Respondeo

The 5th Act.

On September 7, 2017

The call to improvisation is among N.T. Wright’s many controversial beliefs. In the Old Testament, God laid out all the rules for his people. In general, men and women were closer culturally and historically to the instructions that God had given. Now that the Scripture is finished God calls on the church to improvise. It’s not that there is no improvisation in the Old Testament, but those who come after Christ have a unique relationship with the Spirit in bringing the reconciliation of all things through Christ, You can see him defend these beliefs here, here, and here. My introduction is a very simple summary of his belief.

False improvisation

Unfortunately, Wright’s own understanding of improvisation seems to lead him to embrace new understandings of Genesis and the role of the church. We can see how the logic goes. New understandings have come to light in science, in society, and in the scholarship of scripture and the church needs to improvise in response to that. Wright deserves respect because he attempts the Sisyphean task of defending it all exegetically. He gives a rather radical re-interpretation of the New Testament on the role of women and joining with many others in re-interpreting Genesis 1. (His work on re-interpreting the role of women has an unbelievable degree of subtlety. It’s hard to get away from the idea that he is twisting himself in circles in order to demonstrate his own enlightenment.)

(It may be that the problem here is not so much Wright’s understanding of improvisation but his hermeneutic of scripture. In Wright’s description of improvisation, he is on very solid ground. This quickly becomes quicksand when combined with liberal hermeneutics.)

Improvisation according to the rules.

Even if Wright’s improvising leads him to undermine the clarity of scripture on certain topics, I believe that his understanding of improvisation is laudable. The problem is that he is not following his own rules. He is not listening when Scripture is clear on the rules.

To demonstrate Wright’s point, I’d like to point out the following passages. All of these passages show how the coming of the Holy Spirit should give us confidence in using our God-given wisdom to apply scripture. God gives his church discernment.

In 1 John 2: 20, John says, “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.” God has given us the Holy Spirit to guide us in our decisions. He is the one who gives us the ability to apply the scripture to our lives; to improvise from the scripture that he has given us.

The new status that we have in Christ confirms our call to improvise. Having proclaimed the salvation Christ gave, Paul also tells us what happened after we are brought into his kingdom in Ephesians 2:6. “He also raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavens, in Christ Jesus.” In Christ, we are ruling in heaven. Paul confirms this in 1 Corinthians 6: 2: “Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world.” In 1 Corinthians Paul is calling the Corinthians to grow in the wisdom of Christ. The need to seek discernment in judging evildoers in their congregation. They need to learn how to make decisions for the church of Christ in Corinth. Paul wants them to grow in maturity. They will judge the world. They need to practice that judgment now.

There is an “already, but not yet” here. In Christ, we already reign, but we do not experience of the fullness of this reign. God calls us to suffer first. 1 Timothy 2:12, “If we endure, we will reign with him.”

Finally, we have James 3: 13-18. There James speaks of wisdom from below and wisdom from above. We have the Wisdom from above. It is accessible to us. With it we can discern what is “pure, then peace-loving, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without favoritism and hypocrisy.”

We have an assumption in the New Testament of a new degree of wisdom given to the saints. This gift is through the Holy Spirit, in order to apply the scripture that God has given to contemporary problems. Naturally, this should be carefully done. Further, it should be done with a desire for obedience to every breath of God. Contradicting historic teachings on Creation and gender roles does not give evidence of that type of desire.

Theses on Natural Law and its Recovery

By James

On August 23, 2017

In Hermeneutics, The Basics, Uncategorized

In this post, I want to give some initial thoughts on natural law itself and the recent recovery of natural law.

