Theological Scholarship in Fundamentalism

Kevin Bauder recently wrote a series of articles for his “In the Nick of Time” column “Fundamentalism and Scholarship.”

This paragraph stood out to me as one of the key areas of my own weakness:

If we want to produce theological scholars, then we must provide training in the skills that scholars require. This is the role of academic institutions and Ph.D. programs. During graduate and especially postgraduate education, would-be scholars must learn to navigate the literature within their disciplines, master the skills required for scholarly research, and develop those powers of presentation that will be essential for functioning in the scholarly community. During the years of preparation, future scholars must also make their first forays into the academic arena, attending and offering presentations for the learned societies that service their disciplines. Simultaneously, they will begin to develop the networks of relationships that will lead to publishing opportunities. Most importantly, future scholars must begin to focus attention upon the areas of specialization in which they hope to advance the scholarly conversation and thereby to expand the scope of human knowledge.

Fundamentalism has not always been comfortable with such prescriptions. For most of our history, it hasn’t been on our radar screens. But that reticence has been eroding, as evidenced by the new writing and publishing program going on now at my own Bob Jones Seminary.

May the Lord help us to go far and high in scholarship but not in our own estimation of it. May our scholarship instead be a means of increasing our understanding and admiration of the Lord.

All Things to All People

The largest Anglican church in Canada has pulled out of the national church and put itself under the authority of a parallel conservative body. The “tipping point” was their diocese’s support of same-sex blessings, but I was very pleased with this National Post article for letting the putative dissidents explain their rationale: they left because of their view of Scripture and not because of homophobia.

In that light, this quotation from a liberal partisan really struck me:

Paul Feheley, principal secretary to Archbishop Fred Hiltz, head of the Canadian Church, said Anglicanism has always contained wide areas of opinion and there is no reason for anyone to leave.

“We’re not holding our noses and pretending this is not happening, but at some point we can’t be all things to all people.”

Someone who persists in such a laissez faire attitude toward Bible doctrine is the appropriate object of the kind of separation Paul calls for in 2 Thessalonians 3:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us….
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

St. John’s has done right in pulling out, and according to the article, they did it soberly without glee. That’s quite a feat. I applaud them.

Textual Optimism

In my previous post on Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament by Kent W. Clarke (part of the JSNT monograph series now edited by Stanley Porter), I summarized some of Clarke’s statistics on the general upgrade from D to C, C to B, and B to A in the variant rating system.

In my subsequent reading, Clarke has charged that the overall upgrade in textual quality is made even more stark because the letter rating definitions themselves were upgraded from the-glass-is-half-empty to the-glass-is-half-full.

Here are the UBS3 definitions:

• {A} The text is virtually certain.
• {B} There is some degree of doubt.
• {C} There is a considerable degree of doubt.
• {D} There is a very high degree of doubt.

Here are the UBS4 definitions:

• {A} The text is certain.
• {B} The text is almost certain.
• {C} The editors had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
• {D} The editors had great difficulty arriving at a decision.

Note that the majority of the UBS1-3 rating definitions were related to doubt while the UBS4 definitions are related to certainty. So you would actually expect some A’s in USB3 to go to B’s in UBS4, some B’s to C’s, and so on. Instead, you see the opposite. It’s almost as if the certainty of the editors’ choices got a double upgrade from UBS3 to UBS4.

Clarke is not saying we should ditch the UBS, or even the UBS4. He’s simply warning that the letter ratings should be used with caution and full knowledge—and he’s implicitly asking the committee in charge of the UBS to give a fuller explanation for their choices.

Avery Cardinal Dulles

What is the Catholic view of salvation? Not all Catholics agree, and, sadly, the great majority of Catholics I have met simply do not know what their church’s (official) view is. But Avery Dulles, S.J., a cardinal and a professor of religion at (Jesuit) Fordham University, is as authoritative a voice as any but the pope, I would think.

Dulles has this to say about salvation in a recent First Things article:

“Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted.”

Dulles’ article is mainly about how Christians over the centuries have viewed the fate of the unevangelized. He’s glad that he need not be limited by the NT when theologizing on this topic (emphasis mine):

“We seem to have come full circle from the teaching of Paul and the New Testament that belief in the message of Christ is the source of salvation. Reflecting on this development, one can see certain gains and certain losses. The New Testament and the theology of the first millennium give little hope for the salvation of those who, since the time of Christ, have had no chance of hearing the gospel. If God has a serious salvific will for all, this lacuna needed to be filled, as it has been by theological speculation and church teaching since the sixteenth century. Modern theology, preoccupied with the salvation of non-Christians, has tended to neglect the importance of explicit belief in Christ, so strongly emphasized in the first centuries. It should not be impossible, however, to reconcile the two perspectives.”

