The Error of Inerrancy As Commonly Understood

For some ‘Evangelicals’ today the ‘doctrine’ of inerrancy is nothing other than the old and inadequate ‘doctrine’ (read, false teaching) of transubstantiation transferred to Scripture.  Scripture, for these ‘Evangelicals’, is God enfleshed and astonishingly they do not recognize the inappropriateness of their viewpoint even though most recognize the inappropriateness of ‘transubstantiation’.

That’s irony.

[With many thanks to Brian Le Port for pointing me down this path by remarking “… is it just me, or does his views sound like transubstantiation moved from Eucharist to Scripture?” on the twitter].

Has the British Media Invented a ‘Christian Right’ Simply to Beat it Up?

In a brief but fine little article Paul Handley observes

Individuals or groups with a narrow, sectarian interest are frequently represented in the media as representing “Christians”. There are three types of culprit: the unscrupulous reporter or, more typically, broadcast producer, who simply seeks good copy; the busy journalist who has time only to contact those who are readily available; and the “religious pundit”, who has the spurious weight of some sort of organisation behind him or her. Because these together have brought religion in the secular media to such a low pitch, there is a fourth culprit: the sensible, knowledgeable practitioner who understandably puts other priorities above correcting false media impressions.

And

In this light, we commend the new Theos report on the supposed Religious Right in the UK. Its authors examine the credentials of those organisations most often cited as examples of a right-ward shift, and find, in sum, that they have neither the support, the organisation, the connections, nor the policies to constitute a political movement that corresponds to the Christian Right in the United States, which is, itself, experiencing the doldrums after the recent Republican defeat. And yet these organisations are the source of the persecution narrative that has now been accepted as the normal experience of Christians in the UK.

And best of all

We therefore recognise the sentiments behind this description of these organisations by someone from one of the more mainstream groups, the executive director of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, Colin Bloom: “They are so marginalised where it matters that they’re irrelevant. They’re only relevant to a lazy journalistic clique that try and create a polemic for good TV or good radio. . . They want to get the most extreme voices and say, ‘you represent the Evangelical Christian Right’ – and these people are mad!”

This is CERTAINLY exactly what is done here in the States as well.  When you hear reports on the news concerning ‘Evangelicals’ you hear only the most extreme voices.  These are the most un-evangelical of the Evangelicals.  But it’s good tv in just the same way that pseudo-archaeology and bogus fictive claims about the bones of Jesus’ family or the discovery of ‘Noah’s Ark’ are good pseudo-documentary.  Garbage sells.  The more garbage, the more public notice.  And news outlets, cable channels, and many publishers know it.  Which is why they produce it.

It’s essentially the same thing as happens when there’s a tornado.  The media doesn’t find an articulate soul to interview, they find the inarticulate toothless dullard who lacks a shirt and breeding and they interview that person.  It’s good tv.

So when the media tell you something that ‘Evangelicals’ are saying or doing you can be fairly certain that what they’re really describing is something some lunatic fringe group is doing or saying.  Hence, what they’re really producing never existed in mainstream Evangelicalism.  And that makes it a lie.

As With All Things Emergent, It Begins in a Bar…

Marc (Markie Mark) Cortez is commencing a series on Barth, Evangelicals, and Universalism.  The first post is really nicely attempted and the comments by the guy named Michael are worth noting.  I’m looking forward to the series though, since it’s set in a tavern of wicked drunkenness, I’ll be having a Diet Coke thank you.

[NB- All kidding aside, it should be a great series.  I like Marc.  He’s sharp and he’s a very congenial person (and if you’re wondering why he isn’t on the blogroll it’s just because his blog lacks a roll altogether and it’s not fair for relationships to be one sided)]

Michael Pahl on ‘Evangelicalism’

Must reading.  He commences

It’s a perennial question among evangelicals: What does it mean to be “evangelical”?  As a Canadian, I’ve got more than a little experience with these sorts of identity crises. In Canada attempting to describe what it means to be Canadian is a national past-time right up there with hockey.  So imagine being a Canadian evangelical. It’s truly dizzying.  I’ve thought quite a bit about evangelical identity over the years. Even more so recently, both in light of some personal events but also in view of a book I’m working on that gives some space to this very question.

Enjoy!

Related Articles

• When You’ve Been Let Go, It Gives You A Better Perspective on Those Who Suffer Similarly: LeDonne on Pahl (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• Michael Pahl’s Statement Concerning His Dismissal From Talibanville, Oops I Mean Cedarville (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

Evangelicals, Don’t Be Ashamed… A New Commentary Series Called the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary

Logos launched, last year, a new commentary series aimed at bringing the best of Evangelical scholarship to bear on the interpretation of the biblical text.  It’s called the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary.

I’ve received the commentaries on Philemon and Ezra/Nehemiah (take note, Thomas Bolin) and feel like saying a few things about them.  But first, a word about the series itself.

These days a lot of Evangelicals are being ‘shamed’ into retreat of a sort into the back room of biblical studies.  ‘Oh Evangelicals can’t be objective so their work is illegitimate’ or ‘Evangelical = Fundamentalist, ergo, what they write doesn’t matter’ are phrases sometimes heard in the hallways of academic conferences.  Take heart, Evangelicals, you have no cause to be ashamed of who you are or where you stand.

Let’s be really, really objective for a moment, shall we?  These days the bible is read through a variety of lenses.  We have ‘queer’ commentaries, ‘feminist’ commentaries, ‘minority’ commentaries, ‘third world’ commentaries, ‘Catholic’ commentaries, ‘secularist’ commentaries, ‘Pentecostal’ commentaries and of course the usual ‘historical-critical’ commentaries.  And the one common truth they all share is that they come from a point of view- they all operate with presuppositions.  I guarantee you that if you pick up a ‘queer’ commentary its reading of Romans 1-2 will be quite idiosyncratic, pressing, as it must, a reading which accords to its viewpoint.

