Christmas 2010

A picture of Evangeline, our daughter who was born earlier this year, getting some of the blue light treatment right after she was born.  I'm reminded when I hold her and squish her with kisses that God's Son took on a human nature and was born all vulnerable like Evangeline in the picture and probably under less hygienic conditions. Christianity is built on the miraculous life of Jesus, the first half of which we celebrate on Christmas Day and the second half which we celebrate on Easter Sunday.  There's lots of mystery about God but it's interesting how he reveals himself through the Incarnation. The Journey by Peter Kreeft is a metaphysical exploration of meaning and truth and it begins in Plato's Cave with it's inhabitants watching the shadows on the wall.  Then, just as it says in Isaiah 9, there is a light in the darkness, a child is born, and like in Chile earlier this year, a rescuer enters the cave, a man like us, and he will be called "wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Our King returns, the Kingdom begins!  Merry Christmas dear Readers.  (See/read you in 2011!)

The Trinity: a working model

While preparing my Christmas Eve Sermon I got side tracked when I started thinking about the Incarnation and decided to pull together my thoughts, using The Doctrine of God by Gerald Bray, Father Son and the Spirit: The Trinity and John's Gospel by Kostenberger and Swain, The Trinity by Olson and Hall and some of my carefully hoarded notes from Early Church History at Ridley.   Tell me what you think of this slide show:

The Trinity

View more presentations from lukeisham.

Celebrating seven years of marriage!

Ridley: The class of 2009

This is a photo taken in our last week of 2009 of those in the Anglican ordination stream at Ridley College. From left to right: Sam, Luke, Bryan, Hamish, Steve, Kim and James, with Glen, Amanda and Ivy along the front.  [h/t Bryan whose made an interactive version of the photo that you can run your cursor over to get more biographical information.]

Church Music brought to you by Bifrost

This is where we should be headed with church music (h/t Justin Taylor), theologically and musically!  Many of my readers probably know about our local Emu Music and their American counterparts Sovereign Grace Music.  But if you haven't already you should definitely check out Red Mountain Music (h/t Nick Gross) some of their hymn re-mixes are great. (Another musical resource in this genre is Craig Schwartz's simple but innovate 'Guitar Cords for Hymns'.)

Justification: Schreiner on Wright

The continuing debate about justification came to interesting junction recently with the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) in Atlanta, Georgia. The focus was justification, and Tom Wright was one of the speakers to present a paper along with Tom Schreiner whose paper was written in response.

There is a fairly through and even-handed overview at this Gospel Coalition blog by Colin Hanson.  There is also a fair amount of comment on the theological blogosphere (see for example First Things' roundup) about the ETS event, Wright's thesis and Schreiner's response.  Blogger Denny Burk was amoung the more provocative, noting that Wright had either changed his mind about the place of works in a believer's life or was being dramatically inconsistent. His blog posts are notable because Tom Wright himself weighs into the comments, although in my opinion it boils down (again) to Wright, and others, saying "I'm being misunderstood."  However Burk has a point and as Carson has pointed out elsewhere, Wright is often difficult to pin down.

Perhaps more constructive is Schreiner's paper in response to Wright.  It's definitely worth reading, beginning with his points of agreement with Wright before proceeding to a very lucid critique of Wright's view of justification.  Justin Taylor has distilled them into these three points:

1. Wright wrongly says that justification is primarily about ecclesiology instead of soteriology.
2. Wright often introduces a false polarity when referring to the mission of Israel by saying that Israel’s fundamental problem was its failure to bless the world whereas Paul focuses on Israel’s inherent sinfulness.
3. Wright insists that justification is a declaration of God’s righteousness but does not include the imputation of God’s righteousness.

Most significantly I was most struck by Wright's view (as he was recorded saying in the roundtable discussion after the papers were presented) that sanctification wasn't very important to the Apostle Paul because it wasn't included in the 'Ordo-Salutis' of Romans 8:30.  The more I think about the doctrines of Grace the more I see the significance in God helping us kill sin and make us more Christlike by the power of the Holy Spirit, a process that seems conceptually and systematically separate to justification.

CS Lewis Conference Reflections

Into the Wardrobe: Exploring the thought and imagination of C. S. Lewis  - Conference Reflections

It was very exciting, I gave my first conference talk at a small but notable conference at Aspendale Presbyterian church.  John Dekker, the minister of Aspendale, convened, I spoke on 'Christian imagery in the Narnian Chronicles', Tony Dekker on 'CS Lewis the Apologist' and John Ballantyne on 'CS Lewis' world view'.  John put the conference together to coincide with the 47th Anniversary of Lewis' death and the release of the third Narnian Chronicles movie.

I got most of my ideas from Alan Jacob's excellent biography of Lewis' imagination and thought life, The Narnian.  I wanted to show in my talk that finding the 'hidden Christian imagery' isn't so much the key, but recognizing the biblical patterns.  This is because as Alan Jacob's points out Lewis was converted on the basis of historical and philosophical presuppositions first and then by Tolkien firing his imagination secondly.   So for example in the picture above I'm explaining the parallels between the story of Moses and the role of God's providence the the role of Aslan in The Horse and his Boy.  Doing the talk (thanks for the invite John!) and hearing the others, has inspired me to put together a bible study series for church.  Most people haven't had a lot of exposure to Lewis' thought and his work offers an excellent vehicle to communicate biblical concepts.

How do we measure success in Ministry?

An oldie but a goodie; but this question keeps resurfacing in ministry circles. In this post I'm interested in how do we measure success in Ministry, but defining success is equally interesting and important.

So how do we measure success in Ministry?

Anecdotally

Weighted Anecdotally: what key or representative people thought

Numbers

Completed without mistakes

Outcomes fulfilled

Three legitimate paths

Our church St George's Battery Point cares for the parish of Southern Midlands which is made up of a number congregations meeting in church buildings scattered in about four locations across the southern midlands and southeastern part of the central plateau.   Basically we provide some theological training, weekly pastoral care and run services at each of the centers once a month. We've done this for a year and now need to decide what the next year should hold for them and us.  I'm not the one with the final say but I've been a part of the process and it's made me think that there are three legitimate paths for a ministry's future.  

1. Grow: We could make the decision to close/hold other ministries in order to find resources to grow the congregations of the Southern Midlands. For example we could decide to concentrate on one centre/location building the others from that base. 
2. Close: We decide to graciously and carefully begin the process of closing the parish, transferring the congregations to neighboring denominations (e.g. Presbyterians) or parishes (e.g. Edge Church, Claremont).  
3. Hold: We recognize that the congregations/locations need to be kept open and while we aren't equipped to grow the parish and it shouldn't be closed, someone else may be around the corner ready to something we hadn't thought of. 

