I’m not sure what your experiences are with church training but mine go something a little like this:

The Process: Someone talks, we listen and if we really lucky we can network and discuss things later. The Resources: Books/manuals for sale (sometimes a cd/tape)In the words of Mugato from the film Zoolander “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!” People learn best by interacting (for some interesting reading go through the work of the Kolbes – just google Kolbe and education). Why not have discussion groups with questions, role-play, team work exercise etc etc etc.

Now let me just say that I love books (much to my wife’s dismay as my library seems to be procreating) and I am all for manuals. Maybe we can muse later on the role of texts in the learning process and creative ways to use that medium. But here I want to focus on … you guessed it the Internet. Once you’ve attended a training time there is often the need to interact (and sometimes distance is an issue). Why not have an online group discussion, support groups, discussions on things that have worked and things that have totally bombed. You can agree to suitable times and chat or just use group emailing. In any case feedback and adaptation is all part of any good learning system and so why not make room and incorporate that within our training programs. Experts can be brought in to offer some insights on whatever the topic is (counseling, prayer, leading small groups etc etc.), newly found resources can be suggested, coffee time can be arranged or whatever seems best to the learning group.

Let’s make the most of every opportunity.

Your fellow follower of Jesus

paul

retheology@gmail.com

Let’s take a walk around
Come stroll with me down hermeneutic lane and do some window shopping. Firstly we notice a closed down shop:
Allegory. This ones’ been closed down for a while but some people still use its products (mostly they just make their own at home). The basic idea is to look for a deeper, more spiritual, meaning to the text. So the guy interpreting looks at say a First Testament story with Hannah in. Hannah means grace so we can take out a meaning of the story of grace interacting with life and then insert that meaning into our lives. The reason the shop is closed down is that you can make the text mean whatever you want. A lot of Allegory is pulled together by the weakest connections. It’s kinda the conspiracy theory of hermeneutics looking for connections that may or may not be there.
Now don’t get me wrong there is validity in allegory in that the Bible does speak in allegory sometimes (think of the book of Revelation) but as an approach to hermeneutics its way too lop sided. Looking back through church history have to say that this should be used with great caution and sparingly. Think of it as a hermeneutic nuclear bomb, it can be disarmed but most of us would pass on doing it ourselves.

Here’s one that is having a closing sale
Propositionalism: This one sees the bible as a collection of statements that need to be categorized. So the interpreter goes looking for all the passages on faith, or love and then compiles them to come up with “what the bible says on topic x”. It was popular amongst certain systematic theologians at one time but is loosing favour and fast. Why? For a number of reasons. Firstly it insults God by implying that the way the Bible is written is not helpful and that we’re going to put things into a better system. Secondly propositions find their meaning in the greater context of the text and it’s a far too large job to effectively look at the meaning of each text in its context before putting it next to another text which has to have the same treatment. I’m not saying that this can’t be done but that few could claim to have the time and expertise to do it. Thirdly you end up reading the bible in a way that is not true to it. Most of the bible is written is the context of some narrative and to extract pieces out sp that you can put them back together is to do violence to the text. Imagine someone walking through the Louvre with scissors cutting pieces off paintings and then building a collage and you get an idea of why propositionalism is on its way out.

This is an older shop that’s still doing well
Historical- Grammatical: Simply put here we’re trying to find out what the Scriptures meant in their original setting (historical) and try to translate terms fro the original languages to the present (grammatical). Most good study bibles or commentaries give us insight into this. I think this will always be ongoing and always be necessary. It’s true that many people using these tools have come up with different meanings of certain texts. I don’t think this is too much of an issue as we’re all human and liable to make mistakes and misunderstand things and we can settle the details in heaven. I think this has moved us towards an understanding that a text can have any meanings (poly-valence) but that this does not mean that whatever I want it to say goes (omni-valence). There needs to be a genuine cognitive struggle in our coming to an understanding of what we believe the text to be saying (more of that a little later).

This is a fairly new one but it’s doing very well.
Reader-Orientated: The idea here place our interpreting skills more on the reader (whether community or individuals). When people began to realize that the historical-critical method did not provide a uniform answer they began to turn to other areas. They thought that seeming as the bible text is the same it must be the reader who influences the interpretation. Off course this doesn’t give us a uniform understanding of the text at all, it just answers some questions of why there is different interpretations as well as gives us insight into probable interpretations in the future.

This is a nice little shop that imports a lot of stuff.
Literary Hermeneutics: This takes us back to the text and imports many of the concepts from other literary studies. The bible is a book and so we must read it as such using the same techniques as we would on Shakespeare or Hemingway. Some people got upset with this move away from history and felt that it would result in a lessening of biblical authority and place it more in the realm of fiction (who knows maybe back into the dreaded allegory). Literary interpreters have responded that this is a confusion of fields; apologetics defends the authority of the bible and the historical nature of the faith while hermeneutics has the agenda of accepting the text as it is and interpreting it.

As we look back at our stroll we can see that each way is arguing in some way for a better way to look at the Scriptures. No matter what the approach there is always debate (even by those who accept the same approach) over meaning. This is to be expected and I believe accepted. But here I add that it is a far cry from acknowledging that there can be multiple meanings to a text (poly valence) and accepting every view as legitimate (omni-valence).
Another thing here is that most of these approaches take considerable time and resources and this is something that I don’t think God expects of those who follow Jesus and work steady jobs. So what are we to do?

Texts as the Word
This is not to deny that the Scriptures are indeed the word of God (Matt 15:6; 2 Tim 3: 15, 16; Isaiah 8:20; 2 Peter 3:15, 16) the issue that we are addressing is that the Scriptures are seen by some to be the only word of God.

