Hit: 'Conn'-versationDr. Bruce McCormack of Princeton Theological Seminary has just written a thought provoking essay on the Christology of the HTFC report and how it does not reflect a Reformed
Christology.
You can read the essay here.

Interesting article from Newsweek.com

The Popularity Gap

A new study reveals that for teens, it's not whether you're really popular. It's whether you think you are.

It's hard to judge which fuel better expands the combustion of doubt and spiritual discouragement.  On one hand people of faith become discouraged when they pray and serve and see little results. But the some thing worse than seeing no results is watching God work in mighty ways only to be disappointed when people and movements slow  or regress in their growth. The prophet Jeremiah began his prophecy in the year 626 BCE. Josiah was king of Judah. This was a time of huge revival for Israel, spiritual life started to spring through the nation. - Josiah led the people to repentance seeking the Lord after decades of idolatrous practices. Josiah began to purify Judah and Jerusalem, destroyed pagan shrines.

Jeremiah prophecies and has a ministry of revival. And this interest in proper worship was answered by conflict from the outside. Through a series of international struggles - Babylon led by Nebuchadnezer took over Judah. By 605 BCE Judah was captured (Dan 1.1-3) By 586 BCE (toward the end of Jeremiah's ministry) Nebuchadnezzar came and decimated Jerusalem. He took captive people and killed the rulers.

Being a representative of Jesus is tough. It occurred to me (in a very Psa 73 sense) that there is little negative correlation between suffering and spiritual success.  I've been praying for the Welte Family, or for Cal and Phyllis Dunnon, or any number of people who are working for revival and victory and being discouraged as they are calling God's people back to Him.  In Judah the stage was set for revival, God's man was King, God's prophet was in place. But God chose to sent international conflict at that very moment in redemptive history. I wonder why God didn't send punishment when... i donno - when there was a bad king and false prophets.  But I wonder if he works the same way today. I'm going to be reading through Jeremiah along with Tremper Longman's commentary on Jeremiah.  I'm hoping to see how to depend on God when ministry is going badly, for all the wrong reasons.

My biggest complaint about my seminary (its weakness in dialog) has been alleviated. The official theological documents under discussion have been released today have been released on Westminster’s website. I'm only partially sorry that I won't have time until next week to read it all but I'm thankful to be able to hear the other side of the theological discussion. But it promises to be an interesting read. Yeah, sometimes I miss being in seminary.

Chapter Two of The Rise of Christianity discusses the class basis of early Christianity. Rodney Stark challenges some basic assumptions about the demographics of new religions and what various classes look for in spirituality. For the last century sociologists and most historians have assumed that the early church was largely made up of the poor, the weak and the powerless.  From Friedrich Engels onward through Marx and Freud the theory was 1) The early Church was primarily made up of slaves, emancipated slaves, of those deprived of all rights, and of those dispersed by Rome. and (thus) 2) The prevailing sociological orthodoxy teaches that religion serves as a refuge for the suffering of the poor and deprived.

Stark argues with both assumptions. Even in the cannon of scripture there diverse levels of power. James for example, discusses class equality. Paul instructs masters to treat slaves well. 1 Cor 1.26-28 has been overinterpreted - Paul "did not saw that his followers included none of the wise, mighty or noble - merely that there "not many" such persons." (30)  In some ways this lower class view of Christian origin was a fad that started by early sociologist in the 1930s. Historians before that saw more of a class diversity. - Adolf Harnack (1908) pointed out that Ignatius, writes to Christians in Rome worried that they interfere with his martyrdom. The assumption that there must have been Christians powerful enough to intervene.

Marxists have emphasized the draw of religion for lower class people.  But what is the draw for the wealthy and powerful? Stark presents a modified thesis that "religious commitment consists of a number of somewhat independent dimensions... the poor tent to be more religious on some of these dimensions while the rich are more religious on others." (35)  Some people become religious because they lack things like wealth and health, but others are equally drawn to less obtainable awards - such as Victory over Death. Additionally (as seen later in history) as organized social enterprises religions provide direct rewards to members - such as status, income, self-esteem, social relations, entertainment and other values. "Regardless of power, persons and groups will tend to accept religious compensators for rewards that do not exist in this world." (36) - Perhaps this is why new cults are often filled by the more privileged (read Tom Cruise and Will Smith)

So why did the wealthy and powerful convert to Christianity? - Stark argues that the timing was ripe. Greek and Roman science and philosophy caused difficulties for pagan teaching, just like modern science caused difficulties for Christianity. This is first noticed by the educated. "Religious skepticism is more prevalent among the most privileged" (37) People need to have some degree of privilege and sophistication to understand new religions and to recognize a need for them. 

My Thoughts:

On one level as a Christian and a theologian I'm a bit skeptical of Stark's conclusions. - I really want to give a lot more credit to things like... Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Ok fine, I'll admit it - I'm basically studying ancient sociology to be able to converse with the guild (my wonderful future wife is a sociology major... and I don't know anything about sociology.)  But this is still interesting.

