The Holy Dog Pound

Staring into the "Void"...

2006-05-11T11:46:00.000-07:00

“There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus” - Blaise Pascal, Pensees

"You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in you" - Augustine of Hippo, Confessions,

"Codswallop" - The Internet Monk, A God-Shaped Void? Maybe Not

The latest essay by the Internet Monk really caught my attention. It is challenging and thought provoking in a number of topics, and I wanted to spend some time going over his ideas.

I’ve lived most of my life submerged in the world of churches, Christians, Biblical language, and the Christian worldview. (Sorry Joel) As I’ve moved into the second half of life, I’ve become aware that I need to separate myself from the Christian culture that has dominated my life, and to look closely for where my own assumptions are deeply embedded with the concepts, presuppositions and categories of the spiritual/intellectual/social/religious environment that surrounds me.

As part of my journey to deconstruct this evangelicalism I’ve lived in, I have consciously attempted to appreciate the thinking and experience of those who do not share my Christian faith. This process has been difficult, because the “house” of my personal experience is completely furnished with the furniture of a Christian society, church language, Biblical presuppositions and the basic beliefs of the Christian community.

Any number of people I am aware of would find nothing wrong with the basic idea Michael is criticizing here. "Given the state of decay in our culture, should we not attept to build our own community, our own language, our own presuppositions, in order to keep the more corrosive aspects of 'the world' at bay?" Given my own growing appreciation for the liturgy and the greater Christian traditions in music and theology, I am sympathetic to the notion that we ought to strive for our own language and way of viewing the world, in opposition to the way the wider world does so.

But I am speaking here from my own experience, as an adult convert to the faith who had not grown up in a community of faith. Michael has done so, to an extent I cannot understand. And even with my limited experiences since my conversion, there is much in the "spiritual/intellectual/social/religious environment" in American evangelicalism that is not helpful - that is either "Christianized" bits of the wider culture, or bits of the earlier manifestations of American/Christian culture maintained out of inertia or fear of change. And Michael's concern throughout his essay is for evangelism - how do we speak across the divide between the culture of the Church and the culture of the world. And his main point is that one of the key assumptions of much evangelical effort - the famous "God-shaped vacuum" extolled by Augustine and Pascal - may not fully apply in our day and age...

One day, in a class discussion about a recent chapel message, Steve spoke his mind. I can’t quote him, but it was something very much like this:

“Why do Christians always say that you can’t be happy unless you are a Christian? It’s insulting to a person who isn’t a Christian to be told that they will never be happy without Christ. I’m not a Christian, and I am happy most of the time. I am happy with my friends and they things I enjoy doing. I don’t want or need Christianity to be happy.”

To quote the hanky-waving lady in the local African-American church….”Well……” So should we argue this point? “Steve, you just don’t know what happiness is. Trust me. You have no idea how happy I am compared to you.”...

What was meaningful to the young people interviewed was life, family, love, work, relationships and the enjoyment of this world. They were comfortably, happily attuned to this world. Spiritual tattoos aside, they had little thought of much beyond what their senses or experiences presented to them.

In other words, Augustine’s famous “God-shaped void” didn’t make its expected appearance in anything near the numbers expected.

This is the problem. The people Michael is profiling here don't see a need for the Christian faith. They are, as Ravi Zacharias puts it, "happy pagans".

The dilemma of the "happy pagan" is real. But how did these "happy pagans" appear in such numbers? I have two ideas on that.

1) The West is RICH. Though it doesn't get preached on much in the West these days, the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is chock full of warnings of the spiritual corrosiveness of wealth. As Michael so aptly puts it in the conclusion of his essay, we are physical beings. If our physical needs are met and exceeded, and our minds are entertained, we naturally have a sense of well-being. And we in the West are, in the vast majority, very well taken care of, and very well entertained. If we have what we want in this life, and we have no expectation of another, what need is there for God and the Cross? Trying to tell someone like this that Christianity will make him or her "happier" - especially if we tie the moral demands of the faith into the package that directly impact their cherished means of continued happiness - what is their motivation to cross over to our side?

What do we say in response to this? I don't claim to have a pat answer, but perhaps one opening is a consideration of the ephemeral nature of life's happiness, and the effect that overabundant wealth has in even a secular frame of reference. Civilizations more often fall from within than from without - and growing soft and secure through wealth and leisure is a surefire way to start and accelerate the process. The current state of affairs concerning the West vs radicalized Islam is a prime (albeit un-PC) example of this.

Of course, the ultimate Christian answer is that this life is NOT all there is - and that the next life is of the utmost importance as opposed to this one. Alas, here the second factor in the disappearance of the vacuum appears...

2) the West is POST-CHRISTIAN. Whatever concensus Christian thought may have held in the West - and even in Medieval times, it was still an amalgam of Christianity with Roman and Germanic cultural elements - the concensus has been lost. Our culture has been fed by four consecutive centuries of secularization, privatization, and in some cases outright denigration of religious belief. That cultural background is there in all of us, even in the most Bible-thumping Young-Earth-Creationist charismatic-non-cessationist Christian alive. The cultural tide is against outright appeals to the Age to Come - what Marx famously derided as the "opiate of the masses". Even if someone grants the necessity for faith in something, the sense is that "we tried Christianity, it didn't work, let's move on to something else". I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that the difference between evangelism in a pre- vs post-Christian society is the difference between wooing a virgin and wooing a hardened divorcee.

(Another thought struck me as I was composing this - where is the Church growing today? Where are the pagans being converted? In places of suffering. In places where the Church is persecuted. "The Blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." How much is the Church in the West suffering? Why should we expect great results if we are not? ... And do you find this train of thought as uncomfortable as I do?!?)

Scripture tells us that if there a God-shaped void, we will rarely see or encounter it in obvious ways. What we will see is a race numb and dead. A planet of people refusing to think about God or think about God except in idolatrous- self-serving- terms. A world of people who see no more relevance to the Gospel than to a thousand other things that make absolute no sense or have no claim upon a person at all.

This is, however much it may pain those like Michael and myself who are tired of the endless wranglings over Calvinism in evangelical blogdom, "total depravity". However much I may deplore the debates over the TULIP, the truth of the matter is that humanity is hostile to God. They always have been.

So, how do we reach them?

([A]re) we aware to the extent that we insist everything outside of our belief systems conform to our own thoughts, presuppositions, concepts and beliefs?