Jesus, a word beyond
When Jesus is referred to as the logos (e.g. John 1) the incarnation is understood to be something beyond the mere linguistics of Jesus teachings and to include His actions (e.g death and resurrection). It cannot refer to a textual meaning as Jesus is referred to as the logos despite the textual recounting of his life taking place after his death and resurrection. We must also note that it cannot be only the spoken words either as John himself testifies that there aren’t enough books in the world to contain all that Jesus said (John 21:25). Would then mean that the logos incarnate spoke many things that were not logos? Maybe, but the Scriptures do not make that distinction here.
If Jesus leant over to saint Peter in heaven and said something (let’s not let our imaginations go too wild with what He would be saying) that would in the Scriptural sense of the word of God be accurate. The words spoken of Jesus to his disciples that were never recorded would also be the word of God.

Ongoing input
There are clear Scriptures to indicate that God can speak outside of the text of the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit is said to teach us all things (John 14:26) also testifying with our spirits that we are children of God (Romans 16: 13,14). We, as sheep, are said to able to hear our Masters voice (John 10:27) not to mention the Scriptures containing clear instruction on how to deal with prophetic utterances (1 Cor 14: 29, 30).

Using the Scriptures as an example
What does the Scriptural narrative show? If we look through the cannon of Scriptures we do not see men and woman always turning to correct exegesis in an attempt to hear the word of God. We note that Peter received a vision that moved him to preach the good news to Gentiles (Acts 10: 9-19), Annanias received a word from God that led to Saul’s conversion (Acts 9: 10-12), Paul and Barnabas were sent by the word of God (Acts 13:1-3) as well as received redirection (Acts 16:9-10) and so on and so on.

What is evident in all these instances is that they are not opposed to the cannon text. God is not saying one thing in one medium (let’s say text) and another in the next medium (say prophecy). It is the same God who speaks so there can be no contradiction.

General Revelation
There is also the traditional doctrine of general revelation (reason, human experience, nature etc.) whereby God speaks through the natural world in ways that are often distinct from what has been called special revelation (Scripture, prophecy, incarnation).
Sometimes theologians have made a distinction between the term revelation and illumination (Although the Scriptures don’t clearly teach this there is room for it being implied). Here all revelation is said to be complete in the incarnation and in the Scriptures. What happens in our lives is that we are made aware (illumed) of this already existing revelation. For example a man who has never known Jesus as Lord and Saviour who then becomes a follower of Jesus at age 25. We could say that this knowledge that he has just received is a revelation to him but it is nothing new to the Scriptures, it is an illumination of already existing Scripture. Makes sense, but what of God telling someone to plant a church in South Korea? Sure the Scriptures speak about starting communities of Jesus followers but South Korea is fairly specific, so how do we look at this?

A voiced concern
Added to this we have the voiced concern (I believe the main reason why this is in fact and issue at all) that people will begin to place personal experience over and above the texts of Scripture. This is a traditional evangelical concern and one that could easily be echoed as we look through church history as well as some cults today.
If we look at the sources of God’s word that we have examined above (Scriptures, prophecy, General revelation, Holy Spirit’s guidance) we can see the Scriptures are by far the clearest medium for communication. Not only that it has been accepted and tried and tested as authoritative and fully God’s word throughout many cultures in many eras whereas the other mediums are less certain (e.g. Paul encourages a testing of prophecy). This is why it is the medium of God’s word that carries the most authority.

Restating the issue
So, on the one hand we have the clearer and trusted medium of a written text and on the other hand the text itself is open to God speaking through other mediums. In a sense, for the evangelical, the issue is how do we relate the Scriptures with other mediums of God’s word?

Narrative Approaches
Here I offer two narrative ways of looking at the issue of the word of God.
1) A Personal God speaking
If we accept that God is personal being, and that He wishes to commune with His creation it would stand to reason that He could use multiple mediums. I can communicate with my wife over the phone, face to face, by letter etc. The issue that emerges is which medium is more transferable from generation to generation and from culture to culture. The text seems the obvious answer to this dilemma. But a personality that wishes to communicate to humanity need not be limited to this as well as would not contradict the more objective medium of text.
In short, the Scriptures act as that clearly definable medium and a safeguard against false “words” of the Lord while at the same time not limiting God to speak through only one medium.
2) A Plot outline
Another way of looking at things is to see the Scriptures as rough sketch of the plot outline, to see a grand narrative of God’s dealings with man, to paint the broad brush strokes of the people of God. Later, and in every generation, the finer details are filled in and the picture or story becomes more intricate and beautiful. But like any good writer the current communities cannot deviate from the main plot (or if we stick to the painting concept, we shouldn’t colour outside the lines).

PS On Biblical Authority
Although we haven’t addressed the issue here I would like to refer the reader to a wonderful article on how the Bible acts authoritatively by NT Wright at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

Should you have any questions you can add to this blog or email me at retheology@gmail.com

paul for retheo

Let me just say that I am no scientist (my degrees are in theology) and so please don’t expect any scientific arguments for or against a young or old cosmos. Also this is not an argument for or against evolution as a mode of creation or a purely naturalistic process. Here I’m going to ask three questions.

1) Did Christians before modern science take the 6 Creation days of Genesis to be 24hr days?

2) Do theologians today take the days to be 24hr days?

3) What does the text itself indicate?

Being a good little evangelical I will spend most of the time on question three (sola scriptura and all that) but acknowledge that this is merely an introduction to the topic.