1) Christianity does not belong exclusively to the poor - The wealthy and powerful shouldn't feel guilty for their position and assets.

2) Heaven and Hell are important -  I think we tend to shy away the discussion of the afterlife for a variety of reasons, but for people grappling with issues other than food and sickness, this is a huge issues (see Pascal's Why  Does the King have Jesters?)  Jesus talks a lot about this.

3) Opportunity is important - The earliest wealthy Christians were drawn to the chance of changing their communities for Jesus. This was basically the earliest apologetic - Jesus makes people better citizens. Yet, Churches are seldom leaders in social change or revolution. How can we get better at presenting Christianity as an opportunity to responsibly use their power and status to turn the world upside down.

4) We should not be afraid of being heady. We tend to be pretty critical of preaching that is too academic.  I had a breakfast this morning with Rick Warren, who is very successful because of his ability to (over) simplify the gospel. People with theological training are easy targets because they sometimes preach over the heads of some of their audience. The merits of speaking to the lowest common denominator are widely espoused. Yet Stark remarkably points to the education level of new converts of religion. - (Table 2.3) - The cult groups have the most educated members exceeding even Jews and Episcopalians in terms of percentage of members who have attended college. One cause of conversions in the Church was the well-educated Greeks and Romans beginning to see flaws in a Pagan worldview. Perhaps we should be best at being able to critique contemporary spirituality (or lack thereof) - be able to point out its flaws, and point to Jesus. That sounds a lot like Van Til or for NYC - Tim Keller

So I sent this as an email to 5 members of the WTS development team. And since then got another mail asking for money, and an invitation to Graduation... which is nice I guess... and also one of my friends asked me if they should check out WTS for an D.Min... I haven't responded yet.

Dear Development Team,
I'm a 2006 M.Div graduate who has received 4 requests for financial support in the last 30 days. I am very thankful for my Westminster education and experience. I've been working with college students and young adults, and while I don't make much money, I thankfully support the seminary by recommending students your way. Two of my friends are admitted and planning on starting programs in the fall based largely on my experience there.  I'm working on convincing 5 more to go there for seminary in the future. I support the seminary in this way, not out of gratitude, but because the Westminster that I experienced was the best place in the country to learn about the Bible and prepare for ministry. I want to continue to send students your way.
But some of the news from wts.edu makes me hesitate. Since I graduated we've lost three my most valued professors. Al Groves, Steve Taylor, and now Pete Enns. - Aside from the discussion or questions about the wisdom of the seminary leadership, or the theological issues at hand, or the apparent flippancy with which alumni are alienated as a result of their mentors being censured - what I'm really worried about is the obvious hole in the Biblical Studies Department. I want to send my friends, college students and young adults to a place to learn about the Bible and Ministry. I'm glad for the other departments, and I think I might be equally worried if ST or CH lost three professors. But I think the Bible Department is pretty important for a seminary education.

I'm not sure I'd otherwise bring this up but since you seem so eager to contact me...  I'm interested in hearing about the Biblical Studies department.

1) Why getting rid of Taylor and Enns?
2) Who will be teaching in the place of Al, Steve and Pete?
3) Does this represent a shift toward a more strictly interpreted confessional stance thus narrowing the student base?

Obviously the seminary has a right to make decisions without running them by me, but I have right to know about things I'm being asked to support. I really want to be honest when I recommend for students to study there.

Thanks for your ministry.

--Sam

Very interesting visual of the war in the Middle East.

In the middle of the Pete Enns debate, there's been the inevitable cycle of harsh polemic, defense, and the sagely advice to discourage the dialogue in the name of Christian grace and charity.  (See fellow WTS alumnus Brandon, or R. Scott Clark).  On one hand a call for Christians to grow in grace, knowledge and love for each other should never fall on deaf ears. He who hasn't said or written something stupid throw the first stone. Yes, to an extent we should respect people's privacy to make their own decisions, and be slow to judge people.  Yes, we should not allow the impersonal nature of the web to empower us to slander others. Posting anonymously invites others to call you names.

BUT, on the other hand - the error of our generation seems to be fear of conflict and conviction.  There's this assumption that debate and argument is wrong - That we should just let people believe what they will. Or learn how to live in harmony with other positions. Are disagreements oppressive?

"There is an increasing tendency in Evangelical circles to regard disagreement in our allegedly post-modern world as inherently oppressive... The point in having a debate is not to have a debate and then agree to differ (sitting around in an mutually affirming love-fest) - the point of debate, as the Apostle Paul clearly demonstrates time and again in the book of Acts, is to establish which position is RIGHT. With this collection of essays, Carl Trueman will provoke you into thinking for yourself - and to have an opinion on things that matter!" From the back jacket of The Wages of Spin by Carl Trueman.  

How do we avoid the duel temptations of on one hand using words to tear people down, and on the other fearing conflict?