Well, to a certain extent I sympathize with those whom Michael is criticising. If there is any conviction to our faith, we *have* to believe that our "thoughts, presuppositions, concepts and beliefs" - especially regarging Christ and the Gospel - ARE TRUE. And that what Mohammed, Marcus Borg, and Dan Brown say is NOT TRUE. The real problem here, though, is *how* one apprehends that truth. And here Michael is spot on - most apologetics walk unbelievers through a scripted part, which in reality few are willing to play. I still read - and enjoy - Peter Kreeft's books of Socratic dialogues between his Christianized Socrates and all manner of unbelievers. But the unbelievers in Kreefts books are too logical, too willing to back down from their core beliefs when his Socrates shreds their arguments. Kreefts books are a stimulating intellectual fantasy, but a poor preparation for real-life discussion.

I am amazed at the hostility many of these same Christian friends have to the notion of having extended, equal and fair conversations with unbelievers. In affirming the necessity of a spiritual operation on the mind and heart of a person, and the importance of making Christ the central focus of saving faith, we are not told to do nothing but preach, and to preach only in the way, voice, content and forms that we are comfortable with. The call to be a witness or a missional communicator is an invitation to incarnation and Christlikeness in motive, method and message.

If we take seriously the unbelief of unbelievers, then we pray, share the Gospel and do so in a way that is completely incarnational. We do not make them into projects. We fully humanize the process of evangelism, and we take unbelief seriously.

I think what Michael is saying here that we should seek to build *friendships* with those whom we would witness to, and not try to get them to read the scripts in our evangelistic plays. We must walk a fine line between witness and compromise, a line that cannot be standardized for every believer and every situation...

For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (I Corinthians 9:16-23)

The burden of reaching out is on us, not the pagan. And the "reaching out" is not by compromising our worship or our beliefs - they are what makes us Christians. If we abandon our worship and our faith, what exactly are we calling people *to*? No, our outreach is with *ourselves*, as Christ reached out to us...

The God-shaped void is absolutely there. It is the HUMAN PERSON! But it is not a void…it is someone made in God’s image, a person loved by God; a person for whom Christ did all his mediating work. This person and their beliefs (or lack of beliefs) are not a threat to us. We do not need to manipulate or control them. We can allow them to have their life, their journey and their experiences. We do not need to demand anything of them for us to present/represent Christ to them.

Packaged presentations, timetables, competitions for most converts, bait-and-switch Gospel ploys, "seeker-sensitive worship" - if someone played these tricks on us Christians, would *we* feel honored? Would we be more attracted to what they were offering by these methods? The modern ideal of truth separated from incarnation - in reality a *Gnostic* ideal - must be set aside. If we want to talk to others about a God of love, *we* have to *love* them - and not just by handing them tracts.

Today’s young people are bored with God. They are not “seeking” God at all, but are living on the hardened surface of a fallen human experience, seeking to make sense of what is incomprehensible apart from Christ. We cannot “create” interest apart from the work of the Spirit. Our calling to be witnesses is not to approach the world like cattle to be herded, but as persons to be loved in the way God loves this fallen world through Jesus Christ. We live in a generation and time dead to God and alive to entertainment and a consumer mythology that promises and delivers meaning through stimulation and amusement.

Christ has become the servant and savior of such a world. We live in that world, fully human, fallen, redeemed, rescued, living and hoping in the new creation. How do we speak of these things? It’s a question we must keep answering fearlessly.

The T4G Statement

2006-05-07T07:58:00.000-07:00

The official version of the T4G statement is now online. The Tavern has been discussing the matter, and I recommend the points made by Joel and Phillip and Joel again about it. But I promised my two cents, and here they are...

Articles I-IV (Scripture & Truth)
Much of the content in these four articles is standard boilerplate (affirmations of inerrancy, repudiations of postmodernism and pragmatism, etc), but three issues in particular caught my attention.

Authority of Scripture – there appears to be a contradiction between Articles I and II regarding the role of Scripture as the Church’s authority. In Article I, the Bible is described as “the sole authority for the Church”, whereas in Article II it is “our ﬁnal authority for all doctrine and practice”. There is a BIG difference between sole and final, as any Reformed person would gladly tell you (especially in regards to the great Solas of the Reformed tradition). I know that the majority of the drafters of this document fall into the Baptist end of the ecclesiological spectrum, where the idea that only the Bible should have any constitutional authority is widely accepted. But Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Lutherans (and even some Baptists), while acknowledging Scripture as final authority (at least in theory), regularly use creedal documents to organize their theology, church life, and liturgy. Are they in error to do so? Is Scripture the “last court of appeal” (the final authority), or is it really the only valid authority (the sole)? An editorial faux pas like this is quite astonishing.

Truth and Scripture – the phrase where the signatories affirm “the ability of language to convey understandable truth in sentence form” caught my attention. I looked at the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy last fall, and one refrain that returned again and again in that document was the centrality of “propositional truth”. Is the use of the phrase “understandable truth in sentence form” a fall-back from hard propositionalism? After all, poems have sentences, do they not? And do they not convey meaning?

Expository preaching – The phase at the heart of Article IV is left undefined. What sort of “expository preaching” is vital? Word studies? Theological systematics? What is the role of “story” and redemptive history in preaching? Where does exposition about the Gospel depart from proclamation of the Gospel? (The two are NOT synonymous, unfortunately.)

Articles V-VII (The Godhead and the Incarnation)
Nothing in here caught my eye as being too far beyond the pale.

Articles VIII-XIII (Salvation and the Gospel)
Article VIII stood out in my eye (and to others) as a sore point. “(T)he Gospel is revealed to us in doctrines that most faithfully exalt God’s sovereign purpose to save sinners”. What exact “doctrines” are being discussed here? At this point, perhaps a working definition of “the Gospel” should have been given. We were told in Article VII that the life, substitutionary death, and resurrection of Christ are essential parts of the Gospel. We are also told in Article XII that justification by faith alone is also an essential part of the Gospel. But are these parts the whole? They seem to be telling us about the Gospel without really telling us what the Gospel really is. This confusion seems common in some Reformed circles – the assumption that discussion of parts equals presentation of the whole. If the situation in the Church is really as bad as the preamble would seem to indicate, perhaps giving us some basic definitions of the terms they are defending might have been useful?

Articles XIV- (the life of the Church)
The Lord’s Supper – Article XIV states that “the Lord’s Supper can(not) faithfully be administered apart from the right practice of church discipline.” Again, a major definition is left hanging in mid-air. Just what is meant by “right church discipline”? Based on my knowledge of at least one of the participants, I suspect that the presupposition lurking behind this statement is that only intra-congregational communion is acceptable. IOW, if you are a member of our congregation, we can theoretically tell if you are not living in a way as to endanger your participation in the Supper - but if you are a visitor professing faith in Christ, how can we tell? The merits of “open vs. closed communion” can and should be debated, but it would be good to know what is really meant by this denial, so that second-guessing is unnecessary.