What in the World!

Here’s another item from the latest What in the World! newsletter.
Luke Timothy Johnson seems to be one of those “liberals” of the Bruce Metzger ilk, someone whose work conservatives can appreciate for its fairmindedness. Notably, he has resolutely opposed the Jesus Seminar. But some of his positions are liberal after all, and this quotation—fairmindedly—shows that.

Luke Timothy Johnson, New Testament professor at Emory University, has openly admitted what few liberal Christian defenders of homosexuality will: “I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.” (FirstThings.com, 1/4/08)

Planet Narnia

“Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C. S. Lewis” (Michael Ward)

I’m still skeptical. A secret thematic organizing principle for the Chronicles of Narnia?

But I’m open, and I’m listening.

Michael Ward’s opening arguments can be summarized as follows:

1. I know that charlatans, ne’er-do-wells, and cranks love to write about Lewis, but I promise I’m not one of them! (His careful style and broad footnoting have persuaded me that he’s telling the truth.)
2. Many other sound literary critics have proposed different underlying themes for the Narniad, including Christology and the seven deadly sins. Perhaps they’re on to something.
3. Lewis was known to be secretive and even playfully misleading. It should be no surprise, then, that he might hide a major theme in the Narniad. Per George MacDonald, an artist who has to write, “THIS IS A HORSE” underneath a picture he’s drawn is no artist.

Ward spends a lot of time on number three, and interestingly, his first chapter is called “Silence.” Indeed, his argument is partly, by necessity, one from silence. For example, Ward (no relation) must deal with one of the most famous quotations Lewis gave about Narnia, namely that it all started with an image of a faun in a wood (and, ergo, not as a planned septet). Several times I found myself reacting to a claim by Ward with, “Hmm… That could go either way.”

I plan to read the rest of his book to see whether or not it will indeed go his way.

The Real Truth about the Chronicles of Narnia

Just picked up a book via the new free inter-library loan program in South Carolina.

It’s one of those crazy books with a crazy premise that only crazy people would write (or, ahem, read…).

I’m told that it says that each of the Chronicles of Narnia was written based on the theme of a particular body in the solar system. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, for example, was written on a sun theme.

Ha!

Right? …ha ha? Why does Lewis attract so many crazies?

Well… No. Apparently not this time. This book was published by Oxford University Press, written by a good friend of Phil Ryken, and is receiving a preliminary hailing around the blogosphere. It’s not actually crazy.

I’m intrigued!

Can’t wait to jump in!

Textual Optimism: A Critique of the UBS4

I’m on the plane to Tampa and I’m reading Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament by Kent W. Clarke, part of the JSNT monograph series now edited by Stanley Porter,

The opening chapter on the history of (mainly modern) textual criticism is a fine summary, and it would make an excellent class reading assignment. Westcott and Hort get the most space, but that material is readily available elsewhere. Those familiar with it may want to skip to the history of the UBS GNT (and how it relates to the Nestle-Aland series of GNTs).

The focus of this work starts in the second chapter. Here Clark examines the textually optimistic shift in the A-D rating system from UBS 1-3 to UBS4.

Did you follow that? Briefly, the UBS GNTs rate each textual variant unit with the following system:

• {A} The text is certain.
• {B} The text is almost certain.
• {C} The editors had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
• {D} The editors had great difficulty arriving at a decision.

The remarkable set of statistics Clark has compiled show clearly that while the overall number of treated variants went down slightly from UBS3 to UBS4 (1444 to 1431), the number and percentage of A and B ratings went up significantly while C ratings dropped significantly. The D rating is now almost non-existent: the 144 D’s in UBS3 have decreased to just 9 in all of UBS4.

