ in the world. And in the engagement with supporters of homosexual practice and a homosexual way of life, this particular deficiency far too often comes to the front. We are all sinners, and those of us in Christ are redeemed sinners by the grace of God, a grace for which we are now ambassadors to a sinful, hurting, and hostile world. That's a gigantic truth, and one that Christians need to live into fully and enthusiastically. It certainly doesn't say everything that can or needs to be said regarding homosexual practice, but it needs, far more often, to be the place to start. Those practicing or advocating a homosexual existence should feel first and foremost the love of God in Christ flowing through us. We are called to love our neighbors as our selves, and the parable of the good Samaritan is particularly apt here. 

Second, there's the ecclesial aspect, particularly embodied in questions of blessing of unions and ordination. And it is here in particular that I hold more ground in common with traditionalists, in that these are arenas in which the church can and should advocate for strict and unfaltering adherence to God's will for human beings as we best understand it based on the Bible. I believe, at this point in my life and study and biblical engagement, that the church should not be blessing homosexual unions or ordaining practicing homosexuals as clergy. This isn't the post in which to delve further into that question, but I think and hope that stating a rather simple and traditional position here can help illumine how that position may differ (or maybe better, play out differently) in the ecclesial realm from that of the interpersonal and political realms.

So finally, on to the political realm, and what stimulated this overlong reflection in the first place. If we as Christians believe that God's will and desire for marriage is that it be between a man and a woman, and that sexual relations are meant to be within that man-woman bond, how would and should that relate to engagement in the arena of politics. I would like to assert, somewhat provisionally, that I suspect the best and most fruitful approach for the church is to support (or at the very least, not oppose) the creation of a civil union for homosexual couples. I say "suspect" because I am thoroughly aware that this is a thorny issue, fraught with wide implications. But I still suspect this is the best and most faithful route. 

One key barrier that I think stands in the way for many Christians is the felt need to have laws reflect God's revealed will and intent for all people. In short, the need to legislate morality. Obviously, the state is functioning best when its laws reflect the good and true and just, and when they proscribe the unjust, the harmful, and the false. But what does pursuing theses things in a pluralist society mean? I think it is essential that Christians come to understand that sometimes it is expedient and maybe even beneficial to seek to legislate something that is a good but yet falls short of the highest good (that being God's intent for all humanity on a particular issue). There are a few reasons for this. First is that states should be rights-honoring; that is, they should not harm their citizens. And I think this will often mean there will be areas where citizens have the right to make certain choices, and that empowering the state to remove those choices may be a greater harm than allowing (and thereby tacitly approving) what we understand to be detrimental choices. Obviously, this line of reasoning has a point at which it breaks down, in that there is a point at which the broad consequences of certain detrimental choices are viewed by society as being so harmful to the common good that the society must actively proscribe them and enforce that ban, and this is just where laws come in. But we must understand that we don't legislate all morality even as we seek to legislate morally. Second, I don't think marriage is particularly the purview of the state. The state benefits from strong family structures and stable family bonds, and thus has a vested interest (for the common good) of encouraging marriage, but the state does not confer a right to marry, nor does it truly enact a marriage (yes, it does so in a legal sense, in that it approves the conferral of certain civil benefits, but I would understand marriage first to be a religious institution, enacted before God in the presence of the church [this isn't meant to be a screed against non-church weddings--far from it; nor am I questioning the legitimacy of marriages performed by a civil magistrate without the presence of clergy; things may take place in God's presence no matter where they are, but I still want to maintain some type of distinction for the sake of my discussion here]). So I think the status of a particular union in the eyes of the state is different than in the eyes of the church (see the point above regarding the ecclesial aspect). Thus, there may in fact be reasons where thinking about the political and civil question regarding same-sex marriage differently than when we frame the question inside the confines of the church. 

I am quite sure these reflections don't say the last word on what it means to act Christianly in the public sphere, nor have I said all that could and should be said regarding the issues around and responses to homosexual practice and same-sex unions inside or outside the church. But I hope some of these developing reflections may prove to be a catalyst, for myself and others, to think afresh about what it means to be a faithful disciple of Christ in our time and place. 

John Stott, Christian Mission

In 1975 John Stott published a little book, Christian Mission in the Modern World: What the Church Should Be Doing Now! I have heard it mentioned a time or two, and finally have taken the time to read through it, and I must say that it was well worth it. This is an outstanding little book, and is vintage Stott. I include the date because in some ways, the book reflects its setting. But this is largely in the context of ecumenical theology at that point in time, relatively shortly on the heels of the first Lusaunne meetings and also some years into the growth and development of the WCC. Stott references many theologians and church leaders with whom I wasn't familiar. But at the same time, Stott's words are breathtakingly prescient in our world. It is amazing how the trends he discusses from his own day continue on down to ours, and his wise and biblical judgments still warrant an attentive hearing.

The book is focused on the discussion of five words: mission, evangelism, dialogue, salvation, conversion. And in these discussions, which build off of one another, Stott paints a deep and integrated picture of what the gospel is and what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. A number of themes continually emerge, such as the centrality of Jesus Christ and the good news that reports the events of his life, death, and resurrection; the inseparability of the spiritual and social facets of the gospel message; the need for authentic and humanizing interactions with others, and particularly with those of other faiths; and the all-encompassing nature of the gospel for life. Stott's discussions of the encounter between Christians and those of other faiths strikes (in my mind) just the right balance between sympathetic listening and authentic speaking that accounts both for the significance and content of the gospel as well as for the value of the person to whom we speak. He likewise untangles the often distorted problem of the relation of evangelism to social action with great skill, asserting that "each is an end in itself" that should demonstrate an "unfeigned love" (27). He anchors this in Jesus and his ministry, with particular attention to the Great Commission and the Great Commandment (you really need to read the whole chapter to appreciate the wise course he plots).