Gender roles – this one has generated the most “heat” in online discussions, and I leave that debate to others. I’ll only say that I am sure that the Church in America is doing many things that is “damaging its witness to the Gospel” – I’m not at all sure that the question of womens’ ordination is the most pressing of these things, however…

As I noted in the Tavern last week, a much more thorough, balanced, and ecumenical treatment of the Gospel was done seven years ago, called The Gospel of Jesus Christ: an Evangelical Celebration. I think it is by far the worthier and more weighty document, and deserves far greater attention that it has received up to this point.

The Pound Re-Opens

2006-05-01T00:02:00.000-07:00

(Blows dust off of the Blogger template and looks around)

Getting re-adjusted to life back home took up a lot of my time - in addition to spotty internet connections, and sheer inertia. But recent stirrings on the Internet have given me an opportunity to reassert myself for... well, I don't know if there's any audience left, but that's probably for the best as I meant this mostly as an online diary for myself anyways.

I haven't kept up with the Christian conference circuit for quite a few years now, but evidently a high-profile one just wrapped up called Together for the Gospel, featuring a lineup of evangelical luminaries such as Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, C.J. Mahaney, and Al Mohler. One of the results of this latest conference is a confessional statement called "The Together For The Gospel Statement" (initial online versions are here and here, but evidently the conference website is going to issue an "authorized version" quite soon). The Tavern has been chatting the document (and the conference) up, and looking the statement over I was interested in jotting down what I thought of it. I was just going to do this on my own computer, but Adrian Warnock has put out a call for bloggers to join him in a systematic analysis of the document once the official version is online. So, I once again take up my ethereal pen and put down my thoughts for no one in particular. ;-}

It's Been a Long Time...

2006-02-05T05:33:00.000-08:00

Over a month, by my estimation. It's been a busy one at that, and not all good. Moving, getting sick, moving again, starting at work, starting at church...

Anyways, Peter, I'm sorry I missed your meme. My bad. Anyways, send me an e-mail and let's get RE:Union back on track.

On a more theological note, at one point in the last month I was counseled by my pastor to jump-start my prayer schedule again. He recommended finding a quiet, worshipful place to pray. He actually recommended the Basilica of the National Shrine to the Immaculate Conception. I've visited it a few times, and here is my observation of it.

1) Architectually, it is mindblowing. It was really brought home to me how much evangelicals have abandoned the use of art and architecture in our churches.

2) Mary is quite the center of attention. Well, I suppose that's hardly a surprise. I wouldn't feel comfortable praying in all the chapels there because of this - in fact, there's only one I really use, the Byzantine Chapel. I am not on the pro-Marian bandwagon to the same extent Paul Owen is, and I don't see myself ever doing so. But walking out of the Basilica after my first prayer time there, and considering the way Mary was venerated (as I believe, wrongly), I had to ask myself, "Is this really so different in God's eyes from the way we evangelicals venerate the USA in *our* worship?"

Is it, really?

3) They have a kick-butt bookstore there. I'd probably appreciate it more if I were a Roman Catholic, but I have been able to add some hard-to-find Chesterton books to my collection because of this store.

On My Way Home

2005-12-17T06:22:00.000-08:00

"One stage of your journey is ended - another begins." Gandalf, The Two Towers

It's been a busy two weeks at school, what with final assignments and packing and what not. Today, my dad and I start the long drive home. Prayers for our protection would be appreciated.

Lord willing, I'll be back home for Christmas - and back at this blog.

Musings on the CSBI Part IV

2005-12-07T07:29:00.000-08:00

Part III of the CSBI is laid out in articles of affirmation and denial. I am going to focus on those articles I would like to see clarified or reconsidered.

Article V

We affirm that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article XVIII

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads or relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims of authorship.

Here we get into those "hermeneutical" issues that Peter keeps bringing up. ;-} The relation of the Old Testament to the New - the question of the applicability of the Mosaic Law to the Church and the present world - is a hermeneutical question of the highest import. If we are no longer to stone Sabbath breakers, use bitter waters to decide cases of adultery, or not eat pork, have not those commandments been "corrected" and "contradicted"?

"Grammatico-historical" exegesis of Hosea 11:1 alone yield the exegesis of it that Matthew used? The exegesis of the Old Testament by the New is usually *typological*, not grammatico-historical. I do not want to see GH exegesis disposed of, but used in conjunction with the NT pattern of OT exegesis. This, BTW, would also have the advantage of taking care of a lot of dispensational excesses. ;-}

The question of how to read the OT comes down to whether or not we read the Bible Christologically. I would like that to have been made more explicit here.

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of metrical, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

The whole question of what standard of truth is being used as the canon of inerrancy is again raised. Here they qualify what does *not* qualify - modern technical precision, exact quotations, etc. So what *does* qualify?

This question also impacts the article on creation and the flood. And again, the hermeneutical angle is prominent. How are we to interpret these chapters of Genesis? Does observation of creation today have any valid place in that interpretation?

Article XVI

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

The affirmation of the truthfulness and inspired nature of Scripture *has* been the concensus of the Church throughout its history. But the nature and intensity of the inerrancy debate in the past 100 years, I think, *does* have some bearing on the dual rise of scholasticism and liberalism - both being sides of the same Enlightenment coin. The framework of Enlightenment thinking was tailor-made to spark this debate, and fed both sides of it.

What Is the Bible, Anyways?

2005-12-01T12:19:00.000-08:00

Fellow tipster Jim at the Tavern asks some very good questions about the Bible.

What saves? What sanctifies? Is it the paper? The binding? The leather cover? The words on the page? The page numbers? The cross references? The running commentary by Saint Scofield? Further, is it the whole BIble that saves me, or just particular verses? Are some verses more salvific than others? Are people who memorize more scripture than me more sanctified? Is there a minimal subset of the Bible needed to save people? Is that why we print and hand out the Gospel of John? Can you be saved by the RSV? The NIV? The Jerusalem Bible? The KJV? Do we have to be able to read the original languages?

Someone will come back with, "we're talking about the content of the Bible, not the physical book." But then, I ask, where is the content? what is the content? What are we talking about? The ideas that the bible conveyed in the Bible certainly are ideas about how salvation and sanctification are accomplished, but are we saved by the ideas? It seems to me that runs up against the problem of mental competence; we're back to being saved by subscribing to a set of principles, rather than being saved by (Christ).

Making such propositional statements about something that's understood by faith is problematic. It seems more than a little silly to me, and I suspect it might be the source of grave errors.

Musings on the CSBI Part II

2005-12-01T06:36:00.000-08:00

Continuing my series on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, I now turn to the Summary Statement.