Reading many contemporary proponents of natural law, I am impressed by their ability to interact with 16th and 17th century sources. They are particularly impressive in their understanding of the protestant scholastics and their forebears. They give a robust defense of natural law as something biblical. Further, they prove that natural has the stamp of the best of Christian tradition. Unfortunately, I don’t see a willingness to critically interact with classical natural law theory of the 16th and 17th century. It may be that the proponents of the 16th and 17th century got natural law right. Even if they did, there should be room to talk about natural law with greater specificity than those in the past. Natural law can be a highly ambiguous term.
(a) One of the most egregious examples of an inability to interact with natural law critically is the lack of interaction with the Van Tillian critique of natural law. I realize that the Van Tillian critique is guilty of a dependence on bad historiagraphy. Van Til relied on a poor reading of Thomas Aquinas, as well, as a poor historical understanding of the development of natural law. Even so they were dealing with a contemporary form of natural law that had twisted what the Protestant scholastics taught. Contemporaries of Van Til would use their theories of natural law to undermine the faith. (b) This lack of interaction is combined with a lack of understanding: Van Til was dealing with men who were using natural law to defend things like old earth creationism and liberalism in the churches in general. I say this, not to exonerate Van Til and Rushdoony, but to give context to what he was fighting.
This thesis is more of a pet peeve of mine. If natural law is a reality then unbelievers also have access to God’s truth in their interactions with God’s world. This means Christians can learn from unbelievers, who had many things wrong about God. My thesis is this: contemporary unbelievers should be just as helpful in finding truth, perhaps even more so, as past unbelievers.
Now we come to the critique of classical natural law theory. I want to argue that natural law is an aspect of God’s relationship to his creation, not a particular something in itself. In my reading so far I have not seen a clear recognition of this in the scholastics. If this is not clearly laid out natural law can slowly be separated from God and gain an authority of its own. It can begin to compete with the Scriptures as a source of authority. If we immediately define as an aspect of God’s relationship, this becomes impossible.
Against the Protestant Scholastics, I want to argue that natural law is mutable. If the cosmos changes, natural law changes. This is a change in creation relative to God that changes the configuration of natural law. One example would be the necessity of sacrifice after Adam fell into sin. This was because the human race changed in relation to God.
Behind all this is a certain theory of the universe. We can think of the universe in terms of a puzzle or legos. A world made on the analogy of legos contains a number of possibilities for design. A box of legos has the potential for several different shapes. The natural law legos can be kept in the same configuration even if the rest of the legos are re-configurated. If creation is more like a puzzle, then each piece is contingent on the other pieces. If a part of the puzzle is re-configurated then the whole puzzle is reconfigurated. Natural law is the aspect of “rightly fitting together” according to the maker’s design. Like the legos, the puzzle pieces have reality in themselves. Unlike the legos they are contingent on one another for the completeness of the puzzle. I argue that the universe is a puzzle. (I wonder if this is behind Van Til’s argument that unbelievers cannot have capital-T truth. Van Til thinks of truth radically contingent on knowing Christ as the centre and expllanation of the universe. The problem with this is that you can still know part of the puzzle as something that is truly part of the puzzle. You just don’t have the key to the puzzle; Jesus Christ. It is a hermeneutical problem, not an epistomological problem.)
My boldest thesis: I would suggest that the term “created order” replace the term “natural law.” I believe that the understanding of the term “natural law” can quickly turn to a semi-autonomous force. In reality, “natural law” is radically contingent on the creator. The term “created order” emphasizes that contingency.

Man as Actor; Man as Recipient

By James

On August 19, 2017

In Libertarianism

In order to create a full-orbed political theory, libertarians must broaden their understanding of man’s role. Politics is the practice of human cooperation. This definition strays from other definitions. These tend to emphasize politics’ role in granting certain groups rights to coercion in society. Libertarianism, if understood as the non-aggression principle based upon a theory property rights, is particularly seeking to understand the principles that define coercion in human society. Libertarianism seeks to improve man’s freedom from unnecessary coercion. This is certainly part of the study of politics, but not exclusively so. The study of the role of coercion in society is part of a larger body of political theory. Libertarians must recognize that truth.

The Free Actor

Libertarianism tends to view man as a free actor. This is legitimate, but he also has other roles. When libertarians recognize this, it gives their theory a greater breadth than it otherwise would have. Though still a theory of coercion, libertarianism is set within larger cultural, religious and political realities. Without suddenly limiting man to only two roles, I want to argue a full-orbed political theory will treat man as both actor and as recipient.

Without suddenly limiting man to only two roles, I want to argue that a full-orbed political theory will treat man as both actor and as recipient.