There is the strange misconception that growth is equated with success. Kingdom growth has a longer/larger more complex trajectory then our progress-worshipping-western-culture realizes.  What happens is that the close and hold options are often concealed in other contexts because we are either shamed into thinking grow is the only option or convinced progress is the true definition of success.  Each of these three paths for a ministry, done in a way that honors God, can be done for God's glory.  It could be time for a ministry to close or it could be someone else has a better chance of growing it then you. 

Road testing the 'concept of inerrancy'

Let's take my new way of understanding inerrancy out for a road-test.  I'm following Keller's line that the it's the concept of truth and authority that is more important than bedding down exact definitions of inerrancy and that is also a better way than a doctrine of errancy.

(Matthew 13:31-32)

31 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. 32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”


 It [the mustard seed] is the smallest of all seeds,


I like this example alot because it's something Jesus said which heightens the stakes, and it's also very specific. The traditional interpretation has always been that the Bible is true and authoritative and even faced with this difficulty there is no reason to depart from that interpretation.  But you don't need Chicago-inerrancy to say, whatever is happening in that verse it's not an error.  It could be hyperbole or it could be that Jesus' statement is qualified by the preceding statement, seeds sown by his historical audience.  By just saying "it could be ..." we're defending the truth and authority of Scripture and I'm happy with that and I think most of my readers would be as well.

Interestingly there wouldn't be many problems with a limited-errancy position here either, they would say Matthew 13:32 belongs to category x errors found in Scripture which exist for divine reason z.  You might disagree and I think I would but this position would still exist within the broader idea of Scripture being true authoritative, these folks would just be adding a tightly defined caveat.

The final alternative is disastrous, because it says that may look like an error but the whole passage could be white-anted with errors, we just haven't discovered them yet.  As I've pointed out earlier on and off line the philosophically relatively required to hold such a position is unpalatable. I don't mean to stifle discussion by that statement, just to be clear.

I can't see an alternative to the concept of 'Inerrancy'

Jon from the Painting Fakes blog outlines in several posts his difficulties with 'Biblical Inerrancy' as articulated by the framers  of the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy.  Although Jon and I have a couple of different presuppositions, he doesn't have a liberal axe to grind, and so his difficulties are worth mulling over. Chicago-Inerrancy (if I may coin that phrase) wants to see every biblical detail regarded as individually true and therefore contributing to a larger coherent and true whole.  Jon has essentially two main difficulties, the first of which is, what if some of those details are problematic?  Secondly Chicago-Inerrancy would take Genesis 1-11 as accurate in describing the beginning of the world,  and Jon wonders what we do with contradictory scientific information.

I blogged earlier about the possible alternatives to inerrancy and wondered about the alternative argument errancy, the presence of errors in Scripture.  Some of the commenters said this is the wrong question to ask, that we should be asking about the nature of the bible and truth.  I've thought alot about that since then and and think that this is the best way forward, possibly disagreeing with both Jon and Chicago-Inerrancy in the process.  I've returned to Tim Keller's remarks (about 5 min into this video) at a symposium about the nature of Scripture.  But one bit more of context, delving deeply into this topic requires a fairly sophisticated level of philosophical understanding about defining communication, truth and genre.  This isn't to say we can't talk coherently and succinctly at the level of a blogpost, it would be reductionist to say otherwise and betray the whole of idea thinking carefully!  But back to Keller, he says: "if I say to any layperson I believe in the authority of the Bible but not the inerrancy of the Bible, they're going to say what's the difference?"

The thrust of Jon's discomfort with inerrancy is observing the difficulties in bedding down a statement about Scripture in our particular cultural context where we assume science, communication and truth have meanings peculiar to our historical milieu. But the fascinating and ultimately disastrous problem with errancy is that it suggests Scripture is a field sown with truth and error for reasons that are not clear and in such a way that the wheat and the weeds are indistinguishable!  I could possibly accept an errancy that said there are these x or y types of errors in Scripture for w or z divine reasons.  However the former alternative requires  a complete suspension of being able to know anything with any certainty, and I can't accept self-affirming relativism.  But Keller takes us out of this cul-der-sac, he says let's affirm  the truth and authority of Scripture without getting bogged down in exact definitions, in other-words lets allow the concept of biblical truth and authority transcend cultural presuppositions and historical contexts.  So that's where I want to go with inerrancy, let's defend the concept; Scripture is true and authoritative.

LOST:Season finalé reflections [Spoilers Alert]

So that was the end of LOST, which Amy and I have watched intermittently over the last six years.  Following the tradition of Twin Peaks, the show is driven by a mystery, why are the survivors stranded on this mysterious island and how will they survive?  LOST is made pleasurable by the complex secondary world, the characterization and a narrative that is larger than individual episodes or seasons.  Surprisingly it's able to do all this without any swearing or nudity, although it's consistently violent.

It turns out that after the plane-crash and all the mis-adventures (false departures, conflict and time travel) some of the survivors do make it conclusively off the island.  The island sits on top of some mysterious power-source that is generally manifest as electromagnetism. This in turn gives people special powers and causes the island to travel through time.  Over time various people are commissioned (Jacob) to protect the island and others try to study (Hanso Corporation) or attempt harness the islands power (Charles Whitmore) but the island remains off the grid, hidden somewhere between Los Angles and Sydney.  The show often used flash-backs and flash-forwards to keep the action rolling and in the final season, showed the characters in what you think is a parallel universe but is actually an after-life or the very beginning of an after-life.  The final scene shows most of the original cast plus a few extras together in some sort of church about to pass into some sort of after-life.

LOST is an important television-show because it explores metaphysical themes, it shows that we belong to a larger story-line then we realize and a more mysterious and exciting world than we assume.  It's also a powerful barometer of western (American-Australian?) culture, revealing that meta-narrative is powerful driving force and that some-sort of moral fabric is assumed but not robustly explored.  Somewhat surprisingly the worldview of the secondary world isn't ultimately very strong and I think this is partly the harvest of a post-modern cultural relativism.  In the long-term it'll be moments, symbols and motifs from LOST that will linger, long after the 'message' or its worldview is forgotten.

Here is an interesting roundup from Christianity Today.