This could be because the UBS4 has chosen to treat different variants, but Clark rejects that as a sufficient explanation. Here are some of his key summary statements:

“There is…an astonishing upgrade in the UBSGNT4 and, therefore, a newly proposed quality of text.” (90)

“There is a strong tendency for each biblical book (excluding Mark) to move towards an increasing degree of certainty regarding debated readings, and thus, an overall upgrade in the quality of text. These UBSGNT4 modifications progress at an inconsistent rate and are incongruent with those alterations made throughout [previous editions].” (90)

Here are some key stats detailing the shift from UBS3 to UBS4 (the number of ratings is followed by the percentage of the total):

• {A} ratings: 126 / 9% to 514 / 36%
• {B} ratings: 475 / 33% to 541 / 38%
• {C} ratings: 699 / 48% to 367 / 26%
• {D} ratings: 144 / 10% to 9 / 1%

More exciting statistics to come, D.V.

A Clear and Present Word by Mark D. Thompson

I’ve been reading a fantastic book called A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture by Moore Theological College’s Mark D. Thompson. It’s part of the New Studies in Biblical Theology series, edited by D.A. Carson.

Moore Theological College brings a few names to my mind: Peter D. O’Brien, Graeme Goldsworthy, and a new name whose work on verbal aspect (the latest volume in the Studies in Biblical Greek series) I have to admit is beyond me right now, Con Campbell. Ah, yes, and John A. L. Lee. He wrote a very entertaining volume in the SBG series on the history of New Testament lexicography. The Brits/Aussies seem to write their academic literature with a bit more verve than we Americans do. Maybe I’m wrong.

Back to Thompson’s book…

Thompson makes probably one major point: God goes with His Word. This truth makes the author-reader relationship for the Bible totally unique. Obviously, this truth does not guarantee that all Bible readers will arrive at the same—correct—interpretations. Sin enters the mix through the Fall’s noetic effects. But we can have real confidence (con+fide; i.e., faith) that God’s word is understandable despite modern and postmodern challenges to that faith.

I hope to make some more comments on the book in future posts.

Answer Not a Fool / Answer a Fool

Prov. 26:4-5, ESV
Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.

The Majority View

D.A. Carson, in a long review of three recent bibliology books, says he has often used the verses above “to demonstrate the way proverbs work: they are not universal case law. The formal divergence in this instance powerfully embraces more comprehensive reflection than either proverb alone could have done.”

I agree with his conclusion, but my jury is still out on whether or not these verses are a good example of it.

Under Carson’s view, the warning could be understood two different ways (cf. UBS Handbook on Prov.): “This verse is a warning, either against taking a fool at his own estimation and giving him a serious reply, or perhaps against speaking to a fool in the same foolish way as he has spoken to you. By doing so you share in his foolishness.”

The Bible Knowledge Commentary, too, says it takes wisdom to know when to apply v.4 and when to apply v.5. Likewise Matthew Henry, the New Bible Commentary, and the New American Commentary. Garrett (NAC) summarizes this view well: “On the one hand, one should not deal with a fool on his own terms lest the imitation of folly become habitual. On the other hand, one must sometimes answer fools in the words they understand in order to reprimand them effectively.”

Waltke Weighs In

But Waltke (NICOT) argues for a different position. He specifically opposes the view that sees these as applying at different times (the NLT clearly takes this interpretation, leaving no ambiguity). They both apply absolutely at all times, he says; and both proverbs (v.4 and v.5) actually call for the wise son to reply to a fool. The first one (v.4) warns him not to be like the fool in his answer–that is, don’t be malicious or self-conceited or what have you. The second one (v.5) tells the son to go ahead and answer the fool with wisdom that flips his world upside down: no longer is he the wise one; he is the fool.

Waltke argues this based on the flexibility of the K (kaph) preposition. It points to an element of similarity, but leaves the point of similarity open to some interpretation: “Joshua is like Moses” could be pointing to his likeness as being a leader or as being a prophet. Interestingly, the LXX seems to support Waltke: it uses different Greek prepositions to render the K. I’m not sure what difference that makes in Greek–perhaps “Do not answer a fool with that foolishness [he just used]” and “Answer a fool against his folly”? I just checked out BDAG on προς (v.4) and κατα (v.5), and I’m not at all sure I can land on renderings which support Waltke’s reasoning. However, that’s due more to my inexpertise in pinpointing prepositional meaning (though what expertise I do have leads me to say that context would be the determiner anyway and that Koine doesn’t get that specific), and the point stands that the LXX chose different prepositions to render the exact same phrase.