However, we must continue to emphasize the role of man as a free actor. Christians may believe that man is spiritually bound, but politically we should all want free human action in our society. When God creates the world, he gives man freedom to develop the garden and the wilderness however he wants. He has freedom to eat of any tree of the garden, except for the one that God puts off limits. Even after the fall, man is free to choose where to live, to farm, and to have children. This means that, as much as possible, mankind should be free from coercion by other men. All libertarians, whether thick or thin, paleo or left, Christian or atheist, agree on this, at least on the surface. After all, libertarianism is a theory of coercion, not a full-orbed political theory.

All libertarians, whether thick or thin, paleo or left, Christian or atheist, agree on this, at least on the surface. After all, libertarianism is a theory of coercion, not a full-orbed political theory.

The Recipient

But a full-orbed political theory will account for man’s being as well. Man’s being is something received. In a large part, this underlines the whole point of this blog. In my posts, I want to underline the importance of our response to our gifts. Man receives a being, a culture, and a history. His response to these gifts will determine his political life. Man has gratitude in the fabric of his nature (because that nature is a gift).

When we understand man as a recipient, as well as, as an actor, there is a role for thanksgiving. When we fail to show our gratitude, we do violence to the past. We have a society that lives in ingratitude.

This gratitude includes gratitude toward God our parents, and our leaders. God has given us our bodies, which contain his own image. Gratitude for that gift will result in using our bodies in a way which pleases God. Our parents, as secondary causes, have also given us our bodies, besides raising us (imperfect though that raising may be). Gratitude for that gift will result in honor. Our civil leaders (imperfectly) have given us a degree of peace and justice. Gratitude for that gift will result in a certain degree of honor as well. Of course, two of these (parents and civil leaders) three always give imperfect gifts. Sometimes it may be said that they gave no gift at all. Instead, they oppressed and consumed their charges. Yet some degree of gratitude is generally necessary. Toward God, gratitude is always necessary.

Without an understanding of gratitude, libertarianism will be unsuccessful. A libertarian’s implicit or explicit understanding of gratitude will not damage his status as a libertarian. However, his understanding of gratitude will destroy his chances of living peacefully when he is able to live in a libertarian society. He will commit violence: not the type that is immediately punishable by law, but the type that is ultimately destructive to whatever relationships he has.

Rules for Progress

By James

On August 6, 2017

In Applied Hermeneutics, education, History, Progress

Note: I defend progress in this piece. However, I thoroughly reject the beliefs of most of those who understand themselves as progressives. I do not believe that their beliefs are progressive. In general, they are regressive, not progressive. I would argue that I present here a true progressivism, based on God’s word, not on man’s understanding of progress.

Progress is necessary. God wants the church to grow in the understanding of his righteousness and his holiness. However, this truth is easily twisted. Churches use it in order to excuse themselves for contradicting what is clear in the word of God. We see this in those who argue for women in office and those who argue that homosexual relationships are a legitimate expression of human love. We need guidelines in order to differentiate between what is progressive and what is retrogressive. I offer a few below.

Inscripturation: There is no real progress without a deep understanding of the scriptures. The first rule of progress is: study and contemplate the scriptures. God does not contradict himself, for he speaks with authority and truth. We cannot progress without the scriptures. God and his word are the source of all truth as well as a deeper understanding of that truth.
Tradition: If we cannot ignore the scriptures, we cannot ignore the tradition of scriptural interpretation. Argument after argument has been given concerning various passages. Our bit of “progress” may repeat the mistakes of the past. It may repeat the heresies of the past. In order to move forward, we must have a deep understanding and appreciation of the past. For those who want to progress this can be hard to do. Anti-progressive forces tend to love tradition to a fault. The tendency, then, is to ignore tradition. This does not excuse anyone from this guideline, however. To ignore it is not only dangerous yourself but to those around you.
Humility: Humility is all important. The one who wants to teach must learn. Sit at the feet of those around you who have been given knowledge. You need humility in order learn from the Scriptures and from tradition. Ultimately you need humility before God. When you have humility before God you will have humility before the teachers he has raised up in your life. Jesus asks that you become as a little child. Only little children have the continual ability to learn.
Patience: You have your argument ready. You have studied and contemplated the scriptures and you have immersed yourself in tradition. Now you must be patient. People aren’t ready to change at a moment’s notice. Further, you might be wrong. Better men than you of me have been wrong before. Remember the words of the Psalmist. “Wait on the Lord; be strong and take heart and wait for the Lord.”