In all, this short book is a gem. It is filled with wise and compelling words that still need to be heard in our churches today.

On context and influence

Matthew Malcolm points to some of his own comments on Ciampa and Rosner's new 1 Corinthians commentary in the Pillar series, along with a response by Roy Ciampa. In reading the exchange, part of Ciampa's comment jumped out a me:

When a group understands itself in contrast to another group (whether a real group or a [sub-]cultural construction such as “paganism”) it has been deeply influenced by that context, beyond their own level of awareness.

It seems to present some sound wisdom for thinking about biblical writers and their contexts, but also some outstanding food for thought for our own day. I wonder how much our own formulations of doctrine or our positions on matters we hold dear are unwittingly influenced by the very people we oppose. The inerrancy debates, for one, often seem decisively shaped by the very categories "liberal" thinkers proposed for reading the Bible, even as conservative defenders seek to oppose the liberal positions. I can't help but wonder how my own thinking is shaped by my context (an interesting line of thought on its own), and particularly by contrasts I seek to hold. Hmmm.

Dictionary of Christian Spirituality

Zondervan has released Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, a new textbook and reference book on Christian Spirituality designed to be an academic resource from a broadly evangelical perspective that consciously takes into account the history and contributions of the wider Christian community throughout time. The book as two major parts, "Integrative Perspectives" and "Dictionary Entries." The first is a series of 34 topical essays dealing with introductory issues, major topics, and historical overviews. Most essays are five or six pages, and they seem to be good introductions to their respective areas. This first part is more or less what you might expect to find in an intro textbook, and their quality and breadth would make for a quite solid one. The second part of the book consists of about six hundred pages of dictionary articles, ranging in length from about a quarter page to around two pages, though most are around half a page. Their topics range widely, covering topics in spirituality like discipleship, nature mysticism, retreats, lament, and so on; historical figures, such as John Wesley, Vincent de Paul, Oscar Romero; and movements, such as Franciscan spirituality, Pentecostal spirituality, etc. As with any dictionary, I'm sure there is some unevenness in the entries, but the ones I read were good introductions to their respective areas.

 I am certain of the value of this new hybrid book. First, the quality of the integrative essays seems very good, and I especially enjoyed editor Glen Scorgie's overview chapter, which provides a very solid introduction to the rationale and scope of a study of spirituality. He describes authentic Christian spirituality as "a Spirit-enabled relationship with the triune God that results in openness to others, healing progress toward Christ-likeness, and willing participation in God's purposes in the world" (30). The other essays I have sampled seem likewise informative and well-reasoned. One aspect of this project that does come through is that it is deliberately interdisciplinary, both in the sense of incorporating various aspects of the study of the Bible and of theology (OT, NT, systematics, history, as well as the more practical) but also beyond the world of theology to other areas, particularly psychology. There is also a very deliberate attempt in the essays and the dictionary articles to include both distinctively evangelical perspectives and personalities and a very broad scope of other Christian contributions. There is also an obvious geographical diversity reflected in the contributors and the articles themselves that lends a global perspective.

 Thinking about the book as containing two principal parts, I see it being of great value as a textbook. I would envision a professor assigning certain of the introductory essays and pointing to a list of relevant articles for weekly assigned readings. There is also the possibility of setting the students loose in the dictionary portion in search of personalities and paper topics that resonate with them or pique their interest, a benefit of the wide variety of introductions close at hand. With those two types of uses in mind, I think this hybrid introduction and dictionary would make an effective textbook as well as a reference tool, though probably best suited to the former.

 This brings me to a couple weaknesses, which might be easily rectified in future printings and editions. First, and most notably, there is no list of dictionary entries. As I have noted, there is an immense variety of topics covered in the dictionary portion, which is a strength. But without knowing that there is an entry on "Motherhood of God," "Leisure and Play," or "Jarena Lee," one likely wouldn't go looking. So I envision a lot of trial and error in the use of the dictionary. This is mitigated a bit by the fact that each dictionary article ends with a short "see also" list of other suggested readings, but it is still a glaring omission that will hamper the usefulness quite a bit. The second shortcoming is that, while the dictionary articles have a list of "see also" suggestions, the main integrative essays do not, though it seems like these would have been especially useful here. As I've mentioned, I can see a student being assigned a few of the major essays and then a selection of the smaller dictionary entries to suit the instructor's desires, but with no article suggestions, the instructors or students are left to page through the 600 pages of dictionary entries in search of the relevant topics. It would have been useful, for instance to have a list after the "Jesus" article (by Dallas Willard, which was quite worthwhile, by the way) that included suggestions like cross; humility; imitation of Christ; Jesus Prayer; Jesus, name of; Lord's Prayer; Lord's Supper; Johannine Spirituality; Luke's Spirituality; and so on. This would also be of great value in the historical essays, as it would help the reader know which historical figures or relevant groups have individual entries.

 These weaknesses aside, there's a valuable resource here. I look forward to continuing to learn from it.

 Thanks to Zondervan for a review copy and a place on their blog tour.

Scot McKnight, The King Jesus Gospel

Thanks to Zondervan for the review copy of The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisitedand the spot on their blog tour for this great book.

Scot McKnight, professor of religious studies at North Park University, is a widely respected academic, with important books in a number of topics in New Testament studies, and he is also widely known as a popular speaker, author, and blogger. This means he is uniquely positioned to bring academic learning to bear on a wider audience, and this is exactly what he does in The King Jesus Gospel.

There are so many ways one could approach the review of a book like this, with historical arguments, exegesis, theological synthesis, and practical and contemporary application. I have chosen to make this review a summary of the key points, touch on why it resonated so much with me, and conclude with a sustained note of hope for how this book might point in a refreshing direction for gospel thinking and for evangelicalism, and of hope that evangelicalism is poised to heed his call.