One other argument that inclines me toward this view is the simple fact that “Do not answer” is qualified by something rather than nothing. It’s like the difference between saying “Don’t cross the street” and “Don’t cross the street without looking first.” Likewise, “Don’t answer a fool” and “Don’t answer a fool with the same kind of reply he typically gives.” The first command in each example is absolute. The second not only allows the action but actually commends or even commands it.

Murphy (WBC) does a good job bringing up parallel passages, but I find him ultimately unhelpful. He points out that in 17:12 the son is warned that it is better to run into a she-bear robbed of her cubs than to run into a fool. This would seem to support the “Don’t answer at all” position, but that can’t work with the very next verse (26:5)! Vv. 4 and 5 need to work together. They can’t be analyzed discretely. In 26:12b there is “more hope for a fool” than for someone who is “wise in his own eyes.” So maybe there is hope for a fool before he becomes wise in his own eyes.

Waltke seems to be the only commentator who bothers with the actual grammar of the passage. Murphy makes a passing reference to it and others tell us what the kaph preposition “literally” means, but that’s another argument in favor of Waltke.

In sum… I’m close to willing to see the LXX as decisive. But because it could have been style or sloppiness or some unnecessarily fastidious translator who chose the two different renderings, I’m in a strait betwixt Waltke and Carson but leaning slightly toward the former.

Fair Is Fair

Ok, I caught the NAS adding some interpretation into its translation at a place (Prov. 26:5) where the NIV (and TNIV) were more literal:

NAS Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.

NIV Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Yes, the TNIV was more literal than the NAS in the particular phrase I’m focusing on, but look what it did with the gender-neutral third-person singular masculine pronoun:

TNIV Answer fools according to their folly, or they will be wise in their own eyes.

I don’t like changing the number like that. I would honestly be afraid to do such a thing.

For good measure, here are the other major translations I use in BibleWorks:

ESV Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

KJV Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

NET Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own estimation.

CSB Answer a fool according to his foolishness, or he’ll become wise in his own eyes.

NLT Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools, or they will become wise in their own estimation.

NKJ Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.

LXX: αλλα αποκρινου αφρονι κατα την αφροσυνην αυτου ινα μη φαινηται σοφος παρ εαυτω

Next up: a post on this verse and the preceding one, a famous pair.

New York Times’ Kristof on Evangelicals

Nick Kristof is a very entertaining and informative columnist/opinion-writer/humanitarian/world-traveler. I was quite excited when the New York Times made its “Times Select” online content available free to students because I knew it meant I’d finally be reading Kristof right when his material came out!

Kristof has literally given his blood for the poor of the third world. He doesn’t care so much about the label worn by those who join him in this work. Though he speaks openly of his liberal views, he gives much more than grudging respect to his opponents when they deserve it.

This is just what he has done in his latest opinion piece in today’s NYT. Kristof praises evangelicals for some of the changes which have taken place in their public and private faces.

You’ll need to decide for yourself whether the moves Kristof praises are all truly praiseworthy. Evangelicalism’s move into social issues can either be a social-gospel liberalization which bodes (more) ill for the movement, or it can be a robustly theological call to the gospel-moored, full-orbed “good works” that Paul enjoins over and over again in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 2:10; 5:10, 25; 6:18; 2 Tim. 3:17; Tit. 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14). I tend to think it’s a lot of the former and a little of the latter.

All the same, a prominent non-Christian for whom I have real respect has just shown major cross-cultural, cross-aisle grace. This should not go unnoticed.

A Little More on Humor and Pulpit Dignity

A friend of mine passed these points along from a more-developed version of a lecture I’d heard BJ Seminary’s Dr. Layton Talbert give on humor:

• The biblical record does not reveal a frivolous or slapstick sense of humor.
• “The humor of the Bible is not of the rollicking type but the subtle and intellectual type for which the term wit is often an accurate designation” (DBI).
• The biblical record does not suggest that He employed humor simply for the purpose of making people laugh.
• Humor at its best is inherently observant, profound, and, consequently, instructive in nature.
• Christ’s humor was always didactic in its aim.
• Jesus used humor, wit, and irony for the purpose of pointing out spiritual incongruities and under¬scoring the spiritual truths that he taught.
• “It is very important to understand that the evident purpose of Christ’s humor is to clarify and increase understanding” (source?). He made humor a conscious and effective part of His instructive ministry.