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

I do like the Christocentrism of this first clause. The centrality of Christ to understanding the Bible is the critical issue - something Our Lord Himself taught.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

It would be nice if they offered a definition of "infallible" up front, rather than assuming it. And the Scriptures "require" a lot of things - the OT law is a prime example, are Christians bound to any or all of *its* "requirements"? A blanket statement like #2 here makes cannot be made, without some hermeneutical qualifications.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

A biblical truism (II Cor. 3; I Cor. 2). But as Paul Hazelden points out in his commentary on the CSBI, "I have had far too many nutters telling me they know something is true because the Holy Spirit gives them an 'inward witness' to its truth." I think the use of the plural here in this clause is the key - the Spirit works in and through the Church in all ages, and we ought to weigh our insights with theirs, especially in the core matters of the Faith (Trinity, Christ, the Cross). We do best if we do not read the Bible in a vacuum, by ourselves.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

Wholly and verbally? I don't think this is supportable even by Scripture itself. As the author of Hebrews says, God spoke to the prophets in many and diverse ways (Heb 1:1-2). Did God dictate the Psalms to David? There are certainly places where God dictated His word out - Sinai being a prime example. But that is not the only paradigm to understand where Scripture came from.

And again, the question of hermeneutics comes in. I will grant that God does not tell us lies about His works. He created the world, it did not arise spontaneously out of nothing. But what exactly *does* Scripture tell us about God's acts in creation? Ask Henry Morris, and Hugh Ross, and you'll get two diametrically opposed answers. Hermeneutics again raises its ugly head. The assumption of some sort of blanket perspecuity seems to be lurking in the background of this clause, and I think this will come back to the fore again as this goes on.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Ah, the dialectic of "either/or". Either "total divine inerrancy" (and again, inerrancy is not yet defined here), or "(t)he authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired". I'm familiar with this sort of thinking. I used to engage in it myself. Everything is black and white, logical, and if something is not totally one thing it is totally another.

Note the clause about "the Bible's view of truth". Again, a key part of the arguemt is left undefined. What *is* the Bible's view of truth? Cartesian rationalism? Correspondence Theory? Coherence Theory? Propositionalism? I don't think any of these categories completely contains the Biblical revelation.

We are into deep waters here. I am not convinced it is meaningful to talk about a 'view of truth contrary to the Bible's own' because it is at least possible that the Bible contains a number of views of truth. - Paul Hazelden, A Response to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

What I take away from this is that there are a lot of assumptions below the surface in this document that need critical attention.

Musings on the CSBI Part I

2005-11-30T07:46:00.000-08:00

Discussion at the Tavern and at Jesus Creed has turned to the question of Biblical authority and inerrancy. Given the questions being asked about the presuppositions of "inerrancy" and "hermeneutics", and my own changing point of view regarding the interrelation of rationality and community, I thought it best to go to the source and see where I may still agree or disagree with it.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Here, I will just deal with the Preface.

Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority. The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word that marks true Christian faith

Not to deny the importance of recognizing the truth of Scripture, but I now think this is a bit hyperbolic. I detect a trace of foundationalism here - you cannot grasp and confess the Biblical authority without the foundation of an acceptance of its full truth. As for the part about "denying inerrancy = setting aside Christ's witness", that too is hyperbolic. Again, I am not denying the truthfulness of Scripture, but to place a recognition of that truth - especially as defined in inerrancy - on par with the Gospel is to make a secondary issue on par with the primary. I often sense the same mistake in Calvinist arguments about TULIP - "to deny TULIP is to deny the Gospel". I no longer buy that argument, because I no longer see the Gopsel as only a matter of theological propositions.

We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight.

Well, well, well. ;-}

We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.

So, who's to say the "sin" of denying inerrancy worse than the "sin" of being uncharitable in debate?

We invite response to this Statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help that enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.

I don't know how much of a response this actually got, but I know I intend to take them up on this offer.

How to Debate on the Internet

2005-11-29T17:16:00.000-08:00

I have just been reminded of why Dilbert is one of my all-time favorite comics. I hope Dogbert doesn't revoke my DNRC membership for reposting this list here, but it's too good to pass up.

1. Turn someone’s generality into an absolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Americans celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Americans celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)

2. Turn someone’s factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.

3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn’t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

4. Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can’t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can’t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people CAN eat pebbles if they try hard enough.

5. Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.

6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

7. Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

(HT to Amy Witt as overheard at the Tavern)

A Belated Apology

2005-11-28T08:42:00.000-08:00

(I’m cross posting this here and at the BHT)

Well, now it’s *my* turn to do a “confessional blogpost”.

Several years ago, I got into a very heated argument with a friend of mine. At the time I was planning on dropping my (admittedly “student” level) membership in the Evangelical Theological Society, over their refusal to excommunicate Clark Pinnock for his Open Theism views. (I eventually did drop my membership, for that and other reasons.) That was only the incidental start of the argument. The point of it was that I was primarily depending on what other people in the Reformed camp had written about Pinnock’s views to reach my conclusions.

“You can’t do that!” my friend said. “You have to read what he wrote himself to draw those kinds of conclusions!” My reply was, “Look, smart and godly men who share my theology have already done that, and come to such and such conclusions. I can trust them! Why should I waste my time reinventing the wheel?!?” Neither of us ended up convining the other on that day, and I just walked away mad – and with a gnawing feeling in my gut that she just may have been right. Fortunately, feelings can be squashed for the sake of preserving one’s arguments...

And my argument sounds reasonable on the surface, does it not? I mean, after all, who has the time to read every single word that every theologian and pastor has written? And what do we have denominational theologians for, if not to examine these things by the light of Scripture (and our confessions), and draw conclusions for us? If we can’t trust the guys on our own team, who can we trust?

Well, I have come around to reconsidering this whole thing. Especially in the light of several recent incidents.

I have been shifting towards a view of the Church and its mission that dovetails with the movement identified as “the Emergent Church”. Now, I will be the first to admit that there are problems, especially with its most public and prolific spokesman, Brian McLaren. But the poor level of interaction between the Emergent movement and some theologians – men who I generally agreed with, people I trusted – astonished me. The more serious critiques and essays proffered by Emergents – fine examples can be found here and here – are barely noticed. McLaren is made out as representing what *everybody* in the Emergent movement thinks – and even his works are often taken out of context.

