Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
May 14th, 2012

Review: The Questioning God @energion

the questioning god

Click to Order

Thanks to Energion for this free, hand delivered, review copy:

Many prominent Christian theologians question those who question. Smaller sects, indicative of their origin, often refute questioning of any kind because they see doubt as sin. When Rob Bell wrote Love Wins, one of the central characteristics of that book was to ask questions; one of the central characteristics of his detractors was to deny that such questions should be asked of God. Obviously, the book of Job has not been a regular source of inspiration for such people. But, it goes beyond just the trends of Christianity. Can questioning a monotheistic god lead to anything good? Are we allowed and if so, what types of questions are allowed? That is the goal of this book, part of the Areopagus series by Energion. Ant Greenham, the author of this monograph, writes to explore the allowance of questioning in the three major monotheistic religions of today’s modern world – Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

After explaining the role of questioning in humanity, Greenham moves to tackle the questioning process in ancient Islam. In a religion that is named after submission, it is difficult from the start to suggest that ancient Islam allowed questioning. Of the historical matter, I am most distressed by his suggestion, as passive as it was, that Islam’s restriction on questioning goes back to Muhammad. The early decades of Islam, much like the early decades of Christianity (and the early millenniums of Judaism) are generally murky in historical fact and only interpreted through those who managed to become the most entrenched interpreters. It is reasonable to suggest that the Quran we have today is not the Quran of Muhammad’s ‘recitation.’ After all, history reminds us of the forced and bloody Uthmanic recension process. But, if we consider Islam post-Uthmanic, then we can agree with Greenham, that ancient Islam, as a whole, was often oppressive to questioning. Moving into modern Islam, he presents an often negative view, of fiery councils, executions and repression of self-introspection. It is difficult to view Islam this way, in such a politically incorrect view, but he is more right than wrong; it’s just that he is not all right. Indeed, after the terrible tragedies of 9/11 a new breed of Muslim made itself known in America. It was this new Muslim that questioned the historical attitudes of Islam and called for introspection. Liberal and Moderate Muslims formed groups which questioned Islam in light of the tragedies. This questioning goes on. I would also suggest that Islam is some 600 years behind Christianity as an evolved religion. What did Christians do 600 years ago to those who questioned unsanctioned questions?

Moving into Judaism, Greenham’s theological bias comes forth. Again referring to John Piper, he seems to suggest that Judaism is lacking because it acknowledges that God no longer speaks to the Jewish people. His chapter six is rather weak, relying more on stereotypical misunderstandings of a religious group which is spread across a variety of cultures, times, and races. Indeed, I cannot tell if he is focused more on the Jew or the practitioner of Judaism. I it is the former, then there are significant problems; if it is the latter, his thesis becomes weaker. Regardless, his thesis that an entire religion based on questioning (again, Job and as he mentions, the Talmud) is something suffering a deficit is entirely bunk.  His next chapter, related directly to the modern state of Israel, is even worse than his sixth chapter. Israel (from here on out, I will use this only for the modern State) is a questioning society, more so, as he points out, than American Zionists. This is a good thing. Indeed, both of these chapters, if one could get past what is surely coming in chapter eight, portrays Judaism and the Jewish people as one who continues to question and in questioning, moving forward as an open-minded society and, indeed, religion. Chapter eight is nothing more than a condemnation of the Jews for not questioning the veracity of the claims of Jesus. What bothers me the most is that this is not taken next to the refusal of Christians to question “in their heart” if Joseph Smith is the Prophet or if Allah is the Prophet of of Scripture is wrong without any meaningful suggesting that they could be wrong. Perhaps, we should also question if Hitler was truly right.