McKnight's book is subtitled The Good News Revisited, and that sums up well its topic: it's all about the gospel. And his big contention is that many evangelicals today (and he particularly speaks to evangelicals, though his topic certainly has much wider relevance) focus on and proclaim the plan of salvation without realizing that the gospel is so much more. He asserts very simply (and this is sure to step on some toes) that evangelicals should really be called "soterians" because of the focus on "salvation," often thought of as making a "decision" for Christ, which is the key point of a gospel presentation. Instead, McKnight asserts that the gospel is the good news of God's faithful working in the world by sending his son Jesus to fulfill his promises, redeem his people, and defeat the powers of sin and death. This doesn't entail negating the soterian gospel, but instead affirms its core while recontextualizing it especially around the story of Jesus as King and Messiah. This is still a gospel that is radically "for us" and still deals with sin and calls for response (the need for response is one of the key elements McKnight highlights in the apostolic gospel), but it sets this in the framework of what Jesus accomplishes on the stage of history and in the plan of God. In short, the gospel is the story of Jesus as it completes the story of Israel.

Part of McKnight's expansive argument is a historical one: The Jesus story becomes abstracted into a generic story of God's love, wrath, and grace focused on Jesus' salvific effects. He highlights (without villainizing) the Reformers, both Lutheran and Reformed, showing how their creeds changed from a "gospel" focus that centers around a narration of Jesus' life and significance to a salvation focus that reorders and refocuses Christian faith around issues of personal response and human responsibility. These seeds were cultivated through the revivals and evangelists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and also by a focus on experience as a key to the Christian life.

Another key theme in McKnight's book is that the Gospels preach the gospel. It isn't uncommon today for people to wonder if the Gospels, or if Jesus himself, preached the gospel. McKnight asserts, rightly I think, that people are really asking if Jesus or the Gospels teach the "plan of salvation," and that answer isn't always so clear. But, he asserts, the Gospels are the preeminent examples of gospeling, of declaring that the story of Jesus is the culmination of the story of Israel and is good news for its hearers. This reappraisal of the Gospels and their relation to the gospel is, I think, one of the key points of the book, and one of its strongest arguments, especially as it is coupled with his reading of 1 Cor 15 as a key gospel text for Paul and with his investigation of the gospelingsermons in Acts.

Throughout the book, McKnight exhibits a loving and irenic, though earnest tone. He brings in John Piper and Jonathan Edwards for appreciative comment, just as he does N. T. Wright and Dallas Willard. Though this book may in some ways constitute a major challenge to evangelicalism and its understanding of the gospel, it is written as a hopeful critique from the inside, as opposed to an attack from without. And hand in hand with this tone goes the fact that McKnight is quick to appreciate the positive and enduring aspects of evangelical life and faith, even as he seeks to augment and complete them with greater understanding and a larger story-frame. He may make some important and even controversial assertions, but he is very careful with his denials (that is, he repeatedly reaffirms that Christ's death is for us, and that it is all about salvation; we do need to respond in faith; the gospel leads to a transformed life). At its core, the theme of salvation isn't lost at all, it is simply recontextualized within Jesus story as it completes Israel's story.

I loved McKnight's book! It answered the questions that were only partially formed in my mind. It was a book I didn't know I needed, but it put into words various themes and streams of thought that have been swirling around in my mind: everything from how Jesus' life and teaching fit into the gospel to how the Old Testament relates to the new to how discipleship relates to salvation (and how we present that). Jesus is Messiah and King, and that has profound implications for the whole world. We are called to proclaim that good news far and wide. And it is good news for salvation. 

I conclude this review with a note of hope. I have profound hope that evangelicalism is ready for this reawakening to a fuller understanding of the gospel of King Jesus. Anyone who reads in academic biblical studies knows that evangelicals have been in the forefront in investigating the relation between the two testaments, and how a full and careful understanding of the larger story of Israel is essential to reading the New Testament. Though I could name many, a few key books I might highlight are Richard Hays' work Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul is a ground-breaking study of OT echoes and allusions in Paul; Beale and Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old, systematically undertakes a study of how the OT figures in the NT book by book; N. T. Wright, in many books, has looked at how Israel's story creates a key component of the NT worldview and is essential to understanding Jesus; and last, though certainly not least, Christopher Wright's magisterial The Mission of God outlines the Bible's grand story of God's mission in his world and our part in it. So many more could be named, but these few illustrate how we are coming to grips in new and fresh ways how the story of the Bible is the gospel. I also thing that evangelical culture itself is shaped in such a way that the broader apostolic gospel that McKnight outlines will fit its major contours even better than the more narrowly soterian version, even if it is a bit uncomfortable in places and feels a bit different. Evangelicalism is by nature full of Jesus-devotion, and a renewed focus on his life, death, and resurrection will be a natural fit. Evangelicalism is very intentionally a movement that highly values Scripture, and the apostolic gospel makes the whole Bible, from Gen 1 to Rev 22, come alive as a gospel story, and that is sure to reinvigorate a people who already love God's Word. And evangelicalism loves to share God's love by telling stories. I think of the great hymn, "I Love to Tell the Story," which both demonstrates that the broader story-shaped apostolic gospel has been a formative part of evangelical culture and that this same evangelical culture has many resources already at its disposal to energetically embrace the apostolic gospel that McKnight describes.

In sum, I enthusiastically commend this great little book. There is no doubt, as with any major and sweeping thesis like this one, that details will need fleshing out a bit, and various formulations and points may need honing. But I think his core argument is a very persuasive one, and I look forward to digesting it with others over the coming months in hopes that it will be instrumental in transforming my life, our churches, and our evangelical culture to be truly gospel-centered.