Finding Wisdom 2

By James

On July 27, 2017

In education, Hermeneutics

There are a number of characters in Proverbs. The righteous are those who actively seek out wisdom. They are humble. Further, they seek God’s wisdom, not their own. The wicked are those who actively seek out folly. They are proud. They are full of selfish ambition However there is a rather interesting 3rd character. He is also seeking folly, but he is not actively seeking folly. In a sense he finds folly, because he has never sought wisdom. He is the sluggard. Wisdom, in Proverbs is the ability to discern between two choices. Both the wicked and the righteous go out and make those choices. They choose between wisdom and folly. The sluggard chooses to stay home.

We find the sluggard in Proverbs 6: “Go to the ant, you sluggard! Observe her ways and become wise.” The ant doesn’t have somebody telling her what to do. She acts on her own intiative. She goes out and finds a job, so that she may learn her trade. The sluggard needs to get up out of his bed and learn from the ant. The author of the proverbs wants to encourage his readers in godly ambition.

Another example comes from Proverbs 26 starting at verse 13. The sluggard cries out, “There is a lion in the streets.” The sluggard makes excuses for himself. He can’t risk anything. Again, we need godly ambition. We can’t be afraid of risks when we go out into the world. We have to be wise and prudent in our actions, but if we live in fear of what might happen, we will never find the prize. The reward will be gone.

Christians then have no excuse for sitting around and waiting. There is no excuse for endless leisure time. We’re called to go out and find wisdom. If we do not, we will lose wisdom. We become the fool, fearing imaginary lions. Ultimately, we lose the Wisdom of God; Jesus Christ. We are all called to that search for wisdom in so far as God has given us the ability to do so.

Wisdom, in our passages, is the practical ability to build, to make business choices, to choose a marriage partner; ultimately anything that involves human action. But within Proverbs all wisdom ultimately points to the Wisdom of God, the Wisdom that God reveals in Jesus Christ and the Wisdom by which God made the world. As we said in an earlier post, he is the one who holds the universe together. We can distinguish between practical wisdom and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs, but they cannot truly be seperated. If we do not seek wisdom, we ultimately lose the Wisdom of God; Jesus Christ. We are all called to that search for wisdom in so far as God has given us the ability to do so.

So one of the messages of proverbs is, “get up, get out and find wisdom.” Search then. Seek out the wisdom of the universe. Learn how to fix a car. Learn how to make a chair. Ultimately, search for the Wisdom; Christ. That is a life-long search a life-long longing for those who have found him.

How many senses?

By James

On June 15, 2017

In Uncategorized

A quick thought:

Even though I would defend multiple levels of meaning of scripture, I want to be careful. There is a strong insight in the argument that there is only one sense in scripture. The basic truth behind this insight is that Scripture cannot mean something that is contradictory to its plain or literal sense. Even though we can discern different levels of meaning this does not mean that meaning of scripture is not one. Scripture has one unified message and that is the salvation we all find in Christ.

Finding Wisdom 1

By James

On June 15, 2017

In Uncategorized

One of the themes of the book of Proverbs is the hiddenness of wisdom. In some sense, she is easy to find. In another sense, it takes time and money to find her.

The important thing to remember is the beginning of wisdom. In order to find wisdom, you need the right starting point. That starting point is the fear of the Lord. Solomon tells us that repeatedly, but particularly at the beginning of the book. He already tells in the first chapter the seventh verse that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.

When you fear the Lord in a sense you already have wisdom, but that is only the beginning. She is out in the marketplace calling in chapter 1 of Proverbe, but approaching her seat is only the beginning.