Greenham exhibits a large amount of theological ineptness in chapter nine when he discusses the role of questioning in Catholicism. I am unsure as how to amend all of his errors except to suggest that Greenham take time to read of the history of development of Catholic doctrine so as to not create embarrassing errors for himself in the future. Indeed, I would suggest that his idea of Salvation is not completely biblical, in that he assumes that salvation is not an ongoing process. I would take it that Greenham is not Wesleyan, to his discredit, but further, he hasn’t questioned Paul’s own admonition throughout Scripture that he is saved, he is being saved, and he will be saved, indicating an ongoing process of salvation. Granted, reviews are not meant to be full blown theological rebuttals, but Greenham isn’t just talking about questioning God, but failing to question himself in his assumed knowledge of what he is talking about. He follows this rather anti-Catholic chapter by opening his tenth chapter with the suggestion that evangelicals have the corner on the “biblical Jesus” and salvation. Indeed, this chapter is more about the superiority of Western culture and Evangelicalism than it is about questioning anything, especially those presuppositions. As of chapter eleven which continues with the Christian theme, Greenham has yet to suggest anything related to the questioning God. Eleven is more about questioning the leaders of various Christian institutions rather than Christianity or even God. His final two chapters are light, and nothing more than you’d expect to find at a usual evangelical retreat, that of, have an orderly home, read the bible, but don’t question God.

Is this really how we are to be left? He opens with the suggestion that God asks questions and that we may in turn ask him as well. Yet, he moves to Piper who suggests that many questions should not be asked. Throughout the book, no real questions are asked, or at least those questions which are asked are not also asked of Christians. This is a thoroughly disappointing work. Where are the questions, and the allowance for questions? Throughout Scripture, and if we could step away from the theology which we have placed into Scripture we would see Scripture itself as a grand question, questions are asked of God, about God, and sometimes, in such as way as to suggest that God is not there. Yes, Islam does have a way of discarding questioning, but the Jews thrive on it. Christians, on the other hand, especially evangelicals, follow more along the lines of Islam than Greenham and others would have us believe.

Now comes the question of whether or not you should purchase this book. Let me say yes. Yes not because of the reasons I have given you against such a book, but because you must question me and my review. You must question Greenham. You must question yourselves.

 

May 7th, 2012

Coming Soon: Call for Papers/Abstracts, but until then….

We are putting together the call for papers which should be ready to go by Monday. So far, the target deadlines are 30 June for submission, 30 September for submission of final essays/papers and 31 October for handing over to the publisher.

Until we post the Call for Papers, I wanted to talk a little about the process and what we are looking at.

First, this book will be about believers who’ve made the transition from fundamentalism to mainline Christianity. Make no mistake about it – it’s a tough process. Not everyone makes it.

We are looking at limiting the use of the bible translations  so that it is easier for everyone and for the publisher when printing the copyright page. So far, we’re look at the NLT, REB, and NRSV. Sure, we’ll make allowances for the KJV.

Another thing we are discussing is that each essay will need to have a section entitled ‘The Great Wall.’ This will make it easier for readers to identify the moments of crisis, etc… We’ll also ask for the contributors to indicate where they came from and where they landed.

And, if needed, change the names to protect both the innocent and the guilty. No demonizing, but one has to tell the truth.

So… Thoughts?

April 2nd, 2012

Thank God for Edward W.H. Vick @energion

inspiration to understanding vick

Click to Order

Vick writes, regarding the authority of Scripture -

Authority which has to be demonstrated and then attributed to the Bible is secondary and not primary. Christians do not believe the Bible because of something else, this E, this extrinsic thing. They believe it on account of its effectiveness. That is the kind of authority it has. They have already experienced its effectiveness. They do not need persuasion by argument….

And have a short, but powerful stance against the need to prove the Bible, he writes,

The Bible whose authority can be demonstrated is not the church’s ‘Word of God.’ Archaeological evidence is interesting. Here it is irrelevant. Between historical demonstration and religious authority lies an unbridgeable gulf. (98-99)

And regarding fundamentalists and the “literal” debate, he writes,

It is not then a question for the fundamentalist that the Scripture can be taken literally. It must be taken so as not to compromise its inerrancy. (129)

All I can say is…. bam.