1) Christians before modern science

This is answering the accusation that to question the 24hr nature of the Genesis creation days is to pander to modern science. It stands to reason that if believers before modern “old earth” science became favorable thought that Genesis meant something other than 24 hrs then it can’t be about pandering to the culture but something within the text itself.

Here is a quick selection:

Irenaues Against Heresies Book V chap 23

“For it is said, “There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.” Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die…And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since “a day of the Lord is as a thousand years,” he did not overstep the thousand years… (Adam) did not overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit”

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho chap 81

“For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, `The day of the Lord is as a thousand years, is connected with this subject.”

Augustine City of God Book 11 chap 6

“For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!”

There are of course others (Origen, Philo –Jewish, Clement etc.) here we simply point out that the Genesis days of creation have a tradition of being understood as something other than 24hr days.

2) Modern Theologians

For some reason certain groupings of Christians seem to think that Theologians are all liberal and are bent on underpinning a firm belief in the bible. This (in my experience) is simply not true. No doubt this breed of theologian does exist but it’s hardly fair to paint us all with the same brush.

In 1982 a group of conservative theologians gathered at the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) to discuss the age of the universe. After much discussion the council concluded that the duration of the days of creation where not essential.

Westminster Theological Seminary which is well known for its conservative evangelical nature also deliberated on the issue and came to the same conclusion (http://wts.edu/news/creation.html).

I must just say here that these councils are not saying that a Christian has to believe in an old earth. Although certainly not in the majority (for reasons we’ll see below) those who believe that the Scriptures teach 24hr days of Creation are not rejected nor is there integrity or belief in the bible questioned. At worst they’ll get a puzzled expression or an open discussion about their beliefs. The councils’ conclusions, that the duration of the Genesis days are not essential, are therefore to be seen as an inclusive act allowing Christians to unite in our belief in the Creator.

3) The Scriptures

I think all sides of this discussion are interested in listening to what the Scriptures say and would not be happy with the notion of imposing our own views on the text. So it is with sufficient humility that we lay down our observations.

- Plain reading of the Text

A simple reading reveals some problems with understanding the days as literal 24hrs.

Firstly the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day (Gen 1:16-19). Simply put, no sun for the earth to rotate around equals no 24hrs.

Secondly we have yielding seed and bearing fruit on day three (Gen 1:11-13) Not only is this without the sun but there simply isn’t enough time in 24 hrs to achieve this.

Thirdly on the sixth day (Gen 1:24-31) earth was to bring forth living creatures of their own kind, in 24hrs?

Fourthly the six days of creation are referred to as one “day” (Gen 2:4).

In the “day” of mans creation (the sixth day of Chap 1: 27) Adam named all the creatures (Gen 2:19-20), within 24 hrs?

Fifthly God tells Adam that on the day he eats of the fruit he will die yet he does not physically die within 24 hrs.

This is a very simplistic (some may say too simplistic) reading of the text but our agenda here is not to give a detailed exegesis but to point out that it is perfectly plausible for some red flags to be raised about how literal the days are meant to be understood. Now some young earth guys have said God is a God of the miraculous and that he can do whatever he pleases. That is true, but we are not questioning God’s abilities we are questioning whether persons throughout different cultures (from its original to the present) would be expected to see the days in Genesis 1 and 2 as 24hr days. It seems evident from a simple reading that something else is implied.

- Background Knowledge

It might surprise some people that Genesis 1:1-2:3 was traditionally known as the “creation hymn” (Halley 1962: 20). It would therefore be strange to import modern scientific restrictions on what is defined as poetic language.

Similar creation accounts (although polytheistic) were found in the ruins of Babylon, Nineveh, Nippur and Ashur which depicted seven epochs of creation. The cultural understanding of the day was therefore to view these creation events as non-literal days. Although we shouldn’t let other ancient accounts impose understanding on the text it is helpful to understand the mental reference of the era in which the text was written.

- Word Play

If you hang around this debate you’re bound to come into contact with varied understandings of the word yom (day). I’m always skeptical of placing too much emphasis on a word as it tends to ignore both literary and historical contexts. Most agree that one possible reading of yom is “time period” (as well as meaning, amongst other things, a literal 24 hr day). This means that there is linguistic precedence for understanding day as an undetermined time frame. Some early earthers try to use statistical analysis, by saying if yom in the Old Testament is used x times to definitely refer to 24hr day and x is the majority of uses then when Genesis 1refers to it the text must be referring to a 24 hr day. That’s just not good linguistics. If we take a novel which has the phrase “In my father’s day a man’s handshake meant something” we would know that the term, by its context, means an era. If we searched the rest of the novel and found that the word “day” is used 358 times thereafter as a 24 hour day would we impose a 24hr meaning on our quote about his father’s “day”? No, we would not allow statistic to cloud linguistics.

Others then refer to the saying “morning” and “evening” as indicating a 24hr day. The problem there is that the phrase “and there was evening, and there was morning” is pretty unique to Genesis 1 with ancient Hebrews preferring the term “evening to evening” for a 24hr period.

But enough about that, suffice to say yom and the phrases that go with it do not make for a significant argument either way (and that goes for olam too J)

- A “Theological” issue is raised

I have often heard the issue of death being raised in defense of a young earth theory, usually in some form of defense to the death being a necessary part of evolution.

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). The argument is that we can’t have long epochs as days because death (natural) only started with Adam introducing sin into creation.

The obvious first problem with this argument is that this text is talking about the death of men and not animal and plant life.

Secondly we know that Adam was promised “death” the “day” he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is a problem for them because you can’t believe in a literal “death” as well as literal 24hr “day”. It’s a l catch 22 unless you are prepared to view elements metaphorically.