Mark Dever on Acts 29 and Paul and Salon.com on Dignity

Here’s Mark Dever speaking to the Mark Driscoll-related Acts 29 church-planting network yesterday (emphasis mine):

Our differences are enough to separate some of my friends—your brothers and sisters in Christ—from you. And perhaps to separate them from me, now that I’m publicly speaking to you. And I don’t want to minimize either the sincerity or the seriousness of some of their concerns (things like: humor, worldliness, pragmatism, authority).

Dever goes on to say that what he shares with the Acts 29 pastors is greater than what separates them: the gospel and God’s sovereignty in salvation.

Paul on Dignity

I highlight his mention of humor because I want to mention a verse that has stayed in my mind as I have observed the kinds of ministries Dever was gently challenging:

“Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity…” (Titus 2:7, ESV)

I believe Mark Dever has this sort of Pauline spirit in mind when he criticizes humor in the pulpit. Humor certainly has a place, but it’s got to remain dignified.

Salon.com on Dignity

Even a lost Salon.com journalist back in 2006 noted a lack of dignity in an Acts 29 leader:

“After [the pastor] prays for the continued fertility of his congregation, and the worship band cranks out a few fierce guitar licks, the sermon begins. Pacing the stage like a stand-up pro, blending observational humor about parenting with ribald biblical storytelling, [the pastor] peppers his message with references to his own children as midget demons and recalls his own past in stories about duct-taping and hog-tying his own siblings. He riffs about waiting in a supermarket checkout line behind a woman who said to him, “You sure got a lot of kids! I hope you’ve figured out what causes that.”

“Yeah,” he flipped back. “A blessed wife. I bet you don’t have any kids.” The congregation hoots and hollers. “That shut her up,” he mutters.

It’s always powerful to me when a lost person notices a sin I or my kind (teachers of the Word) are committing.

HT: JT

All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes 6

“Modern popular culture is not just the latest in a series of diversions. It is rather a culture of diversion,” says Ken Myers. 56 “Since it is the purpose of most forms of popular culture to provide exciting distraction,” says Myers, “we should not be surprised that over time, television programs, popular music, and other forms become more extreme (and more offensive) in their pursuit of titillation. Folk culture has the capacity to limit extremes, since it is the expression of the values and aspirations of a community. Popular culture, on the other hand, presupposes the absence of community of belief or conviction.” 61

Myers quotes Ernest Van den Haag: “Who is slain when time is killed?” And Myers answers the question: “When we kill time, we are really killing ourselves.” 62

Again we hit the major theme of Myers’ book: not all that is permissible is constructive.

Here are three of Jonathan Edwards’ famous resolutions, all on this same theme:

4. Resolved, Never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what tends to the glory of God, nor be, nor suffer it, if I can possibly avoid it.

5. Resolved, Never to lose one moment of time, but to improve it in the most profitable way I possibly can.

7. Resolved, Never to do any thing, which I should be afraid to do if it were the last hour of my life.

All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes 5

Ken Myers calls the “Music Comparison Chart” idea (“if you like artist ‘A’ in secular music, then there’s a good chance you’ll like some of the music of ‘B’ in Christian music”) “striving to conform to the world.”

It’s refreshing to see a non-partisan like Myers say something like this, something so apparent and yet so much denied, even derided.

All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes 4

What’s so wrong with pop culture? It may not necessarily be the content of its TV shows, movies, and music, says Ken Myers. Instead its danger may be that it “specializes in instant gratification.” Myers notes that “like most instant things, it may spoil your taste for something better.” xiv
Myers’ book, subtitled, Christians and Popular Culture, warns that “popular culture encourages a mood of expecting everything to be immediate, a mood that deters greater depth and breadth in other areas of our lives, including our understanding of Christianity and our experience of obedient faith.” xv
Myers suggests that “rather than starting our own TV networks, movie production companies, or imitations of People, we would do much better to make the church a living example of alternatives to the methods and messages of popular culture…. In such a time, the church could be a community displaying, in its corporate life and in the lives of its members, a culture of transcendence. This would not mean escaping from the world. It would require refusing to conform to its ways, not only when they are evil, but when they are not beneficial or constructive.” xvi

Christian Response to “A Common Word”

Because it would not be responsible for me just to accept the word of the video I transcribed in the previous post, I read the response to “A Common Word” issued by Christian leaders in the New York Times.

I encourage you to read it and formulate your own opinion.

I added the highlights at the bottom for myself, just noting some of the people whose names are relevant to me.