Where is your faith? What do you have to demonstrate the authority of Scripture? Why? Because your faith is not in Christ, but in the merits of your own demonstration.

Bam.

March 28th, 2012

Quote of the Day: Edward W.H. Vick @energion

inspiration to understanding vick

Click to Order

I’m about a third of the way through, and finding that Vick’s book is going to become something to chew on for a while. He is first and foremost a philosopher. Coming from the Seventh Day Adventist Tradition, he still maintains some connection in his writings with his past, but he is ever reaching into the highest heights of a philosophical view towards the subject. Something I want to highlight from this first third.

“‘The most important thing we find in the Bible is not “doctrine” but something that helps us in a new attitude to God and life.’ If we treat the Bible as a source of information, whether  doctrinal information or historical information, we are missing the point….”

He goes on to suggest that the authority of the Bible is in its doctrinal statements, which more often than not we have put there, but in the way it guides us towards God. It is not meant to be static:

“That means that we are caught up in a progressing movement, in which (as the New Testament says) the Spirit of God is leading us into a developing and forward-looking experience. It is in performing this activity that the authority of Scripture consists. (61-62)

And a powerful statement on pg 92,

But the church cannot pretend that it does not intervene between what the Bible contains and what it pronounces that the Bible teaches.

That thought there is worth a thousand more pages, I think.

His doctrine of Scriptural authority sounds a lot like mine which I posted a few weeks ago. Inspiration is, like Justification/Sanctification, is about a process. It’s easy to get confused about these terms, like many are confused about what prophecy actually is. Hopefully, by reading Vick, thought who are under the oppression of arrogant doctrine will come to the light.

I have some minimal problems, such as the focus on 66 books. Vick remains thoroughly Protestant in this view. He does not hold to casual human terms like inerrant and infallible, so I can be a bit forgiving for his gloss over the other books in the Canon!

Wish this book was on Kindle…

March 7th, 2012

Review: The Character of Our Discontent

the character of our discontent

Click to Order

A retired Bishop once reminded me that more often than not, pastors who use the Revised Common Lectionary will preach from the Gospel or Epistle Reading rather than the Prophets. Indeed, many times, the Old Testament is merely read during the Lectionary in mainline churches, with the themes present seemingly too evangelical to touch. Dr. Allan R. Bevere, himself a United Methodist pastor, presents nineteen of his sermons based in the Old Testament. They  are not about connecting the dots, so to speak, between Christ and the Old Testament, something which is a usual past time of many preachers; his task is about connecting the dots between the Old Testament and our lives.

I sincerely hope that there will be a follow-up to this book. I don’t mean to say that this book is lacking, but the greatly majority of his sermons are drawn from the historical books. Maybe rather, the so-called historical books, given that Bevere shows them to be rather prophetic in examining our own lives today. He provides great insight through personal stories, illustrations, and good scholarship, but more than that, he ties all of these things nicely together to deliver to his congregation, to which the reader is seemingly invited to partake in, a meaningful message. Again, this is not about proclaiming Christ in the Old Testament, but about proclaiming the Christian life, hope, and connection to the Old Testament (which, of course, is made possible only through Christ). Make no mistake, this is not some soft peddling of Old Testament themes. The sermons, longer if read aloud (and really, they should all be), provide a challenge to the Christian today, not in pondering how to be better people, but how to tackle the life and calling God has given us, whether it is in a land of plenty or a sea of destruction. Bevere’s book serves to draw sharply the Christian into the life of these historical figures and places them as a foundation of our faith.

He tackles a variety of issues, from hopelessness to living wisely to pursuing God’s calling, showing that the Old Testament does have something for us today. The layout is is pastoral, even to the closing prayer, but these sermons are fodder for the heart, serving as devotionals, or, perhaps, reflections to be shared. If there is a follow-up, I would love to “hear” more regarding the use of the prophets in our lives, especially considering other books by Dr. Bevere. Until, then, I’ll enjoy his prophetic turn of the familiar stories of the Old Testament.

