Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Theology Matters
Adrian Warnock is wondering with Pyromaniac if evangelicalism is dying, but Adrian is wondering if it is at the hands of friends. (Look at that! - both linked in one post again.)
Phil is looking at cultural stuff while Adrian is looking at some theological stuff, which is where I am going first. Adrian performs this examination by linking to papers recently presented at a symposium sponsored by the Evangelical Alliance on penal substitution. I really wish my schedule permitted me to go through these papers in the depth that I would like, but alas, I am preparing for a European tour and must comment only briefly.
Adrain says in his post:
It is clear from reviewing the material that the differing sides on the issue play by entirely different sets of rules regarding hermeneutics and exegesis. Both sides arguing that the other is bending the rules to get the results they want. The only problem with that is that the pro-penal substitution side is using the rules that have been applied for centuries -- so if anyone is to be charged with making it up as they go it has to be the anti-penal substitution side.
Maybe it's my own bias' poking through, but I find the anti-penal substitution arguments completely unconvincing. I've heard them all before, and because they use hermeneutical rules that I do not agree with, they sound desperate to me. In essence they all use extra-biblical materials as a part of the hermeneutic -- they also make assumptions about the character of God with which I cannot agree.
At the heart of all the anti-penal substitution agreements lies one assertion that baffles me -- that love and punishment are somehow mutually exclusive. This causes them to, in large part, reject virtually all of the Old Testament. I have a very hard time thinking that the character of God would be subject to such radical shifts in nature -- were it true it would reduce God to something akin to a god of mythology -- more superhero than omniscient. omnipresent, omnipotent creator and ruler of the universe.
But here is the real question -- Theology is, after all, a fairly esoteric undertaking. I know a pastor that preached his anti-penal substitution views recently and left his congregation napping. Does theology matter? The answer is unequivocally - YES! While the average congregant my not read or even care about these questions, the answers adopted by the church matter because of what then happens in the church.
This is where Pyromaniacs cultural examinations are so important. The faddishness that he has been pointing out and piercing these last couple of weeks is precisely what results when these things happen. When you start permitting extra-biblical materials in your hermeneutics then all kinds of things come into play in the church that were previously unconsidered -- marketing being a prime example. All the questions surrounding homosexuality in the church flow from this same issue.
We cross a dangerous line when we stop asking what the Bible is telling us and start "interpreting" the Bible. All that said, the other question is, "Is it worth arguing over?"
I am very ambivalent about that question. I think the answer depends on context. As Phil has been discussing, the term "evangelical" has come to be virtually meaningless -- so I not sure it is worth arguing over whether evangelicals are pro- or anti- penal substitution. As I said a while ago, in a culture that permits religious pluralism, there will always be groups that operate out in the nether regions of a religion. Within the context of a given institution, it may well be worth arguing because the ramifications for the future course of that institution are staggering.
Phil is looking at cultural stuff while Adrian is looking at some theological stuff, which is where I am going first. Adrian performs this examination by linking to papers recently presented at a symposium sponsored by the Evangelical Alliance on penal substitution. I really wish my schedule permitted me to go through these papers in the depth that I would like, but alas, I am preparing for a European tour and must comment only briefly.
Adrain says in his post:
Suddenly, it seems that we are all one big happy family willing to work alongside each other for the sake of the gospel. The trouble is without a penal substitution I cannot see how there is much of a gospel to work together for.Based on my run through of the material, I have to agree that there is so little commonality in approach that attempting familial relations is little more than wishful thinking.
It is clear from reviewing the material that the differing sides on the issue play by entirely different sets of rules regarding hermeneutics and exegesis. Both sides arguing that the other is bending the rules to get the results they want. The only problem with that is that the pro-penal substitution side is using the rules that have been applied for centuries -- so if anyone is to be charged with making it up as they go it has to be the anti-penal substitution side.
Maybe it's my own bias' poking through, but I find the anti-penal substitution arguments completely unconvincing. I've heard them all before, and because they use hermeneutical rules that I do not agree with, they sound desperate to me. In essence they all use extra-biblical materials as a part of the hermeneutic -- they also make assumptions about the character of God with which I cannot agree.
At the heart of all the anti-penal substitution agreements lies one assertion that baffles me -- that love and punishment are somehow mutually exclusive. This causes them to, in large part, reject virtually all of the Old Testament. I have a very hard time thinking that the character of God would be subject to such radical shifts in nature -- were it true it would reduce God to something akin to a god of mythology -- more superhero than omniscient. omnipresent, omnipotent creator and ruler of the universe.
But here is the real question -- Theology is, after all, a fairly esoteric undertaking. I know a pastor that preached his anti-penal substitution views recently and left his congregation napping. Does theology matter? The answer is unequivocally - YES! While the average congregant my not read or even care about these questions, the answers adopted by the church matter because of what then happens in the church.
This is where Pyromaniacs cultural examinations are so important. The faddishness that he has been pointing out and piercing these last couple of weeks is precisely what results when these things happen. When you start permitting extra-biblical materials in your hermeneutics then all kinds of things come into play in the church that were previously unconsidered -- marketing being a prime example. All the questions surrounding homosexuality in the church flow from this same issue.
We cross a dangerous line when we stop asking what the Bible is telling us and start "interpreting" the Bible. All that said, the other question is, "Is it worth arguing over?"
I am very ambivalent about that question. I think the answer depends on context. As Phil has been discussing, the term "evangelical" has come to be virtually meaningless -- so I not sure it is worth arguing over whether evangelicals are pro- or anti- penal substitution. As I said a while ago, in a culture that permits religious pluralism, there will always be groups that operate out in the nether regions of a religion. Within the context of a given institution, it may well be worth arguing because the ramifications for the future course of that institution are staggering.