Thirdly there are animals and plants that don’t live as long as 24hrs anyway so even if you hold to 24hr days of creation there must be death before Adam’s sin.

Fourthly man is encouraged to eat plants prior to the fall and this would bring inevitable death of plant life anyway.

Concluding

I’m sure there are arguments and counter arguments a plenty for much of what has been written here and I wouldn’t even think about suggesting that this is the final word. What I hope has been achieved is to establish the possibility of viewing the days of Genesis as something other than 24hr days. This is a thought which has been considered long before modern science argued for an old cosmos, a thought which has been affirmed by conservative theologians as well as a thought which makes sense when looking simply at the text itself.

But as always we at retheo are open to discussion.

paul for retheo

retheolgy@gmail.com

Some Perspectives on:

1. Sovereignty

This concept relates to the authority of God. The term is borrowed from (i.e. was originally used in the context of) the authority of kings and indicates the right of a ruler. Grenz makes a distinction between de jure and de facto and sovereignty (Grenz 1994: 108-9) where de jure is the official right of the sovereign and de facto is deferred (from the subjects) leadership. Pastoral theology often encourages the follower to surrender their will to that of the Father and so move further into de facto sovereignty.

Some argue for the absolute sovereignty (certain Calvinists) view where everything that happens with the “approval” of God who is so sovereign that nothing occurs without it being part of his plan. We will call this hyper-sovereignty.
Others (certain Arminians) argue for a sovereignty that governs the major trends of the human history with absolutely foreknowledge. This means that God has a desired plan (God wills that none should perish 1 Tim 2:4) but knows that not all will directly follow it (free will Luke 7:30). Therefore the overarching plan (some may call it predestination) takes into account the decision of free will agents (He knew since before time began what these free agents would do anyway). We will call this meta-sovereignty.
Others (Open Theists) argue an interactive sovereignty. God has a desire for all mankind and He is working out that desire (plan) in an ongoing shaping of human history. God’s plan to reconcile man to himself is absolutely unchanging but as man is free to respond and all these exact responses are not able to be foreseen God adapts the details of history to suite his plan (to commune with men). God is sovereign in his de facto authority and is sovereign in is ongoing actions of redeeming/reconciling mankind. We will call this engaging-sovereignty.

If we look through the story of God’s dealings with people in the Scriptures which type of sovereignty (hyper, meta or engaging) is reflected most?

2. Anthropomorphism

This term is used to say that God, for the sake of communicating to mankind, appears to have human traits when he, in reality, doesn’t. Confused? It arose out of the conflict were Scriptures clearly state that God amends (or changes) his mind in dealing with humanity. As this did not fit the belief that God can’t change his mind (after all he knew what would happen anyway) those texts had to be explained and so anthropomorphism was introduced.
Those in favour of the classic Theism (Calvinists and Arminians) point out that much of Scripture is metaphor and that things aren’t always t be understood literally. After all what are we to make of the texts that say God does know the future?
Open Theists say that anthropomorphism is basically a cop out and that the texts about God “knowing” the future should be interpreted better.
Later will have a presentation of texts for each argument and the reader is more than welcome to do some homework on their own  .

3. Greek Philosophy and God
One of the accusations that have been leveled against the Classical Theists (Calvinists and Arminians) is that they develop their concept of God (in areas such as our subject) more from the Greek philosophers than they do from Scriptures. The Greeks view of perfection is that it cannot be changed (immutable) as any change would either be for the better (meaning that perfection was not already achieved) or for the worse (therefore no longer being perfect). Therefore a perfect God could not change or adapt interacting with human kind. Open Theists argue that the Scriptural story is precisely that of a deity who, although is unchanging in his desire for men, is continuously adapting his specific strategies in a given context.
Of course there are responses and counter responses in this ongoing debate. The reader here simply needs to be aware that often theology has been developed from a cultural bias and that aspects of that culture have interwoven into the very fabric of theology as to make them conceptually inseparable. Once again the reader is encouraged to view things with a hermeneutic of suspicion.

The Texts

Against Open Theism For Open Theism
Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord (Psalm 139:4)
My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth.( Psalm 139:15)
Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit. (Psalm 147:5)
The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good. (Proverbs 15:3)
“. . . tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.” (Isaiah 41:23)
I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. (Isaiah 46:10)
Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon me, and he told me to say: ‘This is what the Lord says: That is what you are saying, O house of Israel, but I know what is going through your mind.(Ezekiel 11:5)
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: has he said, and shall he not do it? Or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Num. 23:19)
…that have been known for ages. Acts 15:18
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Romans 8:29)
Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Hebrews 4:13)
At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jer. 18:7-10.)
The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.(Genesis 6:6)
I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me. (1 Samuel 15:11)
What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad? (Isaiah 5:4)
“This is what the Lord says . . .set your hose in order for you shall die and not live.’ (Isaiah 38:1) Later Hezekiah repents and prays and in vs 5 we hear “”I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life.”
I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not. (Jer 3:7)
They have built the high places of Baal to burn there sons . . . I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it enter My mind (Jeremiah 19:5 )
When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened. (Jonah 3:10)

These are just a sample of texts of course and we should bear in mind that often it is how we interpret verses that would determine where we place them. Proponents might place each verse in their column if seen from their perspective. For example the text about God’s understanding knowing no limit (Psalm 147:5) would all depend on what is meant by limit. If knowledge of the future is not knowable then God’s understanding would still know “no limit” without knowledge of the future. Just because a concept can be imagined does not mean it reflects reality (I am reminded of those old arguments of whether God can create and immovable bolder and if so could he move it). The columns are not meant to say that the verse itself is in favour or against either concept but to give the reader an overview of which texts proponents from each side are using to support their view.