February 18th, 2012

In the Mail: The Character of Our Discontent

the character of our discontent

Click to Order

Thanks to the author for this review copy:

The Character of Our Discontent grew out of the author’s conviction that pastors do not preach enough about the Old Testament. The result is 19 chapters, each of which represents a sermon on an Old Testament character. These sermons are lively, fast paced, and practical yet are rooted in sound scholarship and are examples of the homiletical art.

Christians who would like to learn how the Old Testament can enlighten and guide their Christian walk, and pastors who would like to learn how to preach more effectively from the Old Testament will both find these sermons an invaluable aid.

While Dr. Bevere specializes in the New Testament and theology, he believes that pastors (and academics as well) can preach and teach effectively outside their areas of specialty. Indeed, they must, and this teaching can enrich their own learning and the fields of study into which they venture.

The Character of Our Discontent is an adventure in preaching and it invites us into the adventure of living in relationship with God, an adventure that has similar characteristics whether we are learning about God’s call to Abraham or how a call to mission in Africa came to a contemporary English teacher nearing retirement.

February 1st, 2012

In the Mail: From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully

inspiration to understanding vick

Click to Order

Thanks to Henry for this… Let me say that this is an impressive looking book already… I have a few from Energion, and I know you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but this book is just beautiful.

The way in which we read the Bible grows out of what we believe the Bible to be. Thus it is impossible to discuss methods of interpretation without considering our view of inspiration, the gathering of the canon, and even the reception of the Bible by the community of faith. And so, Edward W. H. Vick starts this comprehensive discussion of hermeneutics–the interpretation of Scripture–by looking at what the Bible is, and what empowers its authority. He brings a lifetime of experience, teaching and writing to the task.

In this examination, he takes up such diverse topics as inspiration, canonization, authority, infallibility, inerrancy, verbal inspiration, sola scriptura, tradition, myth, and many related topics. Dr. Vick always relates these elements to the overarching questions: How shall we read Scripture? How shall we understand it? How does it impact the way we live and act?

There are many books on how to read the Bible, but there are few that will offer this comprehensive and systematic study. If you apply the principles you find here to your own study, you will find the scriptures opening up in new ways. Dr. Vick will help you move beyond the assumptions that often stand in the way of our personal Bible study and see the remarkable variety and power that is mediated through this book we call the Bible.

January 26th, 2012

Interview with Dr. Allan Bevere

Click to Order

I had the pleasure of reading Dr. Bevere’s book, The Politics of Witness, as well as have having breakfast with him at SBL this past year. I thought that it might be a good to do an interview with him, and the more so as this election cycle goes on. Make sure you visit his blog.

Dr. Bevere, thank you for agreeing to this interview.

1.) The blog allows one to establish their first impressions pretty easily, I think. Tell us what sort of impression you want readers to have of you?

I hope that one thing that is obvious from my blogging is that I am an unashamed follower of Jesus Christ. To affirm Jesus’ lordship is to insist that all of life is ordered according to that claim. I would also hope it is clear that my theology is not only Christologically centered, but ecclesially oriented as well. Scot McKnight refers to me as an ecclesial theologian. I wear that label proudly.

2.) You recent book, The Politics of Witness, has made some waves in the biblioblogosphere. We have an election coming up. What role will you take in guiding your parish, which no doubt includes your students, congregation, and blog readers, in trying to discern the issues to stand for or against with violating your standards as you stated in your book?

I will take no active role. I do think it is important for Christians to vote. I have been in parts of the world where Christians are unable to do so. As long as we are able to exercise that freedom, I think we should do so. I think it is silly and counter-productive for pastors to recommend to their parishioners whom they should vote for. It only makes some people angry and it loses sight of the conviction that the church is where the real political action is.

