Christianity and Culture

Scripture and Science

/ Matt Emerson / Leave a comment

The relationship between science and Scripture is a hot topic today. I am of the opinion that, too often, Scripture is asked to accommodate to the positivist rationalistic assumptions and conclusions of modern scientific inquiry. Here are Vos’ insightful words on the subject:

“At present many writers take exception to [death entering the world through Adam’s sin], largely on scientific grounds. With these as such we have here nothing to do. But, as is frequently the case, strenuous attempts are made to give such a turn to the Biblical phrases as to render them compatible with what science is believed to require, and not only this, some proceed tot he assertion that the Scriptural statements compel acceptance of the findings of science.

Attempts of this kind make for poor and forced exegesis. Scripture has a right to be exegetes independently from within; and only after its natural meaning has thus been ascertained, can we properly raise the question of agreement or disagreement between Scripture and science.”

Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948; repr., Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2012), 36-37.

 

Scholarship and Christian Charity

/ Matt Emerson / 3 Comments

Yesterday I was reminded again by a good brother of how important it is to speak with love and humility towards those with whom we disagree. This has me thinking today about Christians and scholarly engagement with one another’s differing theological stances. Of course, I’m also reminded of this because of the continuing debate about Calvinism within my own denomination. The following is not really an argument for anything or a set position on what it means to have charity in Christian scholarship, just a few thoughts about the subject.

First, as I think about this issue, I’m reminded of Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 4 that the church, the body of Christ, is unified in Christ. When we engage other brothers and sisters on matters in which we disagree, our first thought ought not to be how I can win the argument but how I can love and be unified with my co-heir in Christ. I’ve encountered the statement elsewhere that “unity is accomplished through the truth,” and while I understand this on one level – the church MUST guard against false teaching – I do not in many cases think this is the best approach. On second and third level issues, where the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints” is not at stake, such as Calvinism, I doubt that the way to unity is continued argument until one side capitulates. When we engage fellow believers on these types of issues we certainly ought to do so with conviction, but shouldn’t that also be coupled with a strong dose of humility? I know that I am not right about everything, nor will I ever be, and so the idea that I can only be united in fellowship or missional cooperation with my brother if he “comes to the truth” (i.e. agrees with me) about a certain matter seems to me to be the exact opposite of humble. The idea that everything is a first order issue – that if you don’t agree with me then we are of a different faith altogether – seems to me to fall under this category.

Second, I have heard writers, speakers, theologians, and preachers mention Luther (or some other such person) and his tone towards those with which he disagreed as evidence that a certain invective tone is permissible in theological argumentation. Again, this seems wrong headed to me for a few reasons. No one theologian is ever correct about everything, and this includes the tone they use. I’m not so sure that Luther, giant as he is, ought to be commended for the vindictive way in which he speaks of his opponents at times. Further, our culture is 500 years separated from his, and while I abhor some of the ways in which “political correctness” has permeated our speech, we do not swim in the exact same linguistic, cultural, or emotional waters as the Reformers. Then there’s the fact that none of us is Luther, or any of the Reformers for that matter.

Finally, I also have noticed an increasing amount of people, whether Baptist or Anglican or Methodist, Calvinist or Arminian, egalitarian or complementarian, liberal or conservative, who seem to be waiting for someone, usually a “celebrity” pastor or theologian, to say something upon which they can pounce. Why do we do this? Part of the answer, I think, is that controversy is what draws people to books, blogs, websites, tv shows, and even churches and pastors. And so, in our American sub-conscious desire to rise up, pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, and get rich and famous, we stir the pot. We nitpick at each other.

This all bothers me. And it bothers me that I am so easily ensnared in it. I do all of this and more, and so I am not in any way trying to pull out anyone else’s speck while ignoring my plank. But I hope that we, as the body of Christ, bought by his blood and raised to new life by his Spirit, can treat each other with more Christian charity and humility than I have seen of late.

Stephen Colbert Interviews Dan Brown

/ Luke Wisley / 1 Comment

One of my favourite Catholic theologians is Stephen Colbert. In this video he interviews author Dan Brown. Hope you enjoy.

Worship “Bands”

/ Matt Emerson / 3 Comments

I could not be more appreciative of this post by Justin Taylor on the difference between congregational singing and a worship concert. I have long been troubled by the celebrity status of many of the most influential pastors in modern evangelicalism, and our treatment of their churches’ worship leaders as rock bands only exacerbates the problem. This came to a head for me 4 or 5 years ago when I attended a conference with many of the big names in conservative evangelicalism lined up as speakers. A few of these pastors brought their worship leaders from their churches to lead us in worship. One of these worship “bands”, right before they were about to play their first song, announced that their new CD “release party” was happening at such and such a time and such and such a place. They then proceeded to blast my eardrums and sear my soul for 30 minutes.