Gordon Fee on Spirit-gifting and women

Michael Gorman links to an article about Gordon Fee in Charisma magazine. I have long been impressed by Fee's thorough and insightful exegesis, as well as his very good work on hermeneutics, so I read this article with interest. And he has written some of my favorite books, Pauls Letter to the Philippians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, and Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Fee is an egalitarian, and he speaks about his convictions in some very insightful terms:

But he is adamant: God does gift women for ministry.

“It’s a given,” he says. “The real question is, Which comes first, gender or gifting? What [opponents of women in ministry] are trying to tell me is that gender comes above gifting. How can that be? The Spirit gives the gifting. If a woman stands and prophesies by the Spirit, and men are present, does the Spirit not speak to them? Come on! How dumb can you get?”

His advocacy, Fee says, is on behalf of the Holy Spirit rather than women. “The Spirit is gifting women,” he says, “but many evangelicals are not prepared to adjust because of the ‘box’ they’re in.

Some food for thought, at least.

Carlson and Longman, Science, Creation and the Bible

In this brief and general-reader-friendly book, physicist Richard Carlson and Biblical Studies professor Tremper Longman III undertake an attempt at a solution to the perceived conflict between the Genesis creation accounts and modern science. They advocate a reconciliation between the two disciplines, and they do this by making the following argument (their thesis statement, which appears on page 14):

The first two chapters of Genesis, which accurately present two accounts of creation in terms of ancient Hebrew scientific observations and heir historical understanding, are neither historical nor literal in the twenty-first-century literal sense. Instead, the underlying message of these chapters applies for all time and constitutes a complete statement of the worldview of the Hebrew people in the ancient Near East. They accurately understood the universe in terms of why God created it but not how in the modern scientific and historical sense. This worldview, markedly different from those of their pagan neighbors articulates the principles underlying their understanding of the relation of God to the universe, their relation to the true God, and their relation to each other and to the created order.

This book has a number of strengths, as the authors seek to make their case for this thesis. The principle strength is that it distills a lot of technical and academic thinking and writing into a very readable presentation that introduces some of these concepts and arguments to people who aren't otherwise familiar with them. For instance, the writers use some of John Polkinghorne's work to present a vision of the relationship between science and theology that goes beyond the popular conflict motif to a much more nuanced understanding of two disciplines with different spheres of study and different aims. The second major discussion that lays the groundwork for their thesis surrounds biblical hermeneutics, that is, how we read the Bible. Here again the authors present in simple terms an approach to reading the Bible that pushes people to be self-conscious in how they are interpreting the Bible and opens up the question of genre, the more of less formal conventions that guided both author and audience in understanding the type of text being presented. They discuss at length an incarnational model for understanding the Bible as both a divine and a human book. They also push for the category of myth as being helpful when looking to Genesis 1 and 2 and make a case from some contemporary authors such as C. S. Lewis for the usefulness and legitimacy of Christian myth.

The authors then move on to a reading of the major creation texts in the Old and New Testaments, preparing the way for a careful reading of Genesis 1 and 2 to investigate its place in the canon, its teaching, and its context in the ancient Near East. They assert that Genesis 1 and 2 should be read as a worldview statement for the ancient Hebrews, a statement that is made in a two-layered story, one layer being that of a story of the experiences and understandings of the ancient Hebrews, and a second layer consisting of the theological story they wanted to convey. It is the second, theological layer that is important for us today. They also point out both the similarities and the difference between the two Genesis accounts, concluding that the differences cue us in that these stories aren't meant to be read literally, since the author left in what would otherwise be viewed as conflicting details.

I have many reasons to commend this book. It is readable, and it helps to get people thinking in a critical way about what is perceived as a major conflict for Christians today between science and the Bible. I think many of their ideas are very helpful, and I do think that reading Genesis 1 and 2 against the back drop of the ancient Near East gives much greater understanding of these passages than a surface reading by someone in the twenty-first century alone could. I am also in agreement with the basic outline of the relationship they sketch between science and theology and hope this popular-level treatment brings that understanding to a wider audience. There were, I thought, a few weaknesses in the book. For me the largest one was the lack of useful summaries at the end of the two chapters investigating the creation texts in the NT and OT outside of Genesis 1 and 2. I thought these were interesting chapters, but they didn't seem to add much to the argument. Or, at least, their place went largely unstated beyond a few allusions. I also thought they ignored one of the most important "losses" as they term it, if their non-literal approach to Genesis 1 and 2 is adopted, namely the question of the historicity of Adam and Eve and the implications of that discussion for our understanding of humanity, the image of God, and the origin and character of sin. Although it is a complicated question, its exclusion seems a glaring omission (though it could be argued that it is technically outside their scope in focusing on Genesis 1 and 2, but Genesis 2 and 3 clearly for a unit of story, so decisions about one would likely have implications for understanding the other).

In conclusion, I hope many people read this book, and I do happily recommend it. There are pieces that could have been stronger, but it is overall a very clear statement of a better way of thinking about science and the Bible than the conflict model, and it helpful points Christians in a better direction.

Mark Yarhouse, Homosexuality and the Christian

Thanks to Bethany House for the review copy.

In this book that reflects many years of dedicated thought, counseling, and discussion, psychologist Mark Yarhouse steps right into the controversial waters of a Christian response to homosexuality. In it, he approaches the issue from a number of different angle. The first point in his discussion is a brief survey of the biblical evidence, which includes a helpful discussion of how not to misuse it, and he also helpfully contextualizes the discussion of Scripture in a wider discussion of sources of theology (covering the traditional quadrilateral of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience), which helps to make readers aware of how they are approaching this difficult issue and also helps people to understand how others are approaching it. I think this is a helpful move, which helps people to be aware of how others are approaching these controversial questions, and helps us to appreciate the type of reasoning they are using instead of simply dismissing them. And I think this move of driving toward listening and understanding as a key component of dialogue is indicative of Yarhouse's book, which demonstrates that type of sympathetic listening and determination not to jump too quickly to facile conclusions.