As I argued in The Politics of Witness, the church’s central political methodology is as a witness. So if there is any point I want to get across in this American season of election politics is that when Christians hear the word “politics” they should think “church,” not “state.” But that is not what most Christians hear. In the end, what matters most for the world is not who is in the White House and which political party controls Congress; what matters most for the world is the faithfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ in being God’s kingdom come for the world. That is the church’s true politic.

3.) Any real negative reactions to your book? How is the Left handling it?

There has been some very fair critique which I hope to address in a future expansion of the book. There has also been some criticism which entirely misses the point of what I am trying to argue. That, of course, is not a surprise. Christians have been so imbued with both Constantinianism and Christendom (these are not synonymous but they are intrinsically related) for centuries that it is almost impossible for many of them to imagine what I am suggesting in the book. I understand this. It took me many years to unlearn the deleterious effects of both.

In my book, I pick up James Hunter’s argument (in his excellent book, To Change the World) that the religious left and the religious right are simply two sides of the same coin. The reaction of the religious left to this is continued denial that this is the case. As Hunter notes, the religious right wants to keep America Christian, the religious left wants to make America Christian; and both want to utilize the power structures in order to bring to fruition their Christian vision of the United States. At least the religious right does not deny their agenda. The religious left continues to do so. In that respect the latter is more insidious.

I argue that in embracing the politics of witness, Christians must reject the political agendas of both the right and the left. In allowing themselves to be co-opted by both sides, Christians make the church irrelevant as a body politic and push the politics of God’s kingdom to the periphery in favor of the central significance of an earthly kingdom. I think that once we do that we are pushing the envelope toward idolatry.

4.) Now, let’s get controversial. Give us your impression, sorta built around The Politics of Witness, on any Republican Candidate and President Obama and their use of religion in their campaign. What would you recommend to them and to their supporters?

First, let me say that the one thing that bothers me greatly about partisan politics is that we make one’s political views a personal matter and a matter of character. This is not a new thing. It has been around since the beginning. We think politics has gotten nastier over the years, but that is an idyllic view of the past aided by a severe case of collective amnesia. The presidential election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson was brutal.

Having said that, I find it selfishly arrogant to think someone is a person of questionable character because they don’t agree with my politics. No one’s personal political views are a test for the character of another. Partisans on both sides personalize politics on a daily basis. I will have no part of it.

I have no advice to give to either the president, nor the one who will oppose him in the up and coming election, nor do I think they care what I think. I offer my words to their Christian supporters. Stanley Hauerwas rightly notes that in the name of being politically relevant the church has become politically invisible. There is no doubt that good Christians will support and vote for different candidates this November, but I would ask those good Christians to seriously ponder that in the long run, they are not nearly the influential players in nation state politics as they believe; and that they are being used by the candidates and their political parties simply to get their vote and the votes of those they can influence. Historically, politicians and political parties are interested in manipulating Christians for two things—to help put them in power, and then to be their lackeys to forward their agenda. (Yes, I said “lackeys.” I’m serious about that.) I take this matter up in a little more detail in The Politics of Witness.

In the temptation story, Satan takes Jesus to the pinnacle of the Temple and shows him all the kingdoms of the world. He tells Jesus that they have been given to him and he will give them to Jesus, if Jesus will bow down and worship him. Of course, Jesus rejects the offer, but I would not be surprised that if the religious right and the religious left were made such an offer, they would take it in the name of doing good with the power they have been given.

5.) What’s it like working with Energion? How did you get started with them?

I love working with Energion. Henry and Jody Neufeld, the owners of the company, are great. Christian publishing, like everything else Christians do, should be a ministry. Energion is a ministry. Interestingly enough, I have never personally met Henry and Jody. In this Internet age we now develop friendships without needing to have face-to-face encounters. Henry is a blogger as well and he is a fellow United Methodist. That is how we became acquainted. As an author I like having the close and direct contact with a publisher. I have that with Energion. Moreover, with the huge changes currently taking place in the publishing industry and the continued change that will take place, Energion is right on top of those changes and they are acting accordingly in anticipation of what is to come.