“Release party”? For a “worship” CD? And playing “worship songs” like you’re Metallica? Combine that with our zealous following of many of the biggest names in evangelicalism and I think what we have is a capitulation to the American celebrity culture. What we have is close to idolatry (if it’s not that already). Does this kind of thinking and performing in our churches lead to congregational worship? I don’t see how. Sometimes at conferences I want to look around and yell, like Russell Crowe in Gladiator, “are you not entertained?!”

Celebrity pastors don’t help this situation either. I’ve heard of one of these men telling an audience that of course he wouldn’t ever let a campus pastor preach regularly at one of his sites because God had obviously blessed this celebrity pastor with gifts of preaching and leading 10 times more than that campus pastor. What is that saying other than, “my celebrity is what draws people, and I’m not going to trust the Spirit of the living God to raise up faithful men elsewhere, even among sites we’ve planted?”

I say all this having fallen trap to much of it. I still brag that I slipped behind security and spoke with (and hugged) one of these celebrity pastors at a major conference. I have complained about music because the “quality” wasn’t as good, instead of singing to and being sung to by my brothers and sisters around me.

May God turn our hearts away from celebrity and toward his Son through the power of the Spirit.

Americanism

/ Matt Emerson / Leave a comment

This quote from Peter Leithart (Between Babel and Beast, xiii) cuts deep:

Remember who you are, and to whom you belong. Remember that you belong to Jesus first and last; remember that the church, not America, is the body of Christ and the political hope of the future; remember that no matter how much it may have served the city of God, America is in itself part of the city of man; remember that the Eucharist is our sacrificial feast.

 

A Critique of Van Drunen’s “Two Kingdoms”

/ Matt Emerson / 2 Comments

Over the last two days I’ve been reading David Van Drunen’s Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture. I want to start by saying that there are a number of points I appreciate in Van Drunen’s work, especially his argument that the technical aspects of education, work, and politics do not have a specifically “Christian” how-to manual.  I also think good Christians can certainly disagree on this topic. That being said, in my opinion there are at least two fundamental problems with Van Drunen’s articulation of the two kingdoms position in this book. There is, first, the issue of Van Drunen’s supposed biblical foundations, and, second, his misunderstanding about the gospel’s impact on “ordinary” tasks.

First, in terms of the supposed biblical foundations for two kingdoms (which, by the way, take up almost two-thirds of the book), I don’t see Van Drunen laying any in a convincing fashion. He relies on four primary pillars, as far as I can tell: the Noahic covenant, Christ as the last Adam, the cataclysmic nature of Christ’s return, and the “sojourner and exile” language of the NT. Van Drunen argues that the Noahic covenant establishes the common kingdom and that the later Abrahamic covenant establishes the redemptive kingdom. The Noahic covenant, in this view, is not about redemption but about the establishment and preservation of the common kingdom, especially through justice (blood for blood) and family. This is, along with Christ as the last Adam, the major foundation for Van Drunen’s position. I find it thoroughly unconvincing. The Noahic covenant is highly redemptive, both in looking back to creation and looking forward to Christ. The flood is presented in similar terms as the chaos of Gen. 1:2, and the ark’s landing on dry land and Noah’s commission by God to be fruitful and multiply both echo the original creation narrative. It is, in other words, new creation, restoration. Of course it is not THE new creation; Noah, the second Adam, gets naked and drunk immediately. But that’s how the OT operates – it gives us proleptic typological pictures of the final and ultimate redemption in Christ. So Noah points us back to creation and speaks of its renewal, but points us forward to the ultimate renewal in Christ. It is thoroughly redemptive, not just “common.”