Reflections on the Equal and Complementary Conference

On Saturday I attended the Equal and Complementary Conference held at Holy Trinity Doncaster in Melbourne.  Neil Chambers spoke on hermeneutical issues, Martin Paluka gave a lively but close and considered exegesis of 1 Tim 2:11-14 and Fiona McClean reflected wisely on the cultural context and application of Complementarianism.  (Twitter: #equalandcomp)

Neil Chambers


Neil Chamber is a Presbyterian minster at Bundoora Presbyterian Church.  Stylistically Neil's talk was the hardest to follow, with a delivery that wasn't very engaging. However it was great to hear many of my own comments about hermeneutics confirmed independently.

Neil, who was filling in for Peter Adam at short notice, spoke about what should form the hermeneutical base of interpretation of Scripture. My Twitter feed gives a rough idea of the general flow and content of his talk so in this post I only want draw out a couple of key threads.  Neil importantly highlighted the sufficiency of Scripture and the danger of over-exaggerating the importance of extra-biblical reconstructions.  In some of his other remarks Neil explained the description of women exercising leadership in the church needs to be tempered by the Apostle's prescription that women should not have church leadership roles.  This made me realize that extracting the principle from a prescription is a lot more straightforward then from description. Neil also mentioned that our reading of the whole which informs our reading of the parts should not marginalize some parts in the process. He noted that quite often Egalitarian interpretation seeks to downplay (one way or another) certain problematic passages on their way to a larger reading of this issue.

Martin Pakula

Martin is an Old Testament professor at BCV and his talk was my favorite.  He worked through the exegesis of 1 Tim 2:11-14 very carefully and then gave a fiery application at the end. I liked Martin's talk because (apart from verse 15) he put to rest this idea that the Complementarian reading is just as ambiguous and complex.

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Martin showed that "quietly" is contextualized by 1 Tim 2:2 "living quiet and peaceful lives" and is repeated in the following verse linking the two verses in parallel. Martin noted equality doesn't mean sameness and that sometimes women are permitted to teach in non-congregational settings (Titus 2:3-5 & Acts 18:26) and sometimes to congregations (Col 3:16).  Martin demonstrated that 'authentein' did not mean domineer but meant in a neutral sense simply authority.  Verses 13-14 are the Apostle's reasons for this command.  Eve usurps Adam's authority in Genesis 3 which is the danger of not obeying this command.  He then showed that Eve's failing was moral not educational, a common Egalitarian argument.    After that he made the point that 1 Tim 2 was not occasional but universally applicable and quoted John Stott about the dangers of making it occasional: "opens the door to a wholesale rejection of apostolic teaching, since virtually the whole of the New Testament was addressed to specific situations."  Finally he closed with a fiery quote from Martyn Lloyd-Jones who seemed to foresee this modern debate.

Fiona McClean


I was wondering at the beginning of Fiona McClean's talk if she'd answer the obvious question, is it hypocritical for a woman to give a talk at a Complementarian Conference?  However she did and she explained that there was important difference between the gathering at a conference and the gathering of a congregation.   She also added that her primary purpose was not to preach authoritatively on Scripture, but offer remarks about the cultural context of Complementarianism.  An excellent summary of her talk is available over at Arthur and Tamie's blog.  Fiona's talk was especially good for those interested in the practical implications of being a Complementarian and her manner was direct but inoffensive.

Cross of Christ

Cross of Christ 2010 from Vision100 on Vimeo.

This is a promotional video for an evangelistic rally to be held in Hobart at the Oden on December the 17th.  I along with several others was recruited to say what the Cross of Christ meant to me, I'm about the third to appear.

Errancy

Trevin Wax over at his blog got me thinking again about inerrancy.  I don't try to be enigmatic, but the only reason I believe inerrancy is correct is because I think it's true!  However (to loosely paraphrase Socrates) unexamined thoughts aren't worth holding dearly to.  So let me lay out my thinking for critique.

Non-negotiable presuppositions (we can negotiate them in another post!)
1. God exists and communicates
2. God is one of the dual authors of the Bible
3. God doesn't make mistakes

Which means the question of inerrancy/errancy is really about does (or to what extent) God allow errors in Scripture?

If God allows human error in the Bible, then we have 3 options:

1. God allows only small and easily recognizable errors
2. God also allows some really large clangers but they're still recognizable
3. God allows all sorts of errors some of which we haven't even discovered yet

for one of the following reasons:

1. God wants to show the fallenness of the Bible's human authors
2. For reasons that are entirely his own 
3. For a mixed bag of reasons not limited to: evealing human sinfulness, encouraging scholarship, as a way of commenting on complexity in the world, or some as yet unrevealed purpose

Any line of argument would need to account for the idea that Scripture is to be trusted, (inerrancy moves the fallible human thing to interpretation) and some sort of explanation of how we spot an error. 

My Grandpa Westerman

I can't seem to get Melbourne out of my head!

My blog as expressed in a word cloud.
[with wordle.net h/t Bryan's Blog]

Late Term Abortion Motion at Melbourne Synod

Thank-God for Barny Zwartz and Mark Durie.  Durie, upset by hearing reports of failed late-term abortions, where babies are been born alive and then killed, has put forward this motion (as reported in the Melbourne AGE) at the Melbourne Anglican Synod.  Pray that God will defeat cowardice, protect Mark and embolden the Synod to act in a counter-cultural manner.

"He [Mark Durie] calls on the state government to answer five questions about late-term abortions:

■ How many are happening, and how late?

■ What are the reasons for the abortions?

■ Are those born alive receiving medical care, or what is their cause of death?

■ What has been the effect on staff morale at the Royal Women's Hospital?

■ What has been the effect on staff recruitment?"

New Cranmer Society Recommendations

 The Melbourne Diocese is large, reflecting the sprawling nature of Melbourne and it's synod is disproportionately massive making committee elections complex.  New Cranmer Society, the political wing of the evangelicals recently issued a recommended how-to-vote ticket.  It's not necessary in Tassie because you can fairly quickly identify all the candidates without too much trouble, but that's highly unlikely in Melbourne.  I acknowledge church politics is an uneasy mixture of piety and skullduggery, really much like the church or ancient Israel if you think about it.  Some people get silly and try to hide this fact or the fact that how-to-vote lists exist but I like that New Cranmer is open about it, it's like being open about Original Sin! The lists of candidates and New Cranmer's recommendations are quite interesting, gives you an insight into where people sit theologically or at least where New Cranmer perceives them to be on the theological-political spectrum.   (There is, but I can't find their website, also a liberal/progressive political group at the Melbourne Synod.) For example David Powys infamous for the his promotion of Annihilation sits higher in the list then the apologist Mark Durie whose blog is in my blog roll. It'd be interesting to compare the how-to-vote lists alongside the complete list of candidates and against the liberal/progressive how-to-vote list, that would be very instructive, but would take too much time to gather.