The best response I’ve seen to “A Common Word”

Below I’ve included a transcript I made (because I needed to have the text for a non-blog reason) of a new video on the Desiring God site. This is John Piper’s response to the Christian response to “A Common Word,” a document intended to promote Muslim-Christian relations.

I’ll let him explain.

Note: I did not smooth out this text except for an “um” or two; it appears just as he spoke it.

In October of 2007, 138 Muslim clerics produced a document—it’s about 20 pages in the copy that I have—called “A Common Word Between Us and You” in which they extended a right hand for conversation to the Christian church and sent it to the Pope and to any other Christian leaders who would be interested in which the main thesis was that love for God and love for neighbor is a common ground between Christianity and Islam.

And there have been a lot of responses. You can go to acommonword—I think that’s the name of it—acommword.com, or something like that, where you can find it. And there have been a lot of responses. The main one that concerns me, and the reason I’m talking here, is because I am disappointed with the response that came from the one that was published in the New York Times back in, I think it was published in November of last year, of 2007. But I have a copy of it here. It’s called “Loving God and Neighbor Together, a Christian Response to ‘A Common Word Between Us.’” And I just want to register publicly a disappointment with this document, in fact a profound disappointment with the way that it’s worded—and surprise at some of the people that signed it, some of my friends, who signed it, who I would have thought would be more careful in what they lend their support to.

Because, what’s missing from this document is a clear statement about what Christianity really is, and how we could come together to talk with Muslims from our unique, distinctive biblical standpoint. It won’t work to simply say, “You have a prophet, and we have a prophet”—which is really the way this document sounds. “We have a prophet who said love your enemies; you have a prophet who said love your enemies.” That’s the way this document sounds. I’m sure the people that wrote this document do not believe that, but that’s what it sounds like. And I’ve talked to a lot of people, and I’ve read it at least three times, and I’ve written how I would respond to it.

So I just want to say that when we speak of the love of God and even quote a verse from 1 John 4, and don’t take into account the very next verse where the love of God that sustains us Christians is the love of God that sent the Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to be the propitiation for our sins, that’s the next verse, but not the one that’s quoted into the document, we are not being—it seems to me—we’re just not being honest. We’re not saying to the world who’s reading this document, that the love of God that we get strength from is the love of God uniquely expressed through Jesus Christ as the propitiation for our sins because he died on the cross and he rose again. All of those things Islam radically rejects. So they do not believe in the God we believe in. They do not believe in the love of God that we believe in. They don’t believe in the Son of God that we believe in. They don’t believe in the propitiation that he made for us. And to then talk in vague terms as though the love of God is a common standing place is to deceive, is to be unclear at best.

Jesus is so crystal clear when he talks about this. “If you reject me,”Jesus said in Luke 10:16, “If you reject me, you reject the one who sent Me.” Muslims do reject Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Son of man, crucified, risen savior of the world. They reject him, and therefore are rejecting God. We don’t stand together on a common love of God or a common understanding of God. They don’t worship the true God, according to Jesus. He who has the son has life; he who does not have the Son does not have life. The Bible is so crystal clear that Jesus is the litmus paper as to whether or not we’re talking about the same God.

I got a great help from a good friend of mine who said this: Suppose two people are arguing about their classmates from college 30 years ago, and they’re starting to wonder if they’re talking about the same person. “She did this and she did that.” “Oh, I don’t think she did that.” “And she looked like this.” “Oh, I don’t think she looked like that.” “Oh yes, she did.” And they’re arguing. They think they’re talking about the same person, and somebody comes up and says, “Well, why don’t you just open the yearbook?” So they get out the yearbook from 1968, and they open it up, and they say, “There she is.” And the other guy says, “Oh, no no no no, that’s not who I was talking about.” And it’s all clear now. We’re not talking about the same person.

And my friend said to me, “Jesus Christ, as He is revealed in the New Testament, is the yearbook. You open the yearbook, and you look at His picture and you say, “Is that your God?” and the Muslims are going to say, “No, that’s not our God.” And then you say, “Well, we’re not talking about the same God then.”

Because Jesus said, when His disciples said, “Show us the Father,” He said, “Have I been so long with you and you don’t know me? If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the father. And so all this talk about smoothing over these profound differences and then using language to lead the readers of the New York Times and to lead the Muslims to think that we really do have a common vision of love of God when we don’t even have a common vision of God is not honest. It’s not helpful.