Some Distinctions:

In over viewing some of the theological discussions I felt that certain distinctions needed to be made with regard to this subject.

1. Between the grand plan and adaptive strategies.
Is the text talking about a specific strategy of God in establishing his purposes (an adaptive strategy) or are we talking about the unchanging desire of God for humanity (grand plan). All the Open Theists I have read do not believe that God has a different desire (grand plan) for humanity than that which He had since before creation. This is why we have used the term adaptive strategy here meaning that God’s desire is unchanging but that he adapts specific strategies in a process of interacting with mankind toward Gods unchanging Goal
2. Between God’s Intentions and absolute foreknowledge.
That God declares his intent (usually termed prophetic utterances) is not under dispute. The distinction here is between an all powerful deity saying “This is what I’m going to do” and between His somehow seeing those events in some form of a cosmic crystal ball. To use a human analogy if I say to my wife that I’m going to do x today that does not mean I have foreseen it but that I have knowledge about my future actions.
3. Between groups (whether nations or other) and individuals.
If God determines that he has a strategy for a specific group that does not necessarily translate into God planning each individual’s role within that group. The concept here is that God has a strategy for groups and that individuals choose the extent of their participation (or conversely non-participation) in that plan. I am reminded of the story where God intended to kill Moses but due to Zipporah’s intervention decided against it (Ex 4:24). If this verse is to be understood literally we would assume that the plan of God to free Israel (and therefore for the Messiah) would have continued, just without Moses.

This does not mean that God can’t have plans for individuals (e.g. Isaiah, Jesus, Judas etc.) but that a text implying a plan for an individual does not equate to a plan for every individual.

Practical implications

I think the reason for the controversy is that it has so many implications for how we view God and how that impacts on our lives. Many of these are also the flip side to the same coin. For example, let’s assume God has not predetermined (hyper sovereignty) or at the least absolutely foreseen (meta-sovereignty) everything that happens. Side one of the coin (negatively) can make people feel insecure. “If God hasn’t at least foreseen everything how can I feel safe about my life my future? “
Side two of the same coin can look at all the evil in the world and think “What kind of God pre-planned (hyper-sovereignty) that?” or “If God foresaw all that evil why did He choose to create us?” This also raises issues of determinism and has raised many philosophical objections such as the concept of punishment, i.e. How can a Creator punish a creation that does exactly what he foresaw it would do?

Another implication can be in the field of prayer as my one friend always used to say when asked to come to our prayer meeting, “Well God knows what I’m going to pray anyway so let’s just save on petrol and time”. In the Open Theistic view prayer is seen more as an engaging activity where God speaks to humanity.

I’m sure I could go on forever but what do you think? Pros? Cons?

paul for retheo

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pinnock CH, Rice R, Sanders J, Hasker W, Basinger D The Openness of God Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illonois, USA 1994©

What is Open Theism?
• Taking Human Free will seriously. Both Calvinists and Armenians have argued to in favour of free will but Open Theists kick this up a gear as seen in the next point.
• A seriously involved Deity. An Interaction of wills. The free will of humanity impacts on God who impacts on the free will of humanity. The universe is not mechanistic or static but is rather seen as an organic interaction of agents of free will.
• Providence does not mean absolute control of every little detail. Because the universe is seen as an organic interaction God’s plans are adaptive (although the extent of adaptation may be disputed).
• God knows what is knowable and a detailed chronology of future events doesn’t fall in that category. God’s omniscience (all knowing-ness) is not questioned just the field of that knowledge.

For some readers these concepts may sound repulsive, others may be asking what the big deal is while yet others may be saying, “sounds interesting”.

CUTTING OR BLEEDING EDGE THINKING?

The Evangelical Theological Society denounced open theism in March 2002.
“We believe the Bible clearly teaches that God has complete, accurate, and infallible knowledge of all events past, present, and future including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents.” This should give an indication of the controversial nature of open theism. The key area of discussion there was whether the future can be known or not.
Another closely connected issue is whether God can change his mind. This reflects the impacting of free wills, the will of man and the will of God. Ultimately open theism is asking the church to re-think their theology on the nature of God’s interaction with mankind. Is God outside of space and time or interacting with space and time? Is God’s plan for humanity detailed and unchanging or does the plan adapt toward a constant goal? Any subject that deals with that issue is bound to get some heat.

I would just like to note that this is not about whether we believe the bible or not. Most Open Theists use the Scriptures as their base for thinking and consider themselves’ strongly evangelical.
We should also caution ourselves of reading into the texts our pre-packaged theology. When we are asked to view things from another perspective we should have, as Ricouer says, a hermeneutic of suspicion (not of the text but of our interpretations). Words like sovereignty and omniscience carry with them certain pre-packaged definitions which may, or may not be true. If we are being asked to investigate the validity of these terms it would be circular to point to the term (or related terms) itself to validate our initial bent.
Part 2 will be coming soon which gets a little bit into the nittier grittier aspects of Open Theism

paul for retheo

“… summaries of views about narrative often oversimplify the wide variety of ways in which the category of narrative has been and can be used.” (Hauerwas S and Jones LG 1997: 2)

Given the diversity and complexity of Narrative Theology this artiicle is content to draw some elementary observations.