The war in Afghanistan

It's a striking picture isn't it, makes me think of a violent, post-glory Eden.

The war is approaching it's tenth anniversary and it's hard to see what its next stage will be or what ultimately is the end game. It's trendy to be opposed to the war but I wonder if the Taliban can be contained without such cost, although it would be depressing to allow their militant Islam to have free reign. I predict given the recession in America and the rise of other conflicts, a quiet withdrawal and change in purpose will take place, where the Taliban will be tolerated in the country side but still fought in the major centers.

[© 2010 Boston Big Picture]

Is this the moment Original Sin arrived on the moon?

Is this the moment Original Sin arrived on the moon as Neil Armstrong climbed onto its surface? (Well if it did, it probably arrived a little earlier when Apollo 13 touched down.)  Were the ancient boundaries of original Sin limited to mountain climbers?  If Sin is essentially human, in that you can't hand me a box of sin, its intangible, how does it change our world? Does the corruption of Original sin containment our planet, the moon and Alpha Centuri?   (Secondary but related issues is existence of physical death before the fall and possibility of Volcanos etc in the new heavens and the new earth.)

Kevin DeYoung's Inerrancy roundup

Great round up from Kevin DeYoung's Blog on the topic of Inerrancy:

1. "Calvin never rejected the truthfulness of any Scriptural affirmation."
2. Tim Keller sees no practical or pastoral difference between saying "inerrancy" and saying "the Bible is authoritative". 
3. Contrary to the suggestion of some (that 'inerrancy is a modern invention') is the fact that the idea of inerrancy is as old as the church.
4. Not having the original manuscripts isn't a problem for the doctrine of inerrancy.

It makes me think about the place of complexity.  We shouldn't confuse it with difficulty or mystery.  Nor should we confuse complexity of expression with complexity of content.  Furthermore context is important, something can be both complex and simple, historically unclear but now very explainable.  All this is to say that in future I want when someone questions inerrancy I want to ask what for them makes it complex, unclear or difficult for them?

Aliens and Christ: We'd better get a wriggle on

It was bound to happen, the discovery of a planet with life-form potential.  I think we'll either discover the universe is empty or inhabited.  Given the enthusiastic and systematic search of the heavens, we're bound to find a planets with similar characteristics to our own.  This doesn't necessarily mean we'll find life but definitely the context for it as the recent news has demonstrated.  My title is provocative, we may indeed find we're alone in the universe but have we completed the mandate of Acts 13:47?

"For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,
‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’"

The discovery of aliens shouldn't be overly disruptive to our theology, we'd need to find their place in the order of creation, figure out how the fall has effected them and then how the good news about Jesus is a hope for them.  Given the seriousness of the fall and the incarnation I'd say any theological accommodation should be anthropocentric.


[Diagram © 2010 National Science Foundation]

3 Things: Euthanasia, John Piper and Bp Davies

For a short period the Northern Territory passed legislation to allow Euthanasia but the Feds quickly shut them down.  Now the issue is being revisited at a Federal level as the result of Green political pressure.  Sadly recent Australian polling shows a majority (although an uneven majority) of the population want the N.T. ban overturned.  Although as Bp John points out an ad promoting euthanasia was not permitted to air.  This means while euthanasia isn't mainstream yet, it's not far off. Quite apart from the arrogance of complete self-independence, making euthanasia palatable will only weaken the desire to support and fund quality palliative care.

John Piper (profiled here on the evangel blog) is coming to Australia and speaking at a number of conferences in Sydney.  Notably he's speaking at the Oxygen 11: national pastors' conference in August 2011.  Both he and Driscoll (who visited in 2008) are representative of a recent movement entitled by some as the new Calvinists, however his style is and his visit will be quite unlike Driscoll's.

At General Synod the issue came up (#ozsynod) of whether or not bishops should sit in tribunals examining other bishops.  No doubt the upcoming tribunal of Bp Ross Davies of the Diocese of the Murray, prompted this discussion. However he resigned the day before he was to face a tribunal hearing in Adelaide.  The Sydney Morning Herald makes a number of speculations about why he was facing the tribunal, and the Adelaide Advertiser implies he'd mishandled Diocesan authority. Interestingly he received a $150,000 payment, which is good if he was wronged but strange if he was the one in the wrong.




[Beach picture © unknown, John Piper © 2010 Evangel Blog, Bp Hat and Mitre © 2010 ABC News ]

Nostalgia?

That's me learning something at Ridley College from Peter Adam.  I think so much of my time is spent waiting for the next thing, chopping at the bit.  I don't spend enough time enjoying the ride, being in a particular time and place.

[Picture ©2010 Ridley College.]

How Evangelical is Universalism? A brief review of 'The Evangelical Universalist'

The Evangelical Universalist is by Gregory MacDonald, which is a puesdoynom for Robin Parry, who is also the author of Worshipping Trinity.  In many ways the book covers much of the same territory as Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God (overall argument and then key passages)  but without the negative straw-man critique, a more consciously biblical approach and I think a more coherently argued case.  However Parry is attempting two things at once and only pulls off one of them.  He is first and foremost making the biblical case for Universalism, so he looks at the larger argument across Scripture, key passages and then how a Universalist reading of Revelation makes the best sense.  Although I found the arguments unconvincing, he made a stirling effort at presenting the biblical evidence for Universalism. (This is essentially because I would qualify the "all" passages differently, plot the trajectory of the biblical meta-narrative with more of an emphasis on glory and sin, have a slightly different definition of God and be comfortable with predestination as a doctrine.)

Parry's second task is to self-consciously make the "evangelical" (MacDonald, 6) case for Universalism.  He asks "could a Christian theology that is grounded in the Bible be universalist?" (MacDonald, 34)  Here Parry stumbles more noticeably, it's far from clear if Universalism sits in evangelical Christian theology.  Clearly if one accepts unique salvation through Christ and a miraculous triune Godhead your an orthodox Christian.  If Universalism were ever to deny these things it couldn't be regarded as Christian (I'm curious now about Parry's other book.) but Evangelicalism draws a tighter circle.  Parry doesn't provide a definition so let me set some parameters although there is admittedly no definitive definition for this rather disparate movement.  Evangelism is both something doctrinal (bible, salvation, activity) and something observable through history (flowing out of the Reformation via the Puritans).  Alex was telling me that last century there was a groundswell of Universalists who sadly became Unitarians.  Parry it seems wants to carve out a place for Universalism not just within orthodoxy (by saying everyone will be saved, but only through faith in Jesus (MacDonald, 47)) but deeper within evangelicalism. For example unlike Talbott who attempts a more philosophical approach, Parry deliberately makes a biblical case linked carefully into a wider biblical meta-narrative.