6.) Give us some of your influences in writing, political thought and theology?

When it comes to politics and ethics, the influence of my teacher, Stanley Hauerwas is obvious. I have also been influenced greatly by the late John Howard Yoder. Indeed, one of my concerns as been the recent liberal appropriation of Yoder in an attempt to turn him into a progressive political activist. But to read Yoder in that way is to grossly misinterpret him. I have also found the writings of William Stringfellow and Jacque Ellul most helpful. I think it is unfortunate that few are reading these latter two thinkers anymore.

In reference to theology, I really have no one major influence. I am a Wesleyan, so the influence of John and Charles should be obvious. I find the theology of Karl Barth to have been formative in reference to his Christological and Trinitarian reflections. Hauerwas has helped form my ecclesiology. Geoffrey Wainwright has given me an orthodox theological foundation from a Methodist perspective. I am very eclectic when it comes my theological appetite and I intentionally seek out authors whose perspectives I will not find congenial. How can I truly know what I believe until I know what views I reject?

7.) Any plans for the future in books?

I am currently writing a volume on Colossians and Philemon for the Participatory Bible Study for Energion. After that, I am slated to write a book (also for Energion) that is provisionally entitled, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and Others: Essays in Christian Biography. In the book I hope to examine how one’s context shapes one’s theology. For example, I plan to do a chapter on Anselm and atonement and how his living in the feudal system of medieval Europe shaped his views on that one doctrine.

8.) You are a fellow United Methodist. Can you give us insight on what to expect at the 2012 General Conference?

General Conference is very important, but I am not a GC animal. I would never make a good delegate to General Conference since I am singularly focused on the local church. I do not expect any earth shattering changes this year.

9.) In a private conversation, you’ve made mention of the issues which arise when people choose activism over shepherding. What role can a pastor play in issue activism and local or national politics? Where or when is the danger when a pastor becomes too active?

I’m not completely comfortable with the wording of your question. It is not a matter of activism vs. shepherding—it’s a question of the emphasis on where the activism happens. My concern in reference to the church and politics is not activism, but that we think political activism primarily takes place in the halls of secular government. When it comes to politics, I am an activist pastor—I am active in leading a congregation in kingdom work in the world; and that kingdom work bears witness to the world what God expects of it. I am not suggesting that Christians have no place in the private or public sectors of a society. I am saying that our primary posture toward those sectors is as witnesses who embody Christ in the church for the world.

While we are on the subject, let me say one other thing. Persons who take the position of what I call the politics of witness are often accused of being sectarian. I reject that. I am not sectarian. Those who call me sectarian are guilty of embracing the false assumption that the politics of the nation state is primary and that is where God primarily acts in the world. I insist that where God primarily acts in the world is not in Washington DC, or London or Rome, but in each local congregation where the kingdom is moving and growing like the mustard seed Jesus mentions in his parable. Thus, if I am right, then the religious left and the religious right are the true sectarians because God has not vested the politics of the kingdom in the nation state, but in the church. The church is where the action is; for it is God and not the nations who rules the world.

10.) You are a blogger. What have you learned from blogging and how do you see it being used for the Gospel?

When I started blogging at the end of 2005 it was simply a way to start a conversation with my parishioners at the time and my seminary students. It has morphed into something beyond my imagination. Effective blogging takes time and discipline, but it is a wonderful way to have substantive conversation and it brings people with diverse perspectives together. When Christians have substantive conversation about the important things of Christian faith that does further the gospel. And now we can have these discussions with Christians all over the world in an instant.

The other thing I love about the Christian blogosphere is that solid scholarship is now available for mass consumption. Years ago such scholarship was only available at a library or in purchasing print media. Now anyone who so desires can find plenty of good theological and biblical reflection online. The difficulty, however, is that there is much in the way of theological garbage that is also available, and anyone who thinks she or he has something to contribute can now do so. Discernment is becoming more and more difficult.