1. Basic Narrative Elements

In its most basic form narrative is the telling of a process from past to present (and at times to future).and contains the following elements:

a) It requires an interlocutor/ narrator
b) It requires an audience
c) It requires characters
d) It requires a coherent plot (actions, events, situations)

I believe that these are the basic elements necessary for any narrative to claim the title. In academic papers the Interlocutor/narrator is the theologian who is presenting the paper and the audience is the academic community that he/she is writing for. Characters and plots are somewhat trickier to define as each the theological agenda and or school of thought can change the nature of these elements to suite their agenda. For example, if one is talking from an ethical perspective the characters could be the community in a given area and the plot could be the faith actions that the community takes in response to the gospel (Hauerwas and Willimon 1996), while in Grenz’s Systematic work Theology for the Community of God (Grenz 1994) the characters can be seen as the doctrines with the plots being the doctrines development through church history.

To have these narrative elements does not necessarily mean that you will have a good narrative theology, much like having the bible does not guarantee good biblical theology. In response to this (the need to produce good narrative theology) different theologians have argued to add other elements within theological development. For example there is Bar-Efrats work Narrative Art in the Bible (1989) which shows how the biblical writers use different forms of narrative plot developments, character developments, genres etc. and how all these elements add and are necessary to the process of revelation. We could go on for some time on the diversity (I’m enjoy Fackre and Ford) but here we content ourselves with our basic definition above.

2. Narrative Modes of Content and Form

For those who are uninitiated in the narrative theological arena there is often confusion regarding narrative as a process of thought because the term narrative, or story, has connotations of novels, movies or any other form of simple narration. Eugene Lowry (1989: 25) helps in our understanding:

“…the term narrative (or story) may mean a particular story; for example, “There was a man who had two sons …” Or, on the other hand, the term narrative (or story) may mean the underlying thread or plot line typical of oral narration. It may be helpful to think of the first meaning of narrative as narrative content and the second as narrative form.”

This simple distinction serves us well as we continue to investigate the use and application of narrative thought to theological tasks and further serves to untangle narrative theology from many of the accusations laid at its feet (for example the argument of first order and second order languages ceases to be a concern if we use narrative form as an understanding of narrative).
As we examine the narrative approaches under review we will see how they each use these distinctive narrative modes of content and form in their own way.

3. Defining a Narrative as an Approach

Narrative looks at the field of inquiry with a perspective of story. It looks to understand who the story-teller is, who the story is for, who are the characters and asks what the plot is? Here we further define our meaning of the term approach evaluate and differentiate approach to other forms of inquiry.

a) Distinguishing Approach from Paradigm/model

This article distinguishes an approach as separate from a paradigm/ model in that a paradigm/model is a construct with which other information is then fitted into; as Khun illustrated in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Rorty 1994: 322-345). An approach, however, is here defined as a starting point with a direction in mind.
Another vital understanding in our distinction between approach and paradigm/model is that paradigm/ model is an attempt to define and understand “what is” and as such is ontologically orientated. Approach may later address issues of ontology, e.g. and existential approach deals with the question of existence preceding essence (an ontological agenda), however the approach itself makes no ontologically affirmations. If we look at Korzbyski’s maxim, “the map is not the territory” (Marvin and Raymond 1985:124) we see the distinction from another angle. Korzbyski is stating that the paradigm/model we use is itself not the reality of what we are examining (this is often due to the complexity of the research domain with the paradigm/model acting as a more usable and easier to understand concept than actuality) but that the paradigm/model has the intention to define and indicate the “territory” (the reality to which the map points). An approach, however, does not attempt this referential agenda but can be seen as developing the necessary resources for travel knowing the “territory”. Therefore an approach is the initial questions and general direction which one brings to a system of thought which may in turn lead to a model or paradigm but in and of itself does not makes such conclusions.

b) Approach and Theological Method

Theological Method is “a particular systematic procedure (or set of procedures), technique or mode of inquiry used in the development of a theological position. Systematic theologians generally treat matters of theological method in the opening sections of their treatise (the prolegomenon).” (Grenz SJ, Guretzki D and Nordling CF 78). In many respects theological method and what this paper has labeled as “approach” are the same thing, they have the agenda of setting down a way of looking at the task of theology, however there are some differences.

Firstly if we look at the prolegomenon section of Systematic Theologies we see that they attempt often to answer the questions of why theology should be done in the first place. Although this is an important question an approach places its emphasis elsewhere and does not address this issue.

Secondly theological method answers the “what” of theology i.e. what are the sources that you would use when you do theology. Once again a good question but an approach does not make this move either.

Thirdly theological method deals with themes that unify theology. Each school of theology places its thematic interest in various places. Systematic theology often uses the tradition themes of God, Creation, Man, Church etc. Here we state that an approach does not determine themes but accepts or develops themes along the lines of the approach.
Lastly Theological Method is often a means of judging theological truth (Pannenburg 1970: 139). i.e. it puts criteria in place whereby concluded theology can be judged to be true or false. Once again I think that this is a valid agenda but it is not the agenda of an approach. Approach can determine what is a meaningful avenue of inquiry (an inquiry that is consistent with the questions of the day) but does not in itself establish a criteria of judging true or false. i.e Approach does not deal with the “how” of judging conclusions.

Conclusion on Approaches
Approach is distinct from paradigm/model in that it does not attempt to map out reality by giving a paradigm/ model of “what is”.
Approach does not deal with the “why” and “what” of theological method. We can even say that it doesn’t deal in its entirety with the “how” of concluded theology. But what we can say is that an approach deals with the “how” of initial inquiry. It establishes the fundamental questions and direction of the theological method while not attempting an ontological paradigm/model.