Although I think this is only the beginning of a Universalist movement to make it a mainstream Christian idea, I think ultimately too much doctrine is changed by the premise of everyone being saved for Universalism to ever be regarded as Evangelical or even mainstream.  While I acknowledge the evangelical movement is a giant and fragmented tent, the Universalist changes to hermeneutics, doctrine of God, sin, predestination, judgement and eschatology will be too great for the Evangelical movement to sallow. Being a fan of systematic theology I find these changes very worrying and can already see the early signs of cracking in both Talbott and Parry's work.  In conclusion the lineup of famous Universalists from Parry's new book is very telling.  There aren't many Evangelical heroes in that list!

[My holidays are finishing soon so this will be my last post on universalism for a while, however I invite my readers to comment in this particular thread on the place of Universalism in Christian theology (and the possible future of universalism), but not get involved at this stage in verse-trench-warfare.]

3 thoughts about the discussion about Universalism

After chatting with Alex offline today I think there are three issues that should shape the contours of our discussion about Universalism.

1. All passages need to be explained and qualified. Sets of 'problem passages' exist for Universalism and traditional theology, both these and other apparently clear passages need explanation.  (I'm not saying Scripture is entirely unclear but that the work of putting things in context belongs to both camps.) 
2. How much of the larger theological framework is changed by Universalism?  Although Universalism and traditional theology come in number of shades it's important to realize that the central premise of Universalism changes a number of other doctrines.  
3. How mainstream is the Universalist interpretation? Through Church History has the Universalist position been a consistent minority, an infrequent fringe or always outside the traditional camp? 

'Pollution and the Death of Man' Chapter 3

Finding pantheism inadequate, Schaeffer examines other moral bases for the ecological movement. He says a Byzantine model of Christianity where only the heavenly things matter, isn't much chop either. The Reformed model is the best because God has told us something "about both heavenly things and nature" (p38).  This is important both because we have a source of knowledge outside ourselves and because our attention is on both heavenly things and nature.  Schaeffer then closes the chapter with an anecdote my dad has told before. Schaeffer is at a Christian retreat and goes across the valley the bohemian New Age retreat where they discuss ecology.  The New Age retreat is laid out beautifully but when they turn around and look back across the valley, the Christian retreat is an ugly set of buildings.   Scheaffer isn't condoning glamour or prettiness but commenting on the way that the gospel should but often doesn't impact our aesthetics.  It's a very jarring cover but don't be put off, it's a great read, very accessible.

A Prayer for When You’re Anxious

Grant that I, Lord,

may not be anxious about earthly things,

but love things heavenly;

and even now, while I am placed among things that are passing away,

hold fast to those that shall endure;

through Jesus Christ our Lord,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,

one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

- The Book of Common Prayer


[h/t Kingdom People]

'The Inescapable Love of God': Section Two - Context?

Talbott starts section two by setting up a straw man of alleged Augustinian inconsistency.  But then says these significant words about how Christians interpret Scripture: "For as I have said, every Christian thinker must reject a proposition for which there is at least some prima facie biblical support; so as almost a practical necessity, virtually every Christian thinker (who looks to the Bible as an authority) will end up interpreting some texts, some documents, and some authors in light of others." (Talbott, 48)

Talbott is very right, no interpretation of Scripture occurs in a vacuum. You need to stop and reread Talbott's quote, everyone interprets Scripture based on their own set of ideas and assumptions and will always, always be casting one piece of scripture in the light of another.  But Talbott immediately forgets his own observation in the very next example where he bizarrely accuses Augustine of misinterpreting the scope of "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, based on get this, a misuse of context!  Hang on Mr Talbott, doesn't every Christian thinker end up interpreting some texts, some documents, and some authors in light of others?

This is where Talbott and I become completely unstuck.  At almost every instance he wants to reserve the right to interpret Scripture in context only as far as he sees fit.  Back on page 48 I agreed everyone interprets Scripture in the light of other scriptures but Talbott refuses to take his own medicine. Although at the end of chapter five he concedes that Romans 5:18 could be read in the light of 2 Thess 1:8-9.  It also should be noted that Talbott makes a lot of the argument that in each of the "all" passages the universalist reading is a possibility. (e.g.Talbott, 79)  Therefore, he claims it cannot be simply dismissed by an appeal to other contradictory texts. This is partially true but not insurmountable for the traditional viewpoint, if you concede, as I've blogged about before, that the collective weight of the whole of Scripture correctly interpreted through church tradition determines which verses have primacy.

I'll blog later about chapters six to nine where Talbott offers his explanation of the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46), the definition of 'eternal' and the nature of God.

Clearer criticism of 'The Inescapable Love of God'

My commentator, cousin, dear friend and in this case theological sparring partner, Alex referred my blog post to Mr Thomas Talbott himself and in the insuring exchange I've realized my criticisms of the Inescapable Love of God weren't clear enough. (Thanks for sharpening me up Alex!) So I've laid out my argument more clearly below in both a summary and more detailed form.  The outcome is still unfortunately the same, Talbott is laying the 'emotional' foundation against traditional theology, in other words saying: "Boy, those traditional theologians are nasty," before making, in the next section, his own theological case for universalism.  "In the following chapters, therefore, I shall try to create a context - biblical, theological, and philosophical - in which the grounds for hope and the groundlessness of our fears might be more evident to us" (Talbott, 39).

Talbott argues

Predestination is a loveless theology that leads to a demonic picture of God. Augustine and Calvin are representatives of this theology and also theological villains whose theology of fear lead to their deadly persecution of heretics which makes their theology unbiblical and so it follows that predestination is wrong.  

But ...


#1 Talbott hasn't proved Predestination is a loveless theology and only states without argument that it leads to a demonic picture of God.
#2 Talbott misrepresents history by casting Augustine and Calvin as theological villains.
#3 The theological systems of Augustine and Calvin do not necessarily lead to their more unfavorable actions.