Historical-critical commentaries too come from a point of view which has problems inherent in the system.  The entire ‘documentary hypothesis’ of the Pentateuch is a case in point.  It’s nothing more than the fruit of academic imagination, pure and simple, and yet it remains the reigning theory of pentateuchal composition.

As my dear teacher reminded us all in an essay he wrote many, many years ago- ‘there is no such thing as presuppositionless exegesis!’

Hence, fellow Evangelicals, don’t be ashamed of who you are nor of your supposition that Scripture is just that, Scripture.  ‘Queer’ theorists aren’t ashamed of who they are nor of their point of view and neither are feminists.  Why should Evangelicals be?

Frankly I’m proud of Logos for publishing a commentary series that actually admits its presuppositions beforehand.  I’m not ashamed of the title ‘Evangelical’ and I look forward to digging in more to exegetical commentaries which bear the name I also proudly wear.

So, in the next week or so, expect a few words about both the Philemon volume and the Ezra/Nehemiah volume.

More anon…

Related articles

• Ezra, Nehemiah: New Collegeville Bible Commentary (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• Thomas Bolin’s Commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah: An Excerpt (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

The Word ‘Evangelicals’ Means Anything its Users Want it to Mean- So It Means Nothing

For instance, the phrase ‘Evangelicals for gay marriage‘ illustrates the point.  Evangelicals (in the historic sense of the word) can no more be ‘for’ gay marriage than they can be ‘for’ any other activity or behavior renounced in Scripture.  ‘Evangelicals for gay marriage’ is an empty phrase.  As empty as ‘Evangelicals for Adultery’ or ‘Evangelicals for theft’.

Now I realize that this will make the gay rights activists angry.  Sorry about that, but it can’t be helped.  I wasn’t the one to formulate the phrase and I mention it only because it shows how far modern ‘Christianity’ has removed itself, especially in its Protestant (Evangelical) branch, from its scriptural moorings.

It’s sad really.  ‘Evangelical’ used to be a term of pride.  ‘Evangelicals’ were people who were followers of Jesus, adherents of Scripture, and true to historic Christianity.  Now it means whatever its user wants it to mean- which means that it means nothing at all.

What next?  What can we expect?  ‘Evangelicals for Slavery’?  ‘Evangelicals for pedophilia’?  ‘The Evangelical Branch of NAMBLA’?  ‘Evangelicals for Abortion’?  ‘Evangelicals for Murder’?  ‘Evangelicals for Anarchy’?

Farewell, ‘Evangelical’.  You were useful for a while but now you’ve been hijacked and emptied of your meaning by persons who are as ‘Evangelical’ as a Boston Priest.

The Contest of the Century

Christ at the Checkpoint is running a blogger’s contest offering various prizes to those willing to help publicize their upcoming Peace Conference.  I’m happy to help even without the promise of a potential windfall because:

1- I believe that there should be peace in the Middle East and anything that furthers that goal is worth mentioning.

2- I got a bit of ‘hate mail’ the other day because I was supporting (in a previous post) the Christ at the Checkpoint project (which my emailer described as a racist and anti-semitic project).   When I see honest efforts for peace demonized by Christian Zionists I’m naturally motivated to promote them even more.

And 3- If you can attend the Conference, you really should go.  Here’s what the Conference is REALLY about (in case you too have had the Christian Zionists stoop to deception)

The aim of the Christ at the Checkpoint conference is to provide an opportunity for Evangelical Christians to prayerfully seek a proper awareness of issues of peace, justice, and reconciliation in the context of the realities on the ground in the Palestinian Territories. It will also provide a platform for serious engagement with Christian Zionism and an open forum for ongoing dialogue between all positions within the Evangelical theological spectrum.

Even if you can’t go, you can pray.

Related articles

• ‘With God on Our Side’ (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• Why “Christian” Zionism is a Cult (zionistoutrage.com)
• Zionist Hatred (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

The Feminization of the Church

Der Begriff «Feminisierung» sei in aller Munde und werde auf die verschiedensten gesellschaftlichen Bereiche bezogen, heisst es in der Ausschreibung. Auch von einer «Feminisierung der Kirchen» werde in letzter Zeit immer häufiger gesprochen – «oft ist dabei ein abwertender Unterton herauszuhören». Die Feminisierung des Pfarrberufs schade dem Ansehen der Kirche, heisse es etwa. Dabei werde nicht nur auf die Beobachtung Bezug genommen, dass in verschiedenen kirchlichen Bereichen der Frauenanteil zunehme, sondern auf darauf, «dass weibliche Werte und Sozialisierungsmuster an Einfluss gewinnen».

An der Tagung referieren Fachleute aus verschiedenen Gebieten, und auf dem Programm stehen auch Workshops (etwa: «Feminisierung in Gottesbild, Bibel, Sprache» oder «Kirche: Entwicklungs- und Lebensraum für Männer?»).

Well, it has to be said, εκκλησια is feminine…

Check Your Brain at the Door: Faith and Intellectual Freedom (via scientia et sapientia)

Truly, nicely done.

Am I free? Not legally (I’m not in jail) or metaphysically (who knows if I have “free will”?) but intellectually. Do I have intellectual freedom? After all, I teach at a school with belief commitments. To get my job, I had to sign our Faculty Teaching Position. And, if I ever changed my mind on a core aspect of that document, my job would probably be in jeopardy. In that kind of situation, can I have any kind of real intellectual freedom? Or, am … Read More

via scientia et sapientia