The chapter that I think was for me the most helpful is his second chapter, where he looks at sexual identity. He advocates a three-tiered understanding of homosexuality: attraction, orientation, identity. The level of attraction is purely descriptive, people experience same-sex attraction. The second level, homosexual orientation, takes a step beyond attraction to a declaration of a settled pattern of attraction. The third level, gay identity, extends beyond either of the first two largely descriptive categories to a statement of identity formed around the sexual orientation, a self-attribution of who a person is that now integrates and endorses the sexual attractions. In our culture, there is a "gay script," as he describes it, that seeks to draw people from the first tier, attraction, through the second and into the third tier, all the while seeking to show that they aren't really tiers at all but one integrated whole. This script is based on the ideal of "self-actualization" and discovery. Yarhouse, on the other hand, posits the possibility of another more traditionally Christian script, which he describes as "Identity 'In Christ.'" He details this script as follows:

-Same-sex attraction does not signal a categorical distinction among types of persons, but is one of many human experiences that are "not the way it's supposed to be."
-Same-sex attractions may be part of your experience, but they are not the defining element of your identity.
-You can choose to integrate your experiences of attraction to the same sex into a gay identity.
-On the other hand, you can choose to center your identity around other aspects of your experience, including your biological sex, gender identity, and so on.
-The most compelling aspect of personhood for the Christian is one's identity in Christ, a central and defining aspect of what it means to be a follower of Jesus. (p. 51)

It is this alternative script that forms the basis for his prescribed response.

Yarhouse, as a practicing psychologist and professor of psychology, is well qualified to speak to the medical issues surrounding the discussion of sexual orientation, and his brief chapter detailing some of the important research demonstrates again that he resists facile conclusions but instead allows sometimes complex data to bring him to nuanced statements. As he discusses what causes homosexuality, he concludes that it likely has many causes, which are weighted differently in different people, and that we must be careful not to blame a person who is experiencing same-sex attraction as though they have chosen to experience it. His discussion of orientation change is likewise nuanced, as he endorses the fact that change can occur, but also cautions that only some people experience change, and most of those are only an incremental change as opposed to a complete reversal.

These chapters form the foundation of the book, and lay the groundwork for the real practical discussions that follow. The second part of the book investigates how to respond to a adolescent child, adult child, or spouse who is dealing with this issue. In the third part, he turns the focus on the church's response. I won't detail these here because my review is already longer than I had intended, but I will simply state that he uses the groundwork he has laid to good effect as he helps Christians to look at this issue from a somewhat different, and I believe helpful, perspective. I do not hesitate in recommending this book. I think he strikes a very warm and irenic tone, even as he seeks to correct people on both poles in this often acrimonious debate. Instead, he puts a very human face on the issues, interspersing his discussion with anecdotes from his own practice and people he has encountered over the years. In the end, I think the question that forms the title for his discussion of the church's response, "Whose people are we talking about?" puts things just the right way, and his answer is emphatically that Christians who struggle with homosexuality are "our people," people who need our support and encouragement as we all the while acknowledge to being fellow travelers on the road to Christlikeness. This doesn't mean compromise of biblical standards of sexuality, but it does mean a different approach toward those who are sincerely struggling. In all, I found this book a great resource, and I have gained a broader and more nuanced perspective that will be beneficial going forward.

Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, 2nd ed.

IVP Academic has announced that Mark Baker and Joel Green are releasing a second edition of their relatively controversial Recovering the Scandal of the Cross (link to the first edition here) this coming September. This is one of the books that has sought to broaden the evangelical understanding of atonement, and it has been met with a good bit of resistance. It will be interesting to see what they have to say a little more than ten years after the release of the first edition. You can also get a feel for Joel Green's approach to atonement in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views.

Richard Stearns, The Hole in Our Gospel

Thanks to Thomas Nelson for the review copy.

I loved this book! And I hope you read it. That's the only way I can start this review. Richard Stearns, the president of World Vision, has written a powerful apologetic for that important Christian ministry, but more than that, he has challenged evangelicalism to espouse a fully orbed gospel of the kingdom.

The book is part testimony and autobiography, with Stearns recounting his own journey from new Christian to successful corporate executive to president of World Vision. And it is a great story, easy to relate to, and well told. I found it easy to relate to Stearns' journey, his excitement for the gospel but also his reluctance to step out of his comfort zone into new territories. His story is written with obvious honesty and candor, and I thin it lays important groundwork for and integrates well with the book's overall message about broadening the way we understand the gospel and our role to spread the gospel to the world.

The core vision of the book is about getting beyond a traditional view of the gospel as an "otherworldly" message of hope for the hereafter to a Jesus-centered kingdom vision about changed lives, spiritually and physically. We are called not only to preach but to also embody the gospel. "This gospel that we have been given—the whole gospel—is God's vision for a new way of living. It inaugurates the reality of God dwelling within us, His followers, no longer in a temple in Jerusalem. . . . God's kingdom was going to begin on earth through the changed lives of His followers, and its hall markes would be forgiveness, love, compassion, justice, and mercy" (276).

Stearns is well aware of the dangers of preaching a "works" righteousness, and he addresses that concern a couple of times in his writing. He is also aware that some may want to read his message as a call away from traditional evangelistic preaching to a social gospel, a charge he anticipates and subverts a number of times as well. In all, I think Stearns has done the church a great service in writing this call to follow Jesus in his kingdom ministry. For if God truly loves the world, aren't we going to do everything in our power to overcome disparity, disease, poverty, and oppression as we do everything we can to overcome spiritual blindness, poverty, and oppression. And, in fact, the two can't and shouldn't be separated. For each side of the gospel fits with the other: a preaching without works of love is only words, and a life of compassionate action is one of the best apologias for the gospel we preach. Highly recommended.