There is a wisdom to learn within the wisdom that is given. We have the creation of God. We have the Word of God. Both are places where Solomon goes to find wisdom. In Chapter 8 of Proverbs, Solomon speaks of how God built the foundation of the world with wisdom. Throughout the book of Proverbs Solomon will talk about lessons he learns from the animals (i.e. go to the ant, you sluggard). One also learns wisdom by remembering the law of their father and mother. God provides authorities on this earth to give us wisdom.

The ultimate wisdom is “to trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).” Wisdom begins with the Lord and ends with the Lord. But the goal is not thoughtless submission. That is clear from all the different things that Solomon calls us to consider. The goal is deep reflection, deep understanding of the goodness that the Lord has given.

Proverbs is a challenge to listen. It is a challenge to learn and reflect on the commandments that the Lord has given us; to apply that word so that we may discern between good and evil. Ultimately it is a challenge to search out wisdom, to move from wisdom to greater wisdom. (It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out (Proverbs 25:2).

Walk in Wisdom

By James

On May 27, 2017

In Hermeneutics, typology

The wisdom of Christ plays a very important role in the book of Colossians. In fact, Paul alludes to wisdom literature a number of times throughout the book. The book of Proverbs exemplifies wisdom literature. Solomon writes Proverbs in order to teach his son about the pursuit of wisdom. Paul implicitly replaces the pursuit of wisdom with the pursuit of Christ.

I want to point out a couple passages in Colossians, in which Paul does this.

Colossians 1:10 is Paul’s prayer that God might fill the Colossians with wisdom and spiritual understanding. The wisdom that Paul asks for is a wisdom, which will teach the Colossians to live well before God. Proverbs gives the same reason for pursuing wisdom. When a young man fears the Lord, he gains wisdom, which is the ability to make good decisions day by day.

Colossians 1: 15-20 teaches us about the source of that wisdom. The source of that wisdom is Christ. Christ performs a similar function to the wisdom through which the Lord created the world in Proverbs 8. Like wisdom, Christ is the means for creating the earth. Christ is not the same as wisdom. Rather, he is the source of wisdom. Proverbs 1:7 teaches the same thing about God: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”

Paul confirms all this in Colossians 2:2-3. Paul teaches that all the treasures of wisdom are hidden in Christ. Proverbs teaches us to pursue Wisdom. Implicitly, Colossians teaches us to pursue Christ. After all, if all the treasures of wisdom are hidden in Christ, that means we should be seeking out those treasures.

In the remainder of chapter 2, the treasures of Christ are contrasted with the elemental principles of this world. Christ is sufficient for all knowledge and all wisdom. This doesn’t mean you can’t have a type of wisdom without Christ. Rather, you don’t need anything other than Christ himself in order to live well before him.

All this puts chapter 3 in a new light as well. Christ raises Christians to the heavenly places so that they dwell with the source of wisdom. Christians are now free to pursue Christ. When they pursue Christ they begin to understand his desires for a holy life before God.

Finally, in chapter 4, Paul tells us, “walk in wisdom towards outsiders.” The wisdom of Christ affects all areas of the Christian life. If Christ is the source of wisdom, we demonstrate Christ by walking in wisdom.

Conversation with the Fathers 2: Denying the Role of Reason.

By James

On May 18, 2017

In Hermeneutics, History, Traditionalistic exegesis, Uncategorized

I believe that conversation with the fathers of the faith is under attack.

I want to note three different ways the conversation has come under attack. I believe that each way ultimately undermines the role of reason in responding to the authority of scripture. They undermine the role of reason because they lose the possibility of having a conversation about the meaning of scripture with fellow saints.

The first attack comes from rationalists. They are more popularly known as liberal Christians. The rationalists attack this understanding by exalting human reason. Human reason is the ultimate authority, not scripture. They deny the singular authority of scripture. In this way scripture just becomes one of the many voices that leads us to truth. Rather than a discussion about a firm revelation, we have a discussion that guesses at what might have been revealed. Because there is no firm authority your guess is as good as mine.

Conversation concerning scripture comes under attack because there is no shared “center” for conversation. There is no foundation for conversation Because conversation is under attack, reason also comes under attack. To understand this, we need to understand the purpose of reason. Reason is a tool to persuade one another. If you do not have a foundation upon which to rest your reason you will have no ability to persuade another person of your view. In this way, reason is lost in interpreting the scriptures.