Then, there was the Dooyeweerd Affair. A discussion on the BHT about this article by James Jordan brought up the role Dooyeweerd played in Calvinist thought. Now, I had been taught – by people who generally agreed with me theologically, people I trusted – that Dooyeweerd was a theonomist, a first kissing-cousin to Rushdoony and “Scary Gary” North, and therefore was problematic. I stated as such, publicly and vehemently – and got chewed out for it. I couldn’t reconcile why these people I was interacting with, of all people, would defend a *theonomist*! It never occurred to me until far, far, into the argument, that what I had been told about Dooyeweerd was wrong. But lately, I have been reading James Smith’s book Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, which includes a running commentary by Smith on the relation between RO and Dutch Calvinism, focusing on Dooyeweerd. And the Dooyeweerd I’m reading about in Smith’s book bears as much relation to the Dooyeweerd I was told about, as Demi Moore’s Hester Prynne does to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s. I was sadly misinformed.

Lastly, my own rethinking of how "reason" is used by people, even in the Church, has forced me to recognize that even people who agree with me, people who are Christians, can be mistaken, can utilize bad arguments to defend pet positions. Heck, I’ve done it myself on far too many occasions. And it is therefore very dangerous to let someone else do all your thinking for you.

So, to everyone involved at the BHT regarding the Dooyeweerd mess, I apologize. I was wrong.

To my friend, I apologize. I was wrong.

To those whose works I misused, I apologize too. I was wrong. I should not have used you as a shield to cover my own intellectual sloth.

And to Dooyeweerd and Barth, I apologize. I should not have totally pre-judged you on the basis of what others told me.

And now, I have some work to do. In the Twilight of Western Thought and Church Dogmatics just got bumped up on my reading list...

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN

2005-11-25T07:25:00.000-08:00

Daniel 5:25-28 -

"And this is the writing that was inscribed: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin. This is the interpretation of the matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; Tekel, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; Peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”

The ongoing war between the constellation of independent Calvinist Baptist blogs and the constellation of blogs I slum around in has flared up of late. I have wondered at the invective maintained in this fight, and where it comes from.

From my own limited observations, there are four main targets of these "TR" types:

1) "Confessional bloggers" - those who have the courage to tell of the dark side of Christian experience - the sins, the doubts, the struggles of faith and ministry. But for some, this smacks of mental instability.

2) "Auburn Avenue/New Perspective on Paul" - those who seek to re-evaluate the traditional Reformed understandings of Covenant, and apply these re-evaluations in other areas of theology (like soteriology). The question of whether they are right or not is one thing - but for some, this conversation should not even be happening. "Luther/Calvin said it, I believe it, that settles it."

3) "Reformed Catholicism" - those who seek to have a dialogue with historic (c)atholic theology (the theology of the Church in all ages and branches) and perhaps, dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox as well. But for some, we evidently have nothing to learn from them, and they all have to become like us, or else.

4) "the Emergent Church" - those who would have the praxis of the Church match up with the calling of her Master, especially in areas where modernity has blinded us to our failures. But for some, this is simply atheological liberalism.

All four of these categories are open to criticism. It is possible for confessionalism to go too far. The AA/NPP has its good points and bad. I am a Protestant, self-consciously and comfortably, and therefore not Catholic or Orthodox. And Brian McLaren does have a habit of going to far on many points. But I do wonder at the innate and almost unthinking hostility and rejection of all these categories, in toto, by the "TR" types. What gives?

I think one good reason is that all four of these categories start with a rejection of the centrality of the particulars of Reformed Theology (at least as they are envisioned by the critics) for the Christian life. For the confessionalists, they have the indecency to point out that believing in all the right theology does not mean life doesn't suck. The AA/NPP wants to re-examine these categories in light of history and biblical theology. The reformed catholics want to re-emphasize the commonalities of all Christians rather than the distinctives. And the Emergents are demanding that the Church start *acting* like the church - especially in the pocketbook.

But, if you have built your entire understanding of the Christian life on propositional theology, on what makes you distinctive, and RIGHT, as opposed to all the benighted quasi-heretics in the impure churches outside yours, this is a great threat. Anything that threatens the primacy of your theological system must be confronted, refuted, insulted, shouted down into silence.

All these guys have is their theology. They don't have the sacraments. They don't have a connection to the wider Body of Christ. They don't have a vital tradition of their own. They don't anything but their theology, and how they think that theology should effect people. And anything that doesn't fit that box is a danger to them.

James Jordan has come out and said that this branch of the Church is dying.

Philip Jenkins has documented the continuing global shift of vital Chrisianity from the West to the South.

As far as I am concerned, these self-appointed "guardians of the faith" are fighting to guard a dying cause. The handwriting is on the wall, for those who can read it. God will build His Church - the particular stones of dogmantic (r)eformed Presbyterians and independent (c)alvinist Baptists are not vital to His project.

The Shadow Lifts

2005-11-24T16:12:00.000-08:00

'A great Shadow has departed,' said Gandalf, and then he laughed, and the sound was like music, or like water in a parched land... - The Return of the King, The Field of Cormallen

My rough draft just got back from my professor, and things are looking very good. A great weight has lifted from my heart. A few more details to patch up, and I'll be on my way home again, at last.

Thanks be to God.

Trudging Towards Mount Doom

2005-11-19T06:42:00.000-08:00

The Lord of the Rings: an allegory of the PhD?

The last and darkest period of Frodo's journey clearly represents the writing-up stage, as he struggles towards Mount Doom (submission), finding his burden growing heavier and heavier yet more and more a part of himself; more and more terrified of failure;

I'm writing my thesis right now. I hate it. I'm having nightmares about it. The rough draft is due next Wednesday, and I hate it.

If anybody still reads this thing, say a prayer for me.

FWIW...

2005-11-14T16:49:00.000-08:00

It fits, I guess...

Numenorean

To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla

(HT to Cacoethes Scribendi)

Casuality of War

2005-11-13T12:53:00.000-08:00

Mike at Eternal Perspectivs is hanging up his pen.

I can empathize with his sentiments. There have been times when I have stirred up controversy and fights on the Internet - sometimes inadvertently, sometimes on purpose. One of my close friends has been pestering me for years to let go of doing theology on the Internet entirely. He's a sociologist, and his point of view is that the inherent limitations of doing theology on the Internet outweigh the advantages. It's too easy to be misunderstood, it's too tempting for "trolls" and would-be Inquisitors to do their thing, and the profound depths of face-to-face communication - so important in dealing with theology and the imago Dei - are simply not possible. I've always had this nagging suspicion that he's right. But being alone out here in California, this has been my only outlet for it. And I've needed this "online diary" of sorts to keep track of my thoughts as my mind has been changing.

Unlike some, I have no aspirations that this blog is going to "change the world". I'm frankly amazed that other people read it on occasion. But it is here, nonetheless. And I think I will keep at it for awhile longer yet. But I do understand why Mike left, and there is always the possibility that, in the future, I may go the same route.