The Passing of Theologian Donald Bloesch

Michael Bird at Euangelion notes the passing of theologian Donald Bloesch. I am very saddened to hear of his death. I have greatly appreciated his thoughtful theological writing. Bloesch, most notably for me, was an evangelical who remained within his mainline tradition (United Church of Christ), and wrote out of that context. This helped produce, I think, a wonderful blend of the biblical, historical, and theological. He drew heavily, though not uncritically, on Karl Barth. His great 7-volume systematic theology, Christian Foundations, contains some real jems: I especially appreciate God the Almighty, Holy Scripture,  and The Holy Spirit. I found great solace in his writing, especially as I myself was seeking to do theology out of a mainline context throughout Seminary while maintaining my evangelical sensibilities, and in fact seeking to enrich my thinking in both ways (drawing on the wonderful riches of the mainline heritage, i my case Lutheran, while also preserving the great and deep evangelical currents and especially the close ties to the Bible). Bloesch served as a great encouragement in this sense as this is precisely what his project accomplishes.

I recall one particular enlightenment I gained from him, on how to think through the meaning and purpose of the sacraments. It was through Bloesch that I gained an appreciation for the great nourishment and value of the sacraments, and how they could and would be a locus of the activity of the Holy Spirit, without at the same time falling prey to a view that attributes some type of automatic or salvation-giving power to the action in and of itself.

In all, I owe a great debt to Bloesch, and will continue to gain great insight from his work, which I richly commend. May he rest overjoyed in God's gracious presence.

Revelation and the Millennium

The EFCA has recently revised its Statement of Faith (see my earlier comments here). One of the major modifications was the inclusion of "premillennialism" in the statement. I must admit that I initially met this inclusion with some skepticism--do we really need to enshrine that particular belief in our statement, especially considering the number of Christians holding varying opinions.

Our church (Oxboro Ev. Free Church) is going to be looking at the changes to the statement in the coming weeks, so I thought I'd begin doing some homework. And though I've studied and read about Revelation and issues surrounding the Millennium before, I've never really delved deeply into it, and never really come to any opinion on it myself, even a provisional one. And I figured this would be a good time to get working. So I pulled a number of books off my shelves and got to reading. At first, I was struck by the breadth of the views I was finding. It seemed that each position had some positives and some negatives.

So I sat down and read Revelation from start to finish, essentially non-stop. (I must say I highly recommend this, especially after perusing an introduction or two to get your bearings.) And was struck by how powerful the words would have been to its first audience, Asian Christians facing persecution. It seems we all too often forget that they are the adressees of the letter! I must admit that this doesn't easily and quickly solve any of the thorny and complicated exegetical issues of the book, but it does immediately and powerfully open up the main thrust of the book: God is holy, mighty, powerful, the Savior! He was and is and is to come. And despite how things may look at the moment, he's got the whole world in his hands, and his judgments are just. We can expect some tough times, difficult persecutions, maybe even death for his name. But don't be fooled--God is on the throne, and he is coming again to vindicate the righteous and to set the world right.

So there's a thumbnail sketch of Revelation. It is easy to see why this book has inspired so many songs, poems, and prayers. (Think Milton, for one easy example.) But what about the Millennium? Like I said, I didn't come up with any easy answers to the thorny questions. But. After a lot of reading (from commentators like Robert Mounce in the NICNT to Craig Koester to Ben Witherington, from the NT theology of I. H. Marshall, and from theologians like Donald Bloesch and Wayne Grudem), I am more and more convinced that while I may have some type of affinity with an amillennial position (more for aesthetic reasons than anything else, I think), I keep being lead toward premillennialism. Though it is also abundantly clear that this is not an obvious road to take (a commentator as responsible and mature as I. H. Marshall essentially dismisses premillennialism out of hand in his NT Theology). And right now, the most clear and convincing piece of the argument goes back to where I started in my exploration, thinking about the original audience. Amillennialism and Postmillennialism may seem like equally viable options now, two millennia later, as we look over the past and possible future. There's a church age, that may be somehow related to the millennium (amillennialists would say it has been and is the "millennium" and postmillennialists would say something like it is becoming or will become the millennium). But, what of the original authors, who didn't have that church age behind them. In fact, one of the clearest and probably most secure pieces of NT data we have is that the NT authors didn't expect a long and extended "church age." They expected Christ's return at any moment. In Revelation, for instance, just turn the page from Revelation 20 and the discussion of the millennium and you get to Revelation 22: Come Lord Jesus! And the same expectation permeates Paul, the Gospels, and the other NT writings as well. Jesus is coming again; soon! While this may not be a totally secure argument for premillennialism, (and while it argues more persuasively against postmillenniallism than amillennialism) it sure makes good sense of the data in a very natural way.

Propositions in theology

One of the major developments in "late-modern" and "post-conservative evangelical" theology is a movement away from propositions as the central and sufficient way of enshrining the gospel message. I have watched and learned of this trend with mixed emotions. I warm to it in the sense that over-focus on propositions seems to tame the gospel into information or language games. On the other hand, I am cautious about overstating the folly of propositions, because, regardless of the exact status we ascribe to propositions in our theology, there is an irreducible propositional content to our talk about God, it seems to me, even if it is variably expressed. LeRon Shults, in a post from a couple years ago, talks about propositions with regard to the emergent movement. It gives some interesting food for thought. And while I agree with him that often "statements of faith" serve as means to exclude, and am continuously drawn to an approach that seeks to focus on the center rather than fixing the boundaries, I also worry that eschewing statements of faith, even as provisional tools, is equally a cause for concern.

William Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals

I think it is fair to say that hermeneutics, and specifically hermeneutics as it relates to cultural anaylsis, is one of the most pressing issues facing the church today. How we understand Scripture to relate to its original culture and how we appropriate it in our own culture is one of the issues that is driving our current era of church history. How we understand issues such as those surrounding women and homosexuals are very live and important questions in our day. And this is why I commend William Webb's book as highly as I possibly can. He addresses these issues by carefully probing the underlying hermeneutical questions with thoroughness and and an irenic and humble spirit.

Webb begins by laying out the Christian's challenge with regard to these issues, "It is necessar for Christians to challenge their culture where it departs from kingdom values; it is equally necessary for them to identify with their culture on all other matters" (22, italics in original). This is difficult because though Scripture contains both culture-bound and transcultural elements, these would have been nearly indistinguishable to its original readers. The challenge, then, is to live out the spirit of the text without being too inseparably bound to the "isolated words." For Webb, this means undertaking a "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" as opposed to a "static" hermeneutic.

A redemptive-movement hermeneutic seeks to assess the "movement" of a text relative to its original cultural setting. It then moves into our own day and seeks to retain the same direction of movement relative to our current culture in places where our cultural setting has gone beyond that of the original culture. An explicit component of this assessment is that the Bible doesn't only contain an "ultimate" ethic, but often contains provisions, laws, and instructions that entail only a "partially realized" ethic. It is worth taking a second to look at the reasons Webb outlines for this to be so, because I don't think this concept is one most readers of Scripture consciously ascribe to. Webb asserts that God often inspired a "partially realized" ethic (1) for pastoral reasons, to stretch his people as far as they could go without snapping; (2) for padagogical reasons, to help people move from the known to a foreseeable future with enough continuity so they can find their way; (3) for evangelistic reasons, thus reform was intended to better social structures without being so radical as to jeopardize other aspects of the Christian mission; (4) to sustain competing values, such as upholding temporary values in pursuit of associated goods, such as slavery in service of social welfare or patriarchy in service to gender differentiation; and (5) for soteriological resons, to to deal with a fallen and sinful humanity to whom reform does not come easiliy and move us in a process of progressive sanctification.

Throughout the book, Webb sustains an argument that, taking the presence of elements of both an ultimate and a provisional ethic within Scripture (and he certainly acknowledges the presence of an ultimate ethic in Scripture), we must undertake careful cultural analysis to determine what components of Scripture are culture-bound and which are transcultural. Once this is done, we seek to uphold the transcultural components and seek to live out the culture-bound components through a process of "redemptive movement" where we seek to follow the redemptive spirit within the text by reapplying that same spirit to our own culture. Let's follow a similar flow to Webb's own argument to flesh this out a bit.

Webb argues that the neutral example of slavery provides an important case study for understanding how a redemptive movement hermeneutic works. The culture of the Ancient Near East and of the Greco-Roman world upheld a structure of slavery. The Bible, written within this culture, reflects this setting, in that it assumes the general structure of slavery. There are no explicit texts or passages that speak directly to the need for the abolition of slavery (except perhaps for Gal 3:28 and parallels); there are, on the flip side, though, many texts that assume that slavery exists. But many of these texts reflect a "redemptive movement," that is, they demonstrate a limited but real movement away from the worst abuses of slavery toward better and more equal treatment of slaves. This movement, when coupled with the ultimate ethic in Scripture that acknowledges the equality of all people before God and the need to love neighbor as self, points toward the need for further movement beyond the movement accomplished in the OT or NT. Thus, as we live out the spirit of these texts, we appreciate our different cultural setting and seek to move closer to the unrealized ultimate ethic of abolition of slavery, and even beyond this toward fuller workplace and economic justice.

Webb takes this same process of analysis into his discussion of texts surrounding women. In that cultural analysis, through the use of eighteen different criteria, he assesses the culture-bound components of patriarchy, relating to economic, social, and practical concerns. This analysis includes a careful exposition of the pertinent New Testament texts in their cultural settings, as well as a thorough discussion of the relation between the testaments on this point, and especially of the role played by Genesis texts in the discussion. He then couples this with an investigation of the ultimate ethic present in scripture, and concludes that the Bible moves toward a complementary egalitarianism or an ultra-soft patriarchy.

The third issue Webb looks at throughout the book is that of homosexuality. This is important in two respects. First, it is important because it is a vital issue in its own right, and second, because it is often related either positively or negatively to discussion of issues regarding women, usually to rhetorical effect. Thus, importantly, Webb demonstrates that the two issues, both needing careful cultural analysis, demonstrate opposite movements within Scripture. Whereas the patriarchy texts evidence a positive movement toward egalitarianism, the homosexual texts consistently demonstrate an absolute movement away from freedom to complete prohibition, and this movement is to be carried over into our own culture, albeit slightly modified.

William Webb's book is often cited and quoted in studies surrounding these important and divisive issues, and this is with good reason. I wish I had read this book years ago, and have deeply appreciated his hermeneutical insights. He shows how to recognize a redemptive movement in Scripture that acknowledges and appreciates the spirit of the text without being too bound to the "isolated words," by which he means the words taken in isolation from their cultural and canonical context. He demonstrates a genuine faithfulness to Scripture and an intense pursuit of God's truth and God's desire for our lives here in the in-between time, while also demonstrating how to carefully move beyond the bare words of Scripture in those cases when it is bound to its cultural setting. I look forward to appropriating his insights in future study. I must say that I also deeply appreciated his humble and irenic tone. He openly acknowledged the areas of greatest weakness in his own case (even writing a "What If I Am Wrong?" chapter to lay bare and discuss these weaknesses and their bearing on his case), and also sought to acknowledge the strengths of his opponents positions and demonstrated charitable readings of opposing views. All the same, I think he also admirably shows the promise of careful cultural analysis for faithful application of Scripture, in a convincing assessment of the issues surrounding both homosexuality and women. I also hope at the very least that this book dismantles the arguments often bandied about that those who favor women in ministry are on the slippery slope to accepting homosexuality or that those who accept women in ministry must make this subsequent move, as Webb demonstrates how this is clearly not so.