Talbott's argument and my criticisms in lots of detail

Predestination is a loveless theology that leads to a demonic picture of God. ["Clark's view was no aberration at all; he had simply made explicit, and with greater consistency, a demonic picture of God that pervades Western Theology."(Talbott, 8)] Augustine ["Augustine's defense of the use of terror" (Talbott, 28)] and Calvin ["Calvin's willingness to have his adversary put to death" (Talbott, 26)] are representatives of this theology ["Wherever I turned ..." (Talbott, 7)] and also theological villains whose theology of fear ["Against the many religious doctrines that appeal to and cultivate fear" (Talbott, 1)] lead to their deadly persecution of heretics ["the use of the sword in coercing heretics back into the State Church is justified"(Talbott, 28)] which makes their theology unbiblical ["a symptom of unsound doctrine or theological error" (Talbott, 24)].

#1  Talbott hasn't proved Predestination is a loveless theology and only states without argument that it leads to a demonic picture of God.

Talbott argues that traditional theology is loveless by using pejorative language, describing predestination as "narrow", "exclusive" where "God restricts his mercy to a chosen few" (Talbott, 6).  After quoting from an author in favor of predestination he writes "I was utterly dumfounded when I read such passages as these and searched in vain for at least an echo of the love of God" (Talbott, 7). Talbott labels the author a "hyper-Calvinist" who believes in "double-predestination" eschewing the more accurate label of 'election and reprobation' (Talbott, 6).

Talbott completely fails to explain why God only extending his mercy "to a chosen few" (Talbott, 7) isn't an expression of love.  While I don't agree with Clark's comment implying God is the author of evil, his presentation of election and reprobation is unremarkable, simply a reflection of the type of theology expressed in Romans 9 or Ephesians 1:5.  Talbott offers no logical argument for why predestination is loveless, relying instead on his pejorative description of Clark. Talbott also has no logical or even emotional argument for why predestination makes God demonic, he simply entitles that part of the chapter "a demonic picture of God" (Talbott, 5), leaving the emotional inference to the reader.

#2 Talbott misrepresents history by casting Augustine and Calvin as theological villains. 


Talbott seeks to cast Calvin in a villainous light by highlighting his role in the capture, trial and execution of Servetus.  Talbott says Calvin had desired the death of Servetus for many years (Talbott, 25) and then gives a bloodthirsty quote from Calvin about Servetus "I will never let him depart alive, if I have any authority" (Talbott, 26).  Talbott then interestingly finishes by highlighting Calvin's defense of Servetus' execution (Talbott, 26) and leaves the story at that, adding later only one comment about his motivation.

I don't condone the death penalty for heresy and agree that while cultures and circumstances differ from place to place and time to time, our biblical idea of not killing most people should of held sway over Calvin.  But Talbott seeking to show the villainy of Calvin doesn't give this episode any more historical context ["Calvin's precise role in the Servetus affair is not my present concern." (Talbott, 25)].  Servetus, was a smart man (he discovered the circulation of blood) and the author of anti-Trinitarian literature, who also argued with Calvin by correspondence.  "Protestant and Catholic theologians alike joined in condemning Servetus attack on the Trinity" (The European Reformations, Lindberg, 267).  Roman Catholic crowds even burned an effigy of Servetus.  Calvin eventually passed on his correspondence to a friend in Lyon who alerted the Roman Catholic Inquisition, who then captured Servetus (Lindberg, 268). Servetus escaped and then in strange move travelled to Geneva, where he was recognized and arrested.  "Servetus' fate was sealed by the Genevan magistracy even before the unanimous denunciations of him poured in from Basle, Bern, Schaffhausen and Zuich. ... Bucer had demanded the death penalty already in 1531 after the appearance of Servetus' first tract on the trinity" (Lindberg, 268-269). Lindberg then goes on to comment that Servetus' execution was widely approved of and that in our modern world of philosophical relativism "the sixteenth-century concern for truth appears strange" (Lindberg, 269).  At the time Servetus died, Anabaptists were being executed by Calvinists and Calvinists were being executed by Roman Catholics.  "The modern toleration of religious pluralism is anachronistic for the sixteenth century." (Lindberg, 270)  Interestingly Calvin, at the time of Servetus' execution, had less power and sway over Geneva than after the Servetus incident (Lindberg, 270).

But Talbott doesn't mention any of this; to show that Servetus was persecuted by the Roman Catholics, point out that Calvin only played a part in the whole incident and remark on the general blood-thirsty cultural climate would put a dampener on his villainous portrait of Calvin.  How do we judge the crew of the Enola Gay, who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima? Carefully and in-context, they don't become the villains of the evil imperialism of the American war machine, though they had important part in that horrible event.

Augustine is next.  Here Talbott is able to draw a closer (but still misguided) link between theology, persecution and eternal judgement.  "In another place he [Augustine] again asks: 'Why, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction [i.e., to eternal death]?" (Talbott, 28) Talbott goes on to write "But Augstine's defense of the use of terror against them remains one of the most appalling aspects of his thinking, and it is important to see that this defense was not an isolated quirk in his thinking" (Talbott, 28).  Talbott's central contention is that Augustine regarded heresy as worse than murder (Talbott, 28-29) and this makes him a brutal torturer (Talbott, 28).

Again while I don't believe torture and death are morally sound ways of dealing with heresy, Augustine's rhetoric should be seen in historical context.  Based on Talbott's presentation you'd be forgiven for thinking of Augustine as an arch villain bent on finding ways to kill and torture Donatists.  Again this suits the direction of  Talbott's argument which seeks to cast these central figures of traditional theology as villains.  The actual historical circumstances is little more complex than Talbott's portrait and doesn't support the idea of Augustine being a brutal villain of church history.

Prior to 410, the Donatists (a sect demanding purity in heritage) in were the ascendancy in Numidia.  They were an organized church of their own, having their own bishops and congregations, being the popular denomination of the North African peasants.  The Catholics on the other hand were in the minority, limited to the coastal cities and some of the land-owners.  Interestingly the Donatists had their own schisms and at one point used Imperial edicts to force their schismatic brethren back into the fold.  Tensions with the Catholics were high and sometimes roving bands of armed Donatists called "circumcellions" would either attack Catholic majority towns or defend Donatist towns against Catholic gangs. At one point even Augustine himself was targeted and ambushed by some circumcellions.  Prior to the sixth century the place of the Catholicism was by no means entirely settled. Even in North Africa, Donatists were only one threat among several, paganism was still strong and other heresies such as Pelagianism or Arianism ran amuck across the Christian world.  As bishop of Hippo Augustine sort to establish an orthodoxy that could meet the challenges of Paganism while also resist heresies such as Pelaginism let alone deal with the conservative Donatists.  Augustine was first and foremast a scholar, skilled in rhetoric and polemical argument, he'd often write stridently only to nuance it in a later publication. His development of the doctrine of original sin is an example of this.  Brown in his biography of Augustine shows how Augustine focused on using written propaganda to discredit the Donatists.  But Augstine was only one player in a larger conflict.  The dissident Donatists drawing on a inland peasant power-base were ultimately on the losing side. Catholic landowners and bishops used imperial edicts to dis-enfranchise Donatist bishops and churches.  Eventually the ever-present background of violence increased as the Donatists were forcibly amalgamated into the Catholic church, some resting violently others more peaceably but still reluctantly. Unfortunately at this time (400's) Augustine wrote in favor of state suppression of the Donatists. (Historical summary drawn from Augustine of Hippo: A biography by Peter Brown)