4. Conclusions of Narrative Approaches

A Narrative approach is a way of looking at a given theological task.
Narrative needs to contain the basic elements of an interlocutor/ narrator, an audience, characters and a coherent plot. Narrative comes in two basic modes that of narrative content, what is traditionally understood as a story, and that of narrative form, a more abstract understanding which follows a narrative pattern yet is not in itself a traditional story.
A Narrative approach is distinct from paradigm/model in its focus away from ontology in preference for interaction (narratives coherent plot).
Narrative approach is distinct from theological method yet focuses on the fundamental questions of theological inquiry.

x

paul for retheo

please feel free to contact me at retheology@gmail.com

Option 1: The same reasons why diet books don’t work.
This is a simple solution that points to application as the key problem. In this view its not the content of the book that’s at fault but in the people reading it. Although there is no doubt some truth in this option it just seems too neat a solution as possibly being a bit irresponsible (if an approach doesn’t seem to be working then perhaps we should shift gear)

Option 2: How many books on being a great soccer player are there?
Here the view attacks the process of self-help books themselves which primarily focus on the individual and what they can do in their private sphere after all they are self help books. Another way of asking this is to ask if following Jesus is a solo sport or a group one?
I play chess (badly) and there are always a good few books on the subject because my skill as a player rests entirely with me. So a book can greatly enhance my playing (even then coaches and experience are extremely helpful). Soccer on the other hand is a team sport and players need to know how as well as being able to perform at passing, one twos etc. with a team. Sure the individual can practice their kicking and ball skill on their own (Bend it like Beckham but the ultimate agenda is a team sport and so books focus on how to play together.
[if anyone has a better illustration I would love to hear it]

It is not a matter of taking free will or personal responsibility from the individual player but of recognizing the nature of the sport and training with that in mind. Self-help misses the whole point of Jesus message of creating a kingdom, of the church being a body, a family etc.

paul for retheo

please feel free to contact me at retheology@gmail.com

Retheo on Post-modernism

Post-modern (or any of its variant such as postmodernity, postmodernism etc.) is an illusive term that has sparked much controversy over attempts to define it. Cobb has made two distinctions within postmodernism – Deconstructive and Process Postmodernism (Cobb JB 1990: 149-158) –McLaren three – anti-modernism, deconstructive, and emerging (McLaren B2003) -while Hauerwas is skeptical of definitions and feels that when speaking of postmodernity “it is not clear to me that any of us know what we’re talking about” (Hauerwas 2004: 138).

“Postmodernism then, means and has meant different things to different people at different conceptual levels” (Bertens H 1995:9)

Despite these difficulties Hauerwas points out that the term can be used to name “the time” (Hauerwas S 2004:138).

“It is this recent wide proliferation of the postmodern, in ethnology, sociology, social geography, urban planning, economics, law, and so on, that is responsible for the more frequent use of its terminology outside its original core area, the humanities, and that has increasing led people to speak of the postmodern world that we inhabit” (Bertens H1995: 9)

In this sense postmodernism is a term of unclear definitions that loosely defines the culture which we live in. Here we state two basic propositions on postmodernism that relates to church theology. Firstly we focus on Postmodernism as it relates to Culture (rather than pure philosophy, architecture, art etc.). Secondly we focus on Postmodernism as it relates to culture in the developed world (I believe in the developing world post-colonial is a preferred term although there are similarities).

Therefore we hold to the plain understanding that we in the developed world we currently live in a culture that is after (post) the modern era.

That being said, we can still look for certain traits of postmodernity as defined in Stanley Grenz’s book A Primer on Postmodernism (1996). Here we select certain traits relevant to the thesis while acknowledging that these are not exhaustive.
1.2.2.1 “The central hallmark of postmodernism is pluralism” (1996: 20)
1.2.2.2 “Postmodern holism entails an integration of all the dimensions of personal life –affective and intuitive as well as cognitive” (1996: 14)
1.2.2.3 The conviction that each person is embedded in a particular human community leads to a corporate understanding of truth” (1996: 14)
After working through postmodernism predominantly from a secular sense, Grenz puts forward traits of what he anticipates to be necessary of the evangelical postmodern.
1.2.2.4. “a postmodern articulation of the Christian gospel will be post-individualistic.” (1996: 167) This is the move toward a greater emphasis on community.
1.2.2.5. “a postmodern articulation of the Christian gospel will be post-rationalistic” (1996: 169) By this Grenz does not mean that it will be anti-intellectual or that it will leave reason behind. “While remaining reasonable, therefore, the gospel must not be limited to the intellectual aspects of the human person. It must encompass other dimensions of our being as well.” (1996: 170)
1.2.2.6. “a postmodern articulation of the Christian gospel will be post-dualistic” (1996: 171)This is a move beyond the distinction of body and soul into a more holistic understanding of humanity. “The gospel we speak must speak to human beings in their entirety” (1996: 171)
1.2.2.7. “a postmodern articulation of the Christian gospel will be post-neoticentric” (1996: 172) This is the move beyond knowledge toward wisdom.

What is evident in these traits is the move toward a more holistic gospel. As such the message of the gospel is needed to be reflected in the practices of the church (of McLuhans’ the message is the medium) making the field of Practical Theology more and more relevant within postmodernity

paul for retheo

please feel free to contact me at retheology@gmail.com

Step 1: Pick a soft target
One thing that Salmand Rushdie taught me was to pick a soft target. We don’t want to discover, or should I say conjure up, something about any group that attempts to kill the messenger. What you want is an institution that is generally loving and benevolent, one that frowns upon murdering its opponents. For most of us in the trade that means choosing Christianity.
Do you want to be like Salmand Rushdie who had to flee for his life or be like Dan Brown earning the big bucks? My advice, go for the soft option of Christianity.
For years conspiracies have been flying around about Jesus, it doesn’t matter that no one has proven anything or given reliable arguments it just matters that people lap it up. For some reason we as a culture just love to tear down Christianity, so why not hop on the band wagon and if things get rough they have to forgive you and turn the other cheek, it’s in the bible isn’t it?