In all, this book is a landmark study of hermeneutics especially as it bears on these important issues, and is a must read for those on all sides of these pressing discussions. Do not miss this book, and do not delay.

Glorifying God

One of the areas of tension that I see in envangelical theology today has to do with the place and role of God's glory in our understanding of God and creation. There are streams of thought, mostly reformed in orientation, that assert God's glory is God's chief purpose in end in all that he does, while there are other streams of thought that speak more freely of God's love and God's orientation toward the other. I admit that even trying to divide the camps like this is an inadequate characture, but hopefully it gives us a place to start.

I'm currently reading Alan Coppedge, The God Who Is Triune, and he has a great perspective on this, which I will quote here:

But is gloryfing God a creation purpose or a result of creation? If gloryfing God is God's own purpose, it would seem to be a self-centered purpose rather than a self-giving purpose. Does God have some innate need to be glorified and constantly have others' attention? Alternatively, if glorifying God is a natural result of God's purpose in creation, its role changes. If glory is a result of what God has done, it leads others to God's purpose for them, and it is therefore an other-oriented factor rather than a self-centered one. From the nature of the triune, self-giving God, it seems that God's glory as a result of creation is preferable. If this is the case, then God does need to be glorified, but as a result of what he has done, not as a chief end in itself. Our shift in perspective comes with a move from seeing God primarily as sovereign King to understanding him as the tripersonal God. (272–73)

Pearl of Wisdom from Michael Bird

Michael Bird, over at Euangelion, has a brilliant little pearl about homosexuality and the church. He writes, "Everybody is invited to my church and come as you are: gays, prostitutes, ex-cons, even people who vote Republican! But no-one is allowed to stay as you are, and if you have to do business with God in the area of sexuality, well, so be it." Simple yet profound. I hope the church aspires to this simple truth.

Fishing for people

As I sat last night in a Adult Ministries Committee meeting, reflecting how we as a church reach out to those inside and outside our fellowship, I got to thinking about what we do as a church and why. One thought led to another, and pretty soon I was thinking about why the church exists and what it is supposed to do. Now, this post is not the place to try articulate a fully orbed ecclesiology, but I do want to share one reflection. It seems to me that too often today, churches fall into the trap of seeing themselves as magnets. What I mean is that we focus our energy, time, and certainly money on better facilities, better programs, better worship experience, and the list goes on. We are trying to attract people to us and then keep them. Now, there's nothing wrong with attracting people to come through our doors, it's good to have well-kept facilities, etc. But, it seems we've got a mentality right out of Field of Dreams, if we build it/perform it/provide it, they will come. What about churches as being places where we focus on fishing for people. Where we encourage one another to spread out throughout our community and actually talk to people, share with them, invite them to come. We might spend less energy focused on inward projects and keep our eyes outward a little more.

I know this isn't the basis for a complete doctrine of the church, but it certainly seems worth pondering. Is my service to Christ solely focused on what I do in the church and for churchgoers? Doesn't quite seem right?

EFCA Statement of Faith

The EFCA (Evangelical Free Church in America), the denomination to which I belong, has recently updated its Statement of Faith. Collin Hansen at CT wrote a short article praising the church for being proactive in modifying its statement. And I tend to agree that the new statement is an improvement. David Neff has a great piece on his blog about the change in the statement with regard to the "ordinances" (sacraments for those of you in other traditions). I think this helps fill an important hole in much evangelical theology, with a tendancy to ignore the sacraments for fear it will look like they convey salvation. I do think they have an important role to play in the life of the church as they enact the gospel message in a tangible way and as they serve as a vehicle that the Holy Spirit uses to work in people's lives. I haven't had time to go over the statement in detail, but there was one thing that jumped out at me, which is the inclusion of premillenialism in the statement, an article I'm going to need to think more about. But overall I think the EFCA has a very strong statement of faith, partly because of its brevity.

Scripture's authority and its humanity

My own continuing investigation into a robust doctrine of Scripture continues (it's an investigation that goes in fits and starts, but is always ongoing, I think). Coming as I do out of a relatively conservative evangelical tradition (my own church home is the Evangelical Free Church) I received and assumed a very conservative view of Scripture, one in which it was all God's Word to me here and now, with it's original context as more of a curiosity than a vital component of study. Saying I received and assume this is to say that it is what I took from what I heard in church, Sunday school, and other places; it isn't to say that is what my pastors and teachers necessarily believed (though I'm sure it is true of some of them). There was a real common-sense approach to Scripture that assumed its perspecuity. I'm greatful for that heritage, and still believe that a strong devotional use of Scripture is essential to the Christian life as we hear how Scripture speaks to us. But I've also been working for the past ten or more years to round out my understanding of Scripture by really coming to grips with the God who speaks in Scripture and by the ways God has revealed himself through its authors and pages. That has meant acknowledging and appreciating the human aspects of God's revelation. They are undeniable, and are often paid lip service, but I think a better appreciation for the phenomenon of Scripture (that is, paying attention to the books we have and how we got them) can heighten our appreciation for how God acts and for what God has chosen to give us. To that end, Peter Enns has a post on his blog from last month that discusses how Scripture's humanity relates to its authority.

Enns writes, "Scripture is God’s word because it is of divine origin. That is the locus of authority, and no discussion of its humanity in any way compromises that authority. What a study of Scripture’s humanity does do is help us see the manner in which the divine author speaks authoritatively into particular ancient cultures. How this authoritative Scripture translates to different times and places, in both its timeless affirmations and contextualized particularity is (I trust this is not too reductionistic) the task of theological study. It is my firm experience, however, that evangelical lay readers, those to whom the book is addressed, are not accustomed to understanding the nature of Scripture this way."

Well said.