This was the post-Constantine era of growing church and state cooperation but that does not excuse Augustine from supporting the persecution of the Donatists.  To Augustine's credit he worked hard both before and after the Imperial edicts against the Donastists to bring them into line through non-violent means. "Despite Augustine's conscientious behavior, violence could not be avoided" (Brown, 237).  Talbott wants to cast Augustine as pro-violence but Brown reads the evidence differently stating "Augustine opposed the death-penalty in principle, for it excluded the possibility of repentance" (Brown, 238).  A more likely scenario is that Augustine misused his authority as a bishop in advocating state suppression of the Donatists.  To read his actions as some sort of cruel outworking of his theology overlooks both the wider historical context and Augustine's own personal context.  But to place Augustine's actions in more context would detract from Talbott's simplistic portrayal of Augustine as a theological villain. 

#3 The theological systems of Augustine and Calvin do not necessarily lead to their more unfavorable actions.

I said in my earlier post that Talbott commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which basically means correlation does not equal causation.  Does Calvin's role in Servetus' execution really spring from his theological intolerance is it more probably the result of human sinfulness, living in the sixteenth century, dealing with that particular situation and being fiercely zealous for truth? Talbott concedes he was the product of an intolerant age but hastily adds that "it does not explain the theological roots of the intolerance" (Talbott, 26)

Talbott somewhat tenuously wants us to connect his interpretation of Matthew 7:18-20 (he somewhat interestingly omits any reference to verse 19!) connecting trees that do not bear good fruit with traditional western theology. "Part of the suggestion here seems to be that a sound doctrine, soundly interpreted, will not bear evil fruit in the lives of those who sincerely embrace it, it will, to the contrary, bear good fruit" (Talbott, 24).  He goes to state  "So if a sound doctrine, soundly interpreted, does not produce evil fruit in the lives of those who sincerely embrace it, then we are entitled, I believe, to regard acts of persecution with the Christian Church as a symptom of unsound doctrine or theological error." ( Talbott, 24)

This line of argument taken to its logical conclusion would support sinless perfectionism, that true Christians are perfect and without sin, because a single shard of bad fruit would go against Talbott's interpretation of Matthew 7:18-20.  Is Talbott's own bad fruit seen in his pejorative and judgmental language, a "symptom of unsound doctrine or theological error" perhaps?  Talbott ignores the complexity of humans and their historical circumstances, his line of argument would ban fatherhood because of the actions of some fathers in the name of fatherhood.  It's overly simplistic to draw line between someone's more negative actions and their theology or ideology.  This doesn't mean those connections don't exist in some form but it's fraught with far more complexity then Talbott's argument allows for.

Finally and importantly Talbott doesn't clearly show the connection between the negative actions of Calvin and Augustine and their wider systems of theological thought. Calvin may have been wrong to support the death penalty but why must that be lumped with his views on predestination.  Talbott of course has no explanation for this preferring to lump  his thinking together, avoiding making these type of distinctions in Calvin's wide ranging theological system.  Talbott does attempt a connection between Augustine's support of Donatist persecution and his wider theological system.  "But Augustine's defense of the use of terror against them remains one of the most appalling aspects of his thinking, and it is important to see that this defense was not an isolated quirk in his thinking. Indeed, within the context of his own assumptions, his argument is perfectly reasonable. If you suppose, as Augustine did, that heresy leads to eternal damnation and that like a deadly germ, the heretic tends to infect others with heresy, then you have every reason to terrorize and even murder heretics. " (Talbott, 28).  Talbott claims that Augstuine's approval of the Donatists persecution wasn't an "an isolated quirk in his thinking" but doesn't show how his punishment of heretics is connected to other parts of his theology.  In fact all Talbott does is label it as "brutal" (Talbott, 28) and let the reader assume Augustine's theology must be flawed, somehow.  This is quite ironic because Talbott only a few pages later makes the very same argument I'm making against him against Bertrand Russell! "He fails to distinguish carefully enough, in other words between different dogmatic beliefs" (p31)

Conclusion

Talbott's goal is to condemn the traditional Biblical understanding of scripture: "In the end, I decided [after reading Romans 9] I could no longer be a Christian in any orthodox sense. If Paul really taught, as Augustine and many of the Protestant Reformers insist he did, that God restricts his mercy to a chosen few, than Paul was, if not an outright fraud, just another confused and small-minded religious zealot" (Talbott, 9).  And hold up universalism by false contrast as somehow purer and more loving. "Here at last, was a religious writer [George MacDonald] who seemed to appeal not to fear or guilt or mean-spiritedness" (Talbott, 12).  On second thoughts this section of the Insescaple Love of God is more flawed than I first assumed. 

My daughter Evangeline

A post-apocalyptic baby, or she will be if she survives peak-oil. Interesting to think that if she lives to be an old lady she'll see in 2100 and be less than fifty years away from the bicentenary of World War Two.  Amy and me are in a big discussion at the moment about baptism. Can I also say there is an intensity to being a father that has caught me by surprise, makes me think of my parents differently.

Is there an "Abraham Line"?

Everyone places the 'boundary of historicity', where you decide to go with the biblical text as opposed to possible evidence to the contrary, at one of these five locations:

      1. Genesis 1
      2. Genesis 12
      3. Gradually after Genesis 12
      4. After the Exile (Ezra/Nehemiah)
      5. OT = Pure fiction

I think this is a different question as to what to then do with the text.  

The interpretation of Genesis 1-2

"Just to be clear: I'm a 6-day guy and I believe that Adam was a real person in the history of the world. What actually happens in Gen 1-2-3 happened in fact as events in history.