Reply to Paul Owen

2005-11-10T09:45:00.000-08:00

Before I get too swamped with writing my grad thesis, I want to take the time to reply to Paul Owen's clarififcation on his stance on the Atonement, and thank him for taking the time to read this obscure blog of mine.

He says...

I do not believe (propitiation) to be consistent with eternal election and limited atonement. God’s election of sinners indicates an already present love for them, and a willingness to forgive them. The death of Jesus therefore cannot be understood as causing or effecting God’s benevolent disposition towards them by appeasing his wrath. Christ’s death does not cause God to be willing to forgive those whom he has already determined in his decree to forgive. That makes no sense. It is those who hold to universal atonement who consistently believe that the purpose of Christ’s death was simply to secure a willingness on the part of God to forgive (if they accept the benefits of that atonement).

As far as my own understanding of the theology of the atonement is concerned, the propitiation of Christ did not *create* the love of God for the sinner - it was the *result* of that love. The eternally determined love of God for His people motivated the Son to sacrifice Himself for their sins, so that the justice of God could be satisfied. It was God's justice that required punishment - it was His love that determined that His Son should suffer it on our behalf.

The expiation model which I hold to does agree that Christ’s death delivers us from destruction. But the logic is different. Christ’s death is not designed to satisfy the offended honor of God, nor his punitive justice. The eternal punishment of the unrepentant will do that.

For the sins of those unrepentant, yes. But what about *my* sins? As I understand the nature of sin and judgment, it is not an abstract notion, but the requirement of *every man and woman* that they answer to God for what they have done. How can God be satisfied that *my* sins have been punished, simply because John Doe is in hell?

The penal substitution model sees the wrath of God being poured out on Jesus so as to satisfy the demand for a just punishment of the pardoned sinner. Inevitably, in effect, this takes the emphasis off of the physical death of Jesus, and places it upon some supposed outpouring of God’s anger upon Christ on the cross as the unfortunate substitute.

I don't know who Paul has been reading on this, but again, for myself I see no separation possible between the physical death of Jesus and His suffering on my behalf. It was an integral part of His penal substitution. Simply suffering on the Cross wasn'e enough - He had to *die*. For Death is the ultimate punishment for sin.

The expiation model sees God as willing to pardon our sin (Rom. 5:8); but our stain must be removed for us to be pardoned.

I think this is a key point of contention. I see no separation between sin and "stain". The act of sin is a stain. Our corrupt nature is a stain. God cannot ignore either.

Now, sadly, back to that miserable thesis...

A Third Trumpet from the South

2005-11-01T10:38:00.000-08:00

This statement was released from a meeting of major Anglican primates from the Global South this weekend. The Archbishop of Rwanda, Emmanuel Kolini, and three representatives of the AMiA (of which my home congregation is a member) were present. Here's a glimpse of what we Western Christians look like from the outside...

==============

The Third Anglican Global South to South Encounter Communique

A Third Trumpet from the South

TRUMPET III

The Third Anglican Global South to South Encounter

Red Sea (Egypt), 25-30 October 2005

The Third Anglican South-to-South Encounter has graphically demonstrated the coming of age of the Church of the Global South. We are poignantly aware that we must be faithful to God's vision of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We do not glory in our strengths but in God's strength. We do not shrink from our responsibility as God's people because of our weaknesses but we trust God to demonstrate His power through our weakness. We thank God for moving us forward to serve Him in such a time as this.

A. Preamble

1. A total of 103 delegates of 20 provinces in the Global South (comprising Africa, South and South East Asia, West Indies and South America), representing approximately two-thirds of the Anglican Communion, met for the 3rd Global South to South Encounter from 25-30 October 2005 at Ain El-Sukhna by the Red Sea in Egypt. The theme of the Encounter was "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: Being A Faithful Church For Such A Time As This".

2. We deeply appreciated the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time he spent with us, his listening ear and encouraging words. We took to heart his insight that the four marks of the Church are not attributes we possess as our own right, nor goals to attain by human endeavour, but they are expressed in us as we deeply focus on Jesus Christ, who is the Source of them all (John 17:17-21).

3. We were really warmed by the welcome that we received here by the President, the government and the people of Egypt. We valued the great efforts made by the state security personnel who are making the land of Egypt a secure and safe place to all her visitors. We were touched by the warm hospitality of the Diocese of Egypt.

4. We have witnessed in Egypt a wonderful model for warm relations between Christians and Muslims. We admire the constructive dialogue that is happening between the two faiths. We appreciated the attendance of the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Dr Mohammed Said Tantawi, the representative of Pope Shenouda III and other religious leaders at the State Reception to launch our Encounter. We were encouraged by their wise contributions.

B. We Gathered

5. We gathered to seek the face of God, to hear His Word afresh and to be renewed by His Spirit for total obedience to Christ who is Lord of the Church. That is why the gathering was called an "Encounter" rather than a conference. The vital question we addressed was: What does it mean to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church in the midst of all the challenges facing the world and the Church?

6. The world of the Global South is riddled with the pain of political conflict, tribal warfare and bloodshed. The moral and ethical foundations of several of our societies are being shaken. Many of our nations are beset by problems of poverty, ignorance and sickness, particularly the HIV and AIDS that threaten millions, especially in Africa. In addition to that, thousands of people have suffered from severe drought in Africa, earthquakes in South Asia, and hurricanes in the Americas - we offer our support and prayers to them.

7. Apart from the world condition, our own Anglican Communion sadly continues to be weakened by unchecked revisionist teaching and practices which undermine the divine authority of the Holy Scripture. The Anglican Communion is severely wounded by the witness of errant principles of faith and practice which in many parts of our Communion have adversely affected our efforts to take the Gospel to those in need of God's redeeming and saving love.

8. Notwithstanding these difficult circumstances, several parts of our Communion in the Global South are witnessing the transforming power of the Gospel and the growth of the Church. The urgency of reaching vast multitudes in our nations for Christ is pressing at our door and the fields are ready for harvest.

9. Surrounded by these challenges and seeking to discover afresh our identity we decided to dig deeper into God's Word and into the tradition of the Church to learn how to be faithful to God's gift and call to be His one, holy, catholic and apostolic people. We deliberately chose to meet in Egypt for two reasons:

a. Biblically, Egypt features prominently in the formative period of the calling of God's people (Exodus 19). Moreover, Egypt was part of the cradle that bore the entry of the Savior into the world (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:13-15).

b. Meeting by the Red Sea, we could not help but be inspired by the historic crossing of God's people into the realm where He purposed to make them a "light to the nations" (Isaiah 42:6). Part of that blessing was fulfilled when Alexandria became a center of early Christianity, where church fathers formulated and held on to the Christian faith through the early centuries.