Step 2: Do loose research
Ok so we’ve established our institution, now we have to do some research. Remember that your target market is not made up of historians or theologians, you’re writing for the man on the street who hasn’t even really read the bible but has no doubt heard many stories about it (hopefully from another conspiracy theory book).
Tricks of the trade:
• Source obscure academics.
Trust me you can find an academic to back any theory. If your academic has been sidelined by the academic community do not fear, this only helps to further validate your theory that an international conspiracy is still underway with the evil academic community ganging up on your poor innocent academic whose only dream was to discover the truth.
• Look at symbols out of their context.
Remember you are looking for a covered up conspiracy so the more obscure the symbol the better. Do not be afraid to take symbols from diverse sources spanning thousands of years. Do not worry yourself with the setting that symbol was initially given in, unless of course it serves your purposes. Remember the more obvious meanings are no doubt lies by the establishment to cover up the truth.
• Metaphor or Literal, aye there’s the rub.
If a symbol had a metaphoric meaning take it literally, if literal then take it metaphorically. For example, in the Bible the snake symbolizes the devil and in John’s gospel Jesus was referred to being like the snake symbol that Moses raised to heal Israel’s people from snake bites. Therefore Jesus is the devil. Snake = devil, Jesus = snake staff of Moses, therefore Jesus =devil.
• The Usual Suspects
Should you have writers block or wish to bolster your theory then just turn to the usual suspects. There is no need to re-invent the wheel here (we are a well established market) so feel free:
1) The Illuminati: those rascally devils who rule the world but are apparently really rather shy.
2) The Catholic Church: Always a goodie, this is a massive organization of power (or it was at some point) with so many different minor organizations within it to chose from. You could delve into medieval history with the Jesuits or uncover the conspiracy down the road with Opus Dei. It’s a practical smorgas board and the best part is that they still use Latin, that mystical, magical language that no one can understand … or more accurately, they could if they just bough a Latin-English Dictionary.
3) The Knights Templar: the mysterious medieval knights who discovered the wisdom of Solomon while on a crusade to save the Holy Land.
4) The Free Masons (great grandchildren of the Knights Templar): still going strong after all these years and still secretive. You might even have an uncle who is one and won’t talk about it (got to be them right?)
5) The list goes on and on (Rosicrucians, Cathars, Merovingians etc) so just pick one.
• Use reliable sources in part.
If you find a reliable source that lines up with your theory by all means use it but be careful, the more reliable the source the more likely it is to contradict you. So how should we use them? Quote them (out of context if need be) to validate your theory but ignore the bigger picture of their argument. If you cannot ignore the bigger picture (who knows someone may have read the source) remember the 3 C’s of misquoting:
1) Code: The writer was purposefully hiding the true message within the greater text, one that you have found.
2) Conspirator: The writer is evil and part of the conspiracy however the evidence (sadly lost to us now) for your theory was so strong that he had to address it at the time and the source you are now quoting was an elaborate explanation to keep people from the truth.
3) Confused. Shame the poor chap was on to something but just didn’t have the brain power (or if you’re feeling generous, the resources) that you have. Give him two thumbs up for effort and a condescending nod.

Words of encouragement;
• There are always links and symbols. Human experience is limited and we often use the same symbols (often for different purposes) so just look for something similar and have fun.
• If there is no evidence for your theory it is of no concern it just goes to show how well they covered it up in the first place. i.e., use your lack of evidence as a tool to prove you’re write as any decent conspiracy is worth hiding well

Step 3: Keeping it Relevant
Well done, you have your institution and now you have your theory but in order to convert conspiracy into cash you need to make the reader feel that things are going on around them as they read. You need a sense of urgency.
How do you bring your conspiracy into the present?
• Name Change Game
So you have you a conspiracy from long before you reader was born. Not to worry you can bring it into the present by simply saying that the ancient organization changed their name to a current one. Why did they do this? To confuse the masses, or maybe they were just bored. Remember our lesson on interpreting symbols out of context and it’s easy: if both organizations have an eye or a snake in the logo they must be the same, no doubt.
• Current Events
So some nation attacks another and its all over the news, here is your chance. This was no doubt foretold by the prophetic writings of the exact institution you are talking about. There is a reference somewhere about a turban, must be Saddam Hussein, there is a reference to stars, must be referencing the USA’s flag. Just remember the three C’s of misquoting and you’ll have no trouble.
• It’s a Novel Idea
Write a fictional work and claim it’s based on true events. This is a great trick because if someone points out that an aspect of your research is unsound you can state that the specific part they are referring to isn’t one of the actual events your book is based on, you made it up. When they point to the next aspect you repeat your answer. And so and so on until the heckler looses interest and moves onto another issue. It’s fool proof!
• From Ancients to Aliens
Aliens are a hot item right now so why not connect them to your conspiracy? I can see it right now; there’s some ancient image on a tomb: Is it a man with a moon head, a chariot of fire in the sky, a ray of light shinning? No! It’s an alien and there spacey futuristic technology! Not only is a great visual stimulus but it helps explain difficult things like how they built the pyramids. Simple, alien technology.

So Get Going
Congratulations, you now have all the necessary tools to develop your conspiracy theory. Do not be concerned if you aren’t a history buff or an academic because all those kinds of things do is serve to distance you from your target market, the man on the street.
With a pinch of investigation, a sprinkle of logic and a cauldron of creativity you too could be cooking your way to the top sellers list. Go for it!

paul (aka mr.e) for retheo

please feel free to contact me at retheology@gmail.com