Less than that is simply not what the Bible teaches. My concern is reaching for more than that either in the direction of filling out the complete calendar of the history of the world, or in the other direction of disounting the actual text for science-fawning tales of how God formed man from a red-tailed monkey rather than the red clay -- as if the monkey-miracle is more appealing to naturalists than the one the Bible actually describes." (Italics mine.)

-Frank Turk, from the comments of the Pyromaniacs Blog.

Pantheism: Man Is No More Than the Grass

Currently among other things, I'm reading and blogging through Pollution and the Death of Man by Francis Schaeffer.  In the second chapter Schaeffer observes how pantheism has been suggested as a better base for our ecology.  Schaeffer correctly states that the modern environmental approach "wants a moral base on which to deal with the ecological problem" (p20).  That there is an ecological problem is clear, "Modern man has seen that we are upsetting the balance of nature and the problem is drastic and urgent.  It's not just a matter of aesthetics, nor is the problem only future - the quality of life has already diminished for most modern men" (p22).  Schaeffer doesn't want to side with a modern technological consumerism but doesn't agree with the pantheistic direction of modern ecology. "Pantheism gives you an answer for unity, but it gives no meaning to the diversity" (p30).  Christianity as a theological system has the categories of diversity, horror and beauty, pantheism can only offer a disempowering unity.  The fact that things are inter-connected is true but it's hardly a moral basis for ecology. Finally Schaeffer notes that elevating nature depersonalizes humanity.  A pantheistic worldview offers "no real base for the dignity of man" (p32).

7 things about the Koran burning

This incident tells us seven things:

1. Christians living in Muslim countries will be put at risk. "The effect of the proposed action on Christians in Muslim-majority contexts is likely to be extremely serious." (Barnabas Fund)
2. Saying you're a 'church' is only a part of being The Church. The role of church tradition and unity is overlooked by that group and the wider media-storm.
3. Reading the Koran is probably a better strategy then burning it. (Mark Durie)
4. "I told you so," isn't a good reason for burning the Koran. "The little brother is stupid to touch him, but the older brother is still wrong to punch him." (Kevin DeYoung)
5. Having your holy books burnt doesn't justify violence. "...most people who will see pictures of a church burning Korans and ignore the fact that some Muslims may see this an excuse to kill." (Kevin DeYoung)
6. Burning the Koran and publishing the Muhammad Cartoons belong to different categories and have different justifications. 
7. More constructive and respectful strategies have been overlooked. "Christians would be better served spending the time praying for the conversion of their Muslim neighbours and reaching out to them with love and with God's true word," (Carl Trueman)

Update: Which appears to have been cancelled, possibly the best possible outcome.

The Inescapable Love of God

I'm reading, on Alex's recommendation, The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott.  It is in Talbott's words "a real book, by which I mean that in it I have tried to reach the most demanding audience of all: that of non-educated specialists.  The book is in part an intellectual autobiography , in part the elaboration of an argument, and in part an attempt at persuasive writing." (pi) This is promising start, readable and clear, I know where he's going and what he's trying to achieve.  The book has three sections, Part One "Some Autobiographical Reflections", Part Two "Universal Reconciliation and the New Testament" and Part Three "The Logic of Divine Love."

I've just finished part one.  Positively, I appreciated the candor and directness of his writing. He also weaves theology, church history and personal anecdote together well in a way some American books don't.  However one third through I remain unpersuaded and a little unimpressed.  The essence of Talbott's argument in this section is an appeal to our emotions, which might make us feel one way or the other doesn't advance the argument for universalism.  For example he retells how during summer work he had a horrible boss, saying "And we have, I believe, a parable of the twisted gospel, the message of fear, that I encountered in the churches of my youth" (p36)  In fact the entire section reminded me of the that quote from The West Wing when President Bartlett says an argument he encounters during the show commits the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy which basically means correlation does not equal causation. Clearly the torture of the Donatists or the execution of Servetus doesn't automatically make Augustine or Calvin's theology wrong, that would have to be shown by theological reasoning not by an emotional appeal.  But this didn't make me unimpressed, I'll employ emotional tactics, rhetoric after all includes both logic and pathos.  It was Talbott's misuse of history that left me unimpressed. Hasn't he read Brown's magisterial biography of Augustine? The Donatists gave as good as they got, sweeping down in raiding parties from the mountains, terrorizing the Catholic coastlands.  Isn't he aware of Calvin's sometimes prickly relations with the civil authorities of Geneva and why doesn't he mention that Servetus would have probably faced the death penalty for his views on the Trinity under the Roman Catholics as well?

I'm worried this doesn't bode for the next two sections while I'm happy for Talbot to argue for God's "expression of love, ... a love that is both all-pervasive and in the end, inescapable" (p14).  I wonder if at some point Talbott will make "love" (what it *really* means) the essential attribute of God.  He then implies traditional theology makes God capricious but I think this is both a misrepresentation of  Augustine, Calvin, Edwards etc and a reading back into the doctrine of God by Talbott. I was also disappointed by his glib disposal of so-called "hyper-Calvinism' (p6-7) which puts him outside of traditional Reformed theology.  But he writes well and I look forward to the next two sections.

'Pollution and the Death of Man'

I've grown up in a family that valued the natural environment, saw God glorified in it's beauty but was skeptical of the Green bandwagon and disliked being lectured to by Al Gore. I don't mind being eventually convinced human activity is causing global warming but dislike the pseudo-religious fervor that accompanies it.  So I'll be reading and blogging through Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology by Francis Schaeffer to get a theological handle on where to go with environmentalism.

'What have they done with our fair sister?'


The death of "joy" in nature is leading to the death of nature itself. (p11) Genesis 1-2 describes God's pleasure over his new creation and our connection to it. Schaeffer suggests that as Christians we've lost this pleasure in the larger creation.  The chapter itself however is named after a line from 'Strange Days'  by the Doors, which accuses humanity of destroying nature.  Schaeffer shows that there is sense amoung some that the Christian view of having dominion over nature has lead to this destructive impulse and it is suggested a more Buddhist approach of having "one essence" (p14) would lead to better care for the environment.

I like where Schaeffer is going, as Christians we need a bigger framework of care and joy for the environment that reflects God's initial creative pleasure.  Schaeffer, true to form, notes that an ecology requires a philosophical basis and in the current debate about environmentalism the Christian theology of ecology is simply replaced with a pantheistic theology of ecology. I wonder if this is Byron Smith's intention in his chronicle of outrage over environmental degradation; to recapture the larger Christian view of ecology without jumping on the pantheistic bandwagon by mistake?