C. We Discovered Afresh

10. We discovered afresh the depth and richness of our roots in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Carefully researched papers were presented at the Encounter in the context of worship, prayer, Bible Study and mutual sharing. We recognize the dynamic way in which the four marks of the Church are inextricably interwoven. The salient truths we encountered inspired us and provided a basis for knowing what God requires of us.

The Church is One

11. The Church is called to be one. Our unity is willed by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who prayed that we "all might be one." (John 17:20-21) A great deal of confusion has arisen out of misunderstanding that prayer and the concept of unity. For centuries, the Church has found unity in the Person and teaching of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Scripture. We are one in Him, and that binds us together. The foundation and expression of our unity is found in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

12. While our unity may be expressed in institutional life, our unity is grounded in our living relationship with the Christ of Scripture. Unity is ever so much more than sharing institutionally. When we are "in Christ," we find that we are in fellowship with others who are also in Him. The fruit of that unity is that we faithfully manifest the life and love of Christ to a hurting and groaning world (Romans 8:18-22).

13. Christian unity is premised on truth and expressed in love. Both truth and love compel us to guard the Gospel and stand on the supreme authority of the whole Word of God. The boundary of family identity ends within the boundary of the authentic Word of God.

The Church is Holy

14. The Church of Jesus Christ is called to be holy. All Christians are to participate in the sanctification of their lives through submission, obedience and cooperation with the Holy Spirit. Through repentance the Church can regain her rightful position of being holy before God. We believe concurrently that holiness is imparted to us through the life, ministry, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 10:21-23). He shares His holiness with us and invites us to be conformed to His likeness.

15. A holy Church is prepared to be a "martyr" Church. Witness unto death is how the Early Church articulated holiness in its fullest sense (Acts 22:20; Rev 2:13, 12:11).

The Church is Catholic

16. The Catholic faith is the universal faith that was "once for all" entrusted to the apostles and handed down subsequently from generation to generation (Jude 3). Therefore every proposed innovation must be measured against the plumb line of Scripture and the historic teaching of the Church.

17. Catholicity carries with it the notion of completeness and wholeness. Thus in the church catholic "when one part suffers, every part suffers with it" (1 Cor 12:26). The local church expresses its catholicity by its devotion to apostolic teaching, its attention to prayer and the sacrament, its warm and caring fellowship and its growth through evangelism and mission (Acts 2:42-47).

The Church is Apostolic

18. The Church is apostolic in its doctrine and teaching. The apostolic interpretation of God's salvation plan effected in Christ Jesus is binding on the Church. God established the Church on the "foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone" (Eph 2:20).

19. The Church is apostolic in its mission and service. "As the Father has sent Me, so I send you." (John 20:21) In each generation He calls bishops in apostolic succession (Eph 4:11-12) to lead the Church out into mission, to teach the truth and to defend the faith. Accountability to God, to those God places over us and to the flock is an integral part of church leadership.

D. We Commit

20. As a result of our Encounter, we emerge with a clearer vision of what the Church is called to be and to do, with a renewed strength to pursue that vision. Specifically, we made commitments in the following areas.

The Authority of the Word of God

21. Scripture demands, and Christian history has traditionally held, that the standard of life, belief, doctrine, and conduct is the Holy Scripture. To depart from apostolic teaching is to tamper with the foundation and to undermine the basis of our unity in Christ. We express full confidence in the supremacy and clarity of Scripture, and pledge full obedience to the whole counsel of God's Word.

22. We in the Global South endorse the concept of an Anglican Covenant (rooted in the Windsor Report) and commit ourselves as full partners in the process of its formulation. We are seeking a Covenant that is rooted in historic faith and formularies, and that provides a biblical foundation for our life, ministry and mission as a Communion. It is envisaged that once the Covenant is approved by the Communion, provinces that enter into the Covenant shall be mutually accountable, thereby providing an authentic fellowship within the Communion.

23. Anglicans of the Global South have discovered a vibrant spiritual life based on Scripture and empowered by the Spirit that is transforming cultures and communities in many of our provinces. It is to this life that we seek to be formed and found fully faithful. We reject the expectation that our lives in Christ should conform to the misguided theological, cultural and sociological norms associated with sections of the West.

Mission and Ministry

24. Churches in the Global South commit to pursue networking with one another to add strength to our mission and ministry. We will continue to explore appropriate structures to facilitate and support this.

25. Shared theological foundations are crucial to authentic fellowship and partnership in mission and ministry. In that light, we welcome the initiative to form the Council of Anglican Provinces of the Americas and the Caribbean (CAPAC). It is envisaged that CAPAC will not only provide a foundation on the historic formularies of Anglican faith but also provide a structure with which member churches can carry out formal ministry partnerships with confidence.

26. Global South is committed to provide our recognition, energy, prayers and experience to the Networks in the USA and Canada, the Convocation of Nigerian Anglicans in the USA, those who make Common Cause and the Missionary District that is gathering congregations that circumstances have pressed out of ECUSA. We are heartened by the bold witness of their people. We are grateful that the Archbishop of Canterbury publicly recognized the Anglican Communion Network in the USA and the Anglican Network in Canada as faithful members of the Anglican Communion.

27. As for the other provinces and dioceses around the world who remain steadfastly committed to this faith, we look forward to further opportunities to partner with them in the propagation of the Gospel. We will also support those orthodox dioceses and congregations which are under difficult circumstances because of their faithfulness to the Word. We appreciate the recent action of the Primate of the Southern Cone who acted to stabilize the volatile situation in Recife, Brazil.

In this regard, we take this opportunity to acknowledge the immense contribution of the Primate of South East Asia to the development of the Global South and to the preservation of orthodoxy across the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Theological Education

28. In order to provide teaching that preserves the faith and fits our context, it is crucial to update the curricula of our theological institutions in the Global South to reflect our theological perspective and mission priorities. We note from the All Africa Bishops Conference their concern that far too many Western theological education institutions have become compromised and are no longer suitable for training leaders for our provinces. We call for the re-alignment of our priorities in such a way as to hasten the full establishment of adequate theological education institutions across the Global South so that our leaders can be appropriately trained and equipped in our own context. We aim to develop our leaders in biblical and theological training, and seek to nurture indigenous theologians. We will provide information on institutions in the Global South, and we will encourage these institutions to explore ways to provide bursaries and scholarships.

The Current Crisis provoked by North American Intransigence

29. The unscriptural innovations of North American and some western provinces on issues of human sexuality undermine the basic message of redemption and the power of the Cross to transform lives. These departures are a symptom of a deeper problem, which is the diminution of the authority of Holy Scripture. The leaders of these provinces disregard the plain teaching of Scripture and reject the traditional interpretation of tenets in the historical Creeds.