So I want to commend those who are stretching out their hands to Muslims. I wanna write an alternative document than this one, “Loving God and Neighbor Together,” and put Jesus Christ clear and lucid and unique and distinct and necessary like he should be, right at the center of the document. Who he is, Son of God, Savior, Son of Man, Sovereign King of the Ages, and then say, “We would love to sit down with you and commend this Christ to you as the basis of tolerance.

We do not want strife. We do not want war. We do not want violence. We do not want hatred. We want to exalt Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as the ground of why we don’t kill. We do not come killing as a way to win disciples. Jesus said, “If my kingdom were of this world, my disciples would fight. My kingdom is not of this world, therefore my disciples are not fighting.” Christians don’t fight to get people to believe in Jesus. That would contradict the very nature of the voluntary nature of saving faith in the Son of God.

So we would happy to sit down with any Muslim group and commend Christ to them and let them talk to us about their prophet, but we’re not going to smooth things over and talk in vague language about how we have the same God and the same love of God, call Muhammad a prophet, call Jesus a prophet, quote Scripture selectively, so that it sounds just like the Qur’an. We’re not gonna do that.

So may the Lord grant his church today to be faithful to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, crucified, propitiating sins, justifying and giving righteousness to those who have faith in Him, and rising from the dead and reigning over the world and coming again. And one day every knee will bow before Jesus Christ and confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father. And those who have not bowed their knee before Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior and the unique representation and embodiment of the divine, in whom the fullness of deity dwells bodily, those who haven’t bowed the knee will be cast out into outer darkness. This is no small thing. Oh, may the church be faithful to her witness to Jesus Christ. It’s the only loving way to lead people out of destruction and into everlasting life.

These things are important. If you’re involved at all in Muslim-Christian missions or dialog, I pray that you for the sake of Christ and the sake of the lost will speak the truth about the glory of the deity and the crucifixion and the death and the resurrection and the unique saving power of Jesus Christ.

Liberty, License, Legalism

I recently recommended a message by my pastor, Mark Minnick. Here are my notes from that message, taken on my trusty Palm IIIxe. Minnick does something he rarely does: he chooses a controlling metaphor. In the hands of many such a metaphor is a cheesy device. But used sparingly, I think it can be very helpful.

(9/19/2007) Minnick on the Two Closets

• We tend to categorize things as lawful and unlawful, but just because something is lawful doesn’t mean it’s open season, that it’s the best thing to do in a given case!

• Think of choices as having to be placed into two closets: “UNLAWFUL” and “LIBERTY.” Every choice you make must be placed not only within one of those closets, but on one more of the racks into which that closet is subdivided.

Racks in the unlawful closet:

1. Specifically prohibited (even though each of these is questioned within evangelicalism!):
   • Fornication (1 Cor 5-6)

   • Deserting a spouse (1 Cor 7)
   • Women teaching men in church (1 Tim 2)

2. Prohibited by an institution that has authority over me
   • Family

   • Church
   • School
   • Government
3. Prohibited by my conscience (Rom 14)
   • PERSONAL NOTE: Frisbee on Sunday

   • PERSONAL NOTE: Alcohol? (also falls under no.2 and possibly no.1) N.B.: Pastor Minnick puts alcohol on the the potentially overpowering rack and on the rack of things that cause people to stumble and on the institutional (school, church) rack.
4. Applications of general scriptural prohibitions
   • Eph 5:11 – Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

   • Rom 12:2; 13:14
   • 2 Cor 6:14

Racks in the liberty closet:

1. Profitability: Will this thing bring glory to God and therefore benefit to me?

2. Power: the degree of power something will have in my life. Paul said, “I won’t be brought under the power of any.”
3. Things that build people up (on the other end of this rack are things which cause people to stumble).
4. Inconsequential things: am I going to wear glasses or contacts, eat carrots or broccoli?

Additional comments from Pastor Minnick:

• Remember that our simplistic, immature tendency is to think that anything in the liberty closet hangs on the “inconsequential” rack.
  Even these racks are subdivided, from the very profitable down to the inconsequential and unprofitable.

• Unlawful no. 4, applications, are where believers get at odds with each other: music, dress, appearance. We’ve got to distinguish between 1, 3, and 4. The day comes when our applications make no sense and we’ve painted ourselves into a corner (PERSONAL NOTE: face cards?).
• Christian leadership is responsible to think about these things, to avoid simplifying life into two closets with no racks in them.