The second major biblical foundation Van Drunen gives for his position is his repeated refrain that believers are “not little Adams,” which for him means that the church must distinguish its work from “common kingdom” activities like caring for creation, vocation, or familial relationships. I want to commend Van Drunen for recognizing that the first Adam had specific tasks related to his image bearing – ruling, keeping, being fruitful, and obeying – that he failed at these tasks which plunged the creation and humanity into sin, and that Christ as the second Adam accomplishes what the first Adam did not. Van Drunen also rightly states that it is Christ and Christ alone that accomplishes this. But to then go on to say that we are “not little Adams” that do not participate in Christ in these is again thoroughly unconvincing in my opinion. The NT repeatedly refers to the church in “new Adam” language, and in ways that tie the church’s task to Adam’s tasks. Jesus “breathes the Spirit” into his disciples in John 20, which is a direct allusion back to Gen. 2:7 – Jesus, the last Adam, is creating “little Adams.” In Acts 6, 12, and 19, the Word of God “increases and multiplies” through the gospel proclamation of the church. In Ephesians 2:6 we are “seated with Christ in the heavenly places,” a location in Ephesians 1:20-21 that directly relates to Christ’s authority over the principalities and powers – in other words, his rule. The ruling task is also the focus of Rom. 16:20, where Paul promises that Satan will be crushed under the feet of the church. “Little Adam” language is also found in Ephesians 4 and Colossians 3, where Christians are told to “put off the old man” and “put on the new man.” This is directly related to the image of God being restored in Christians, an image that was first made in Adam. So to say that the Bible doesn’t call us “little Adams” just does not bear the weight of the NT evidence.

Two other biblical foundations are used by Van Drunen: 2 Peter 3/Revelation 21 and the NT language of “exile and sojourner.” I don’t have many quibbles with the latter, but the former again presents major problems in my opinion. Van Drunen asserts that 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21 teach that there is a radical or cataclysmic break at Christ’s return between life now and the life to come. He presents this break as being manifested primarily in the arena of the common kingdom, so that activities in that arena now are temporary and fleeting with no eternal effect. First, I don’t think that Van Drunen correctly interprets the apocalyptic language of 2 Peter 3 or Revelation 21. You can read my post about that here. I don’t think that the radical break that Van Drunen rightly recognizes is primarily manifested in the “common kingdom”, but in the presence of sin in all areas of creation. That is where the cataclysmic break occurs. Remember, Jesus’ death and resurrection is also presented in apocalyptic language, and while his resurrected body is certainly new and restored and radically creative, it also is still a physical body that looks like his old body (because, you know, it’s the same, just a new creation body). In other words, I don’t think Van Drunen’s assertion that the apocalyptic return of Christ will basically abolish the common kingdom and anything in it now is justified. It’s possible to read the NT this way, but I think to do so is to go beyond the NT evidence. At the end of the day then, I don’t see Van Drunen laying any convincing biblical foundations. Even the “sojourners and exiles” foundation, which in his NT chapter is very reflective of biblical categories, ends up being so reliant on his first two foundations that it is eventually unconvincing as well. For me, this is a major issue. If most of your book is a biblical defense and the biblical foundations you purport don’t make correct sense of the biblical data, why should the position itself be convincing?

As if this isn’t long enough, my second major issue with Van Drunen’s work comes in his understanding of the gospel’s impact on Christians’ activities in the “common kingdom.” Because this is already so long, I’ll make this brief – Van Drunen asserts that the New Testament’s commands concerning work ethic and family life are just good natural law principles and that there isn’t anything really distinctly “Christian” about them (other than that we do them to God’s glory). But again I don’t think this bears the weight of the NT evidence. If the gospel doesn’t change the way we do these activities, then why is it that Paul continually addresses them after explaining the gospel to his readers? Perhaps the parameters he gives are in some sense “natural law” – but any recognition of depravity should not that, under the deception and distortion of sin, we can neither see nor behave in a way that is consistently in line with that natural law. The gospel allows us to both understand and behave in accordance with these principles that God has laid down daily activities, and that means that the gospel changes the way we do those things. Additionally, the gospel impacts the “common kingdom” and societal structures, as seen in Philemon and Paul’s discussion of slavery. The gospel does have something to say to societal structures, although as Van Drunen rightly says we are not to pursue proclaiming that in a theonomistic manner. Still, even in that agreement, in order to avoid theonomy Van Drunen goes to far and cuts off the gospel of the kingdom’s voice and its ability to proclaim the way of Christ to the larger culture.

At some point I’d like to see an alternative to this “two kingdoms” language. I’m not a transformationalist or a theonomist; I don’t think we can bring Christ’s rule and reign here right now. And Van Drunen is certainly right that the church is the only visible institution where the heavenly kingdom is seen on earth right now. But that doesn’t mean that Christian activity in other areas isn’t a sign of the kingdom or an invisible manifestation of it. Maybe at some point I’ll write something constructive in that regard. For now…