(Addition)
Obviously neither Brandon's not Scott's post was a call to censure debate - both called for caution in helpful ways. (My post is perhaps an artificial construction of the first two steps in Hegelian Dialectic.) Even given the nuanced caution of Brandon and Scott,  I think it's worthwhile to dialog about at what points debate is helpful and is not. The unexplored question lurking in the background is about pragmatic wisdom in externalizing the Enns debate. What is better for the Seminary? What is better for the Church?  - Should supporters fight for what they think at any cost? - for those of us who love WTS, is our criticism of the "winning side" going to help or break down WTS in the future. Would it be better for the school to keep it quiet - to say, not broadcast its problems to the world, or criticize its leadership? I didn't miss the irony in setting Trueman up as encouraging the debate. But I don't know the answer to this question. 

I personally need to show wise restraint on the Internet. - So back to the Dialectic: Thesis: Debate can work against unity, due process, is often misinformed, and is a hotbed for gossip and accusation. Antithesis: We need not be afraid of conflict but need to determine what's right.  Synthesis: Anyone?

Today a book enters my "can't live without" list previously dominated by entries such as Ashley, the Internet, Chinese delivery and Fabreese.  A Reader's Hebrew Bible makes reading the Hebrew Bible possible without carting a copy of HALOT around with you. It contains the complete text of the Hebrew and Aramaic Bible using the Westminster Leningrad Codex (thanks to Al Groves :-).  It's in a readable font. Footnoted glosses of ALL Hebrew words occurring 100 times or less. Proper names occurring 100 times or less are printed in gray scale.

Ok, basic problem with Hebrew - here's my shameful secret. I can't read Hebrew as well as I'd like to - There's way too much vocabulary, the biggest challenge in reading is remembering - or looking up - what the words mean. This is a tool that gives footnotes for words that I might have to look up.

On a critical note 1) as other reviews have noticed, the binding could be better - this is a book that you'll spend a lot of time with. 2) I wish that it could have been bound section by section - I'd like to be able to carry around the Psalter as a small booklet to read along commentaries or something similar.

Earlier today the president and members of the board of Westminster Seminary  held their much anticipated explanation of their suspension of Pete Enns.  Click here to listen to this morning’s chapel. - I probably got a bit too much caught up in this controversy. But it's hard to stay out of conflict when white guys in power are defining ones mentor as theologically unfit or dangerous.

I may have even posted some things on comments and blogs that were rash and immature. (correction BTW... Darryl Hart does not still live in his mom's basement.... I apologize for that). Over the weekend I cooled down a bit... I completely reframed my perspective as conservatives "cleaning house" and guarding the truth. I think that it's a wrong call in the case of Pete, but I can at least respect the impulse to guard against progression toward liberalism... or at least sympathize with those who lived through the conflicts of the 50s... 20s... etc.

So as a proud alumnus and a supporter I at least tried to have an open mind and was ready to hear the well-crafted arguments of wise men who had long been reflecting on the gospel and the confession, and the nature of scripture. I was expecting (however naive) reasons to the effect of battling for the Bible, or loving the Word of God, or keeping the faith, or guarding against false teachers. I was expecting something like a Machen reference - "Christianity and the Incarnational Analogy" or I hear the mythic Luther quote - "here I stand and can do no other"... - I was expecting to either be persuaded that Enns is, or leads to a weak doctrine of scripture or at least have the arrogant pleasure of looking down my nose at relics of modernity who can't deal with philosophical tension.

What I heard was polite, spineless, political pandering.  Rather than Biblical, Theological, or even Confessional arguments, the reasons we heard over and over again were that "other people didn't like what Enns taught." I was expecting Jack White and Peter Liliback to be more bold. If there was a bullet list of reasons for terminating Peter Enns it would look like "other seminary deans have problems with Enns" "two Presbyteries don't like Westminster anymore" "secret board members have problems with Enns" "there are people in ETS who have problems".

What is this? Junior high? Is wining cool again? Are we teenagers now,  making excuses for getting caught with a joint under the bed? "but mom, all my friends smoke?"  When asked point-blank for theological "formal charges" Liliback sounded like my brother when my parents caught chewing used gum from urinals (true story BTW). He was reminiscent of my days at Bob Jones when the administration explained why they had a policy against inter-racial dating, except at least they were bold enough to make dumb arguments for their position. Peter Enns gets canned because of peer pressure from other seminaries and donors.

Normally I'd say that a faculty popular voting is bad way of doing theology... But then, I forget exactly what Gaffin said the principium was... but if you do find theology through popular vote... at least go with the position that gets the most votes. I mean, yeah, I battle a lot of fear of man issues myself (when people are big and god is small - huge book for me) But I thought that most people sort out the differences between peer pressure and epistemology by puberty and learn to make more nuanced presentation.

So my question to Liliback... (maybe misdirected... he insinuated other people are pulling the strings... who are also not apparently man enough to present boldly on stage.) -If other seminaries, presbyteries, members of ETS, and deans jumped off a bridge.... would you too? (ok, that sounds ominous, but it's a classic mom question... one that I've never heard posed to adults before... sry)