11.) Dr. Bevere, thank you again for this interview. First impressions and final impressions are somewhat easily manageable on the blogosphere. Can you give my readers one last impression of you – the floor is open.

I think I have written enough. Thanks, Joel, for the honor of being interviewed.

January 26th, 2012

Review: The Adventists’ Dilemma @energion

Click to Order

While this book is entitled “The Adventists’ Dilemma,” and indeed, very much geared to the various Adventists groups, at the heart of the matter is not so much a dilemma applied to one group, but indeed, to so-called literalists across the board. Vick has written to Adventists, a group he is intimately familiar with, but his book encompasses all of those who, without applying a consistent logic throughout, continue to misread Scripture “literally.” Much like his previous work, Vick offers an apologetic of logical reasoning which is done not in fire but in love. His writing style is a little dry, but not so tedious as to make the book unreadable or unenjoyable. Indeed, at times, the dryness allows the reader to disengage herself from the rise of emotion which necessarily will come to light upon reading Vick’s work. By this, I mean that when the reader who is of a literalist persuasion, Adventist or not, begins to read the methods in which Vick uses theological reasoning to combat the areas of wrongly-placed emphasis and poorly drawn conclusions due to a more literalist interpretation of Scripture, it will be natural for the reader to react. Vick’s writing style, then, becomes an asset in that he is not betraying emotion, but sticks to one logical principle after another. There are no polemics in this work; only a calculation of words which should enable to reader to begin to accept the premise of Vick’s work.

This short book (148 pages) is divided into 18 chapters and a postscript. It is a neatly ordered structure, moving from the problem to the examination of what the idea of a ‘soon’ advent is indeed a problem. Following this are a few chapters on how to fix the issue, and simply put, it is about returning to the Text itself. As those familiar with Adventism know, the writings of Ellen White have a predominant place among the group, so much so, that the author suggests in several places that White’s book is often, and I am paraphrasing, seeing them as the Urim and Thummim for biblical interpretation. We don’t see this in other fundamentalist groups, although there is the constant use of the King James (another hold over from the Adventist movement) as well as pseudo-scientific writings deems essential in assuring a questioner that Genesis means what someone else says it means. He calls attention to this fact, which is necessary to confront within themselves first of all, so that later, he can attempt to move the reader back to the New Testament – back to what the Text says – back to Scriptural Authority. Throughout is the master philosopher’s skill made evident. There aren’t giant leaps, but careful steps taken to show the actual dilemma.

The dilemma is simple: the physical return of Jesus is always declared soon. This is the judgment where millions of those alive today will live forever. This is the basic premise of the Adventists’ theology. And, as one can suspect, since 1844, they’ve been wrong. Vick makes the case that by using the word ‘soon’ in such a way, this makes that portion of their theology nonsensical. He’s much softer on this point, more reasoned, than I am, but the point nevertheless, is that once you continue to redefine your words, they will eventually become meaningless. Again, this is where the inclusion of a wider swath of fundamentalism could have been addressed. For instance, in Creation in which some continually redefine what is meant by ‘literal history’ (and by this, I mean, those who add to the days something that they must be able to explain). Again, this book, while written to specifically to the Adventist could easily be addressed to those who take the Scriptures ‘literally,’ without actual study, or who has in many instances, adopted stances previously established by the Adventists. The dilemma, then, is not just the flawed notion of the ‘soon coming of Jesus,’ but a faulty view and use of Scripture.

Vick’s work is measured well for answering Adventists and pushing the non-Adventist into thinking about proper theology. For those interesting in logic and reason as regards to particular theological discussions, Adventist or not, I would urge you to pick up this book.