Consider a discussion on Genesis 1. Rationalists often reject what Genesis 1 contains because it does not fit their experience. Or maybe because a God like God could not have created the world in that way. Suddenly they begin to find whatever they want in Genesis 1.

Another attack comes from Christian radical individualism. In this view, the individual reader becomes the most important interpreter of scripture. Conversation with fellow saints both of the past and of the present is lost because “me and my Bible” are the most important pair out there. The problems with this understanding are well documented today, in part because this understanding is very common in North America.

Loss of conversation leads to the loss of reason once again. Any reasonable argument can be rejected on the basis of my reading of scripture. Even though Christian radical individualism accepts the authority of scripture, it borrows from rationalism. Like rationalism, this individualism understands that its interpretive authority is primary.

Consider a discussion on the book of Revelation 11. The fact that there are two witnesses is unquestioned. The radical individualist will tenaciously hold to his interpretation of these two witnesses, even if he cannot support his understanding through well-reasoned arguments.

Finally, we come to traditionalism. At first, it doesn’t make sense that traditionalism would reject conversation with the fathers. Traditionalistic churches have a huge respect for the fathers. They certainly don’t reject the opinions of the fathers. Rather, they reject the conversation with the fathers. A well-reasoned argument can not overturn a well-established opinion. They never find Calvin wrong. John of Damascus is sublime on every point. Thomas Aquinas is absolutely rigorous in every doctrine he developed. They reject the tool of reason in discerning whether the fathers were right, partly right, or plain wrong on a certain issue.

Traditionalism is a plague to all Christians, but there are churches that mandate traditionalism in their confessional material. The result is silence before tradition, not conversation. One must repeat after the fathers or be silent.

A classic example here would be the doctrines that have accumulated around the Virgin Mary. Even though these have very little or even no support from scripture, they are treated as authoritative doctrine because certain fathers discerned teaching about Mary in certain scripture passages.

What I would prefer is a conversation. We are fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, sisters and brothers, discussing and seeking to discern the meaning of the Holy Book that God has given to us. This doesn’t mean we have to apply our reason to every issue, rather we use the reason that God has given to us unto those issues that the Spirit have led us to.

n.b. These categories are meant for a helpful overview. I believe that most denominations will have all the categories listed above, even though they may officially lean toward one of these understandings. This is true of individuals as well.

Conversation with the Fathers.

By James

On May 2, 2017

In Hermeneutics

I wanted to write a quick explanation of how I interact with the exegetical tradition of the church. In general, I understand myself as approaching the text in a community of interpreters. This is why I rely on the thousands of scriptural commentaries of the past. Even if I do not make my reliance on tradition explicit all the time, there is a history of conversation with present day saints and saints of the past when I commit myself to a teaching of the church.

When I approach the tradition of scriptural exegesis, I view myself as having a conversation with Fathers in the faith. They are witnesses to the truth of Christ. They didn’t only confess Christ but they have died in him as conquerors. As faithful Christians, they submitted themselves to Christ’s word, just as I do. Their understanding of scripture should be respected. I include here all the Fathers of the faith from Athanasius to Calvin, from Augustine to Charles Hodge, from John Cassian to John Wesley, from Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure to J. Gresham Machen. I honor them but I allow for differences between myself and them. They already have many differences between one another.

I have this qualification. If I am the only one with a certain interpretation of a passage, I am very careful. If I do decide that what I have is a reasonable interpretation of scripture, I must first of all offer it to the communion of the saints both present and future. God will guide his saints in discerning what is good and what is evil.

The reformers, Luther and Calvin, seem to share this understanding of their Fathers in the Faith. They were reading elder statesmen in the church of Christ. I would add that we build on the work of these elder statesmen. Luther and Calvin built on the medieval scholastics and the fathers of the early church. We, in turn, build on Luther and Calvin and the other reformers. The church grows in its ability to exegete carefully by standing on the shoulders of giants.

The community of saints and her shepherds labor in both the growth of knowledge and in testing the witness of those both past and present.