January 26th, 2012

Review: The Politics of Witness

Click to Order

A timely book, Dr. Allan R. Bevere, a Methodist pastor and a professional fellow at Ashland Theological Seminary, issues a call to the Church to regain the position of prophetic witness. To be sure, this small book has salvos against both the Left and the Right, and equally so the uninvolved, which must lead to a choice – either we ignore Bevere or we heed him. The author knows his limitations, both in space and the cultural situations, but he is able to provide a firmly grounded piece which addresses the involvement of the Church today, and calls it from the pride of place and the sidelines to a place that protects its prophetic mantel.

He presents this work, some 62 pages along with a few more for the always helpful, “Further Reading,” in seven succinct chapters. In doing so, he is able to tackle various issues, such as chapter two, entitled Jesus and the Reconstitution of Israel: The Church as the Chosen Nation. Note, that this is not supercessionism, but takes the narrative of Israel and the manner in which it sought to be a political force instead of doing what God had commanded and applies that to the situation of the Church, so that Scriptural Authority is maintained and theological heresy is avoided. After all, the Church often seeks a seat at the Table of Political Discourse, and often aligns itself to one political issue or another. And sometimes, seemingly, to one Party or another. And this, this issue of Left and Right, for a lack of a better word, dominionism, is something else that Bevere tackles. This, admittedly, was a rather difficult chapter to deal with, since I usually view the work of Wallis as not exactly equal in intent to the workers on the Right. After all, Wallis is not bent on taking over the American Government in the name of God. But, Bevere makes several salient points, in that taken for what they are, both the Left and the Right have the same goals, to reshape the U.S. into a Christian society through the Government, albeit with different visions of what that society and government should look like. I’ll have to ponder this more, but if Bevere is correct, then his (Not So) Modest Proposal in chapter seven becomes that much more enticing.

Interesting to those of us who constantly rail against Constantine and stand in favor of the separation of Church and State, is chapters three and four, which deal, respectively, with the Right and the Left, again. In doing so, he exposes the flaws in the argument that the Enlightenment helped to end Constantine’s rule and that the United States, following Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, helped to take Government out of Religion. To the author, noting could be farther from the truth. And to the reader, it becomes apparent that some of the Founding Fathers were indeed, as Bevere writes, the Modern Lieutenants of the ancient Roman Emperor. After all, and I’m trying to not reveal too much of the argument, when religion is separated from the Government, but the Government continues to rely upon religion to produce model citizens, the idea of the separation of Church and State becomes little more than propaganda. These chapters feed directly into chapter six, in which he discusses the limitations of the American Church.

And this is his problem. The subtitle of this book is “The Character of the Church in the World” but more often than not, it is about the American Church and the Church in America. Granted, we see European models beginning to develop based on the work of the American Church, but to readers who are not American, the focus on the American Church may seem a little disingenuous.  Of course, rarely do we see in other parts of the world, the contention between the Church and the Political Realm as we do in the United States, whether it be from C. Peter Wagner and the descendents of Jerry Falwell on the Right or Wallis and others on the Left. Indeed, often times, as he discusses in chapter five, Americans confuse this country with Ancient Israel (I note that history records the dangers of British-Israelism), and the dangers of this viewpoint. Perhaps if the Church is to recover a proper place, it might start in the United States.

In the final chapter, Bevere gives his proposal. While this is a review, I am still hesitant about giving away the details. After all, if you were to read them here, why go and purchase the book? But, they are ideas worth considering in light of what the author wrote in the preface, “Until Christendom is abandoned by Christians, the church’s mission and witness in the world will be seriously undermined.” One of the proposals, which struck me the hardest, was his words on our materialism. In this, I’ll have to ponder how to personally respond to this, not because I think he needs it, but he is speaking prophetically, and I believe he is correct. So then, to ignore his words here may do me injustice. Indeed, Bevere has been prophetic in most of his work here. It is not easy to digest all of it, and upon doing so, there may be pieces that may be undigestable; yet, whether or not one agrees with his eventual proposal completely, his lead up and many of the facets of the proposal are sound and should be heeded.

Enhanced by Zemanta