30. This Encounter endorses the perspectives on communion life found in sections A & B of the Windsor Report, and encourages all Provinces to comply with the request from the Primates' Communiqué in February 2005 which states:

"We therefore request all provinces to consider whether they are willing to be committed to the inter-dependent life of the Anglican Communion understood in the terms set out in these sections of the report."

31. The Windsor Report rightly points out that the path to restoring order requires that either the innovating provinces/dioceses conform to historic teaching, or the offending provinces will by their actions be choosing to walk apart. Paragraph 12 of the Primates Communiqué says:

"Whilst there remains a very real question about whether the North American churches are willing to accept the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion, the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely hindered."

32. Regrettably, even at the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in Nottingham in 2005, we see no evidence that both ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada are willing to accept the generally accepted teaching, nor is there evidence that they are willing to turn back from their innovations.

33. Further, the struggles of the Communion have only been exacerbated by the lack of concrete progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Windsor Report. The slow and inadequate response of the Panel of Reference has trivialized the solemn charge from the Primates and has allowed disorder to multiply unnecessarily. We recognize with regret the growing evidence that the Provinces which have taken action creating the current crisis in the Communion continue moving in a direction that will result in their "walking apart." We call for urgent and serious implementation of the recommendations of the Windsor Report. Unscriptural and unilateral decisions, especially on moral issues, tear the fabric of our Communion and require appropriate discipline at every level to maintain our unity. While the Global South calls for the errant provinces to be disciplined, we will continue to pray for all who embrace these erroneous teachings that they will be led to repentance and restoration.

Spiritual Leadership

34. Our on-going participation in ministry and mission requires godly and able spiritual leadership at all times. We are encouraged that many inspirational leaders in our midst bear witness to the Scriptures and are effectively bringing the Gospel to surrounding cultures. We commit ourselves to identify the next generation of leaders and will seek to equip and deploy them wherever they are needed.

35. We need inspirational leaders and accountability structures. These mechanisms which we are looking into must ensure that leaders are accountable to God, to those over us in the Lord, to the flock and to one another in accordance to the Scriptures. This last aspect is in keeping with the principle of bishops and leaders acting in council. In this way, leaders become the role models that are so needed for the flock.

Youth

36. The Global South emphasizes the involvement and development of youth in the life of the Church. The youth delegates encouraged the whole gathering by the following collective statement during the Encounter:

"Many youths in the Global South are taking up the challenge of living in moral purity in the face of the rising influence of immoral values and practice, and the widening epidemic of HIV and AIDS. Young people will be ready to give their lives to the ministry of the Church if she gives them exemplary spiritual leadership and a purpose to live for. Please pray that we will continue to be faithful as the Church of 'today and tomorrow'. It is also our heart's cry that the Communion will remain faithful to the Gospel."

Poverty

37. As the church catholic we share a common concern for the universal problem of debt and poverty. The inequity that exists between the rich and the poor widens as vast sums borrowed by previous governments were not used for the intended purposes. Requiring succeeding generations of people who never benefited from the loans and resources to repay them will impose a crushing and likely insurmountable burden. We welcome and appreciate the international efforts of debt reduction and cancellation, for example, the steps recently carried out by G8 leaders.

38. A dimension of responsible stewardship and accountability is the clear call to be financially self-sustaining. We commend the new initiative for financial self-sufficiency and development being studied by the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA). This is not only necessary because of the demands of human dignity; it is the only way to have sustainable economic stability.

HIV and AIDS

39. A holy Church combines purity and compassion in its witness and service. The population of the world is under assault by the HIV and AIDS pandemic, but the people of much of the Global South are hit particularly hard because of poverty, lifestyle habits, lack of teaching and the paucity of appropriate medication. Inspired by the significant success of the Church in Uganda in tackling HIV and AIDS, all our provinces commit to learn and apply similar intentional programmes which emphasize abstinence and faithfulness in marriage. We call on governments to ensure that they are providing adequate medication and treatment for those infected.

Corruption

40. The holy Church will "show forth fruits that befit repentance" (Matt 3:8). Many of us live in regions that have been deeply wounded by corruption. Not only do we have a responsibility to live transparent lives of utmost honesty in the Church, we are called to challenge the culture in which we live (Micah 6:8). Corruption consumes the soul of society and must be challenged at all costs. Transparency and accountability are key elements that we must manifest in bearing witness to the cultures in which we live.

Violent Conflict

41. Many of us from across the Global South live juxtaposed with violent conflict, most egregiously manifest in violence against innocents. In spite of the fact that the conflicts which grip many of our provinces have resulted in many lives being lost, we are not defeated. We find hope in the midst of our pain and inspiration from the martyrs who have shed their blood. Their sacrifice calls us to faithfulness. Their witness provokes us to pursue holiness. We commit ourselves to grow to become faithful witnesses who "do not love their lives even unto death" (Rev 12:11).

E. We Press On

42. We emerge from the Encounter strengthened to uphold the supreme authority of the Word of God and the doctrinal formularies that have undergirded the Anglican Communion for over four and a half centuries. Communion requires alignment with the will of God first and foremost, which establishes our commonality with one another. Such expressions of the will of God which Anglicans should hold in common are: one Lord, one faith, one baptism; Holy Scripture; apostolic teaching and practice; the historic Creeds of the Christian Church; the Articles of Religion and the doctrinal tenets as contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Holding truth and grace together by the power of the Holy Spirit, we go forward as those entrusted "with the faith once delivered" (Jude 3).

43. By the Red Sea, God led us to renew our covenant with Him. We have committed ourselves to obey Him fully, to love Him wholly, and to serve Him in the world as a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:6). God has also helped us to renew our bonds of fellowship with one another, that we may "stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man in the faith of the Gospel" (Phil 1:27).

44. We offer to God this growing and deepening fellowship among the Global South churches that we might be a servant-body to the larger Church and to the world. We see ourselves as a unifying body, moving forward collectively as servants of Christ to do what He is calling us to do both locally in our provinces and globally as the "scattered people of God throughout the world" (1 Peter 1:1).

45. Jesus Christ, "that Great Shepherd of the sheep" (Heb 13:20, Micah 5:4), is caring for His flock worldwide, and He is gathering into His one fold lost sheep from every tribe and nation. We continue to depend on God's grace to enable us to participate with greater vigour in Christ's great enterprise of saving love (1 Peter 2:25, John 10:14-16). We shall press on to glorify the Father in the power of the Spirit until Christ comes again. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

The Third Anglican Global South to South Encounter Red Sea, Egypt 25-30 October 2005

END

Hot Anger, Cold Blood

2005-11-01T08:19:00.000-08:00

(Almost) every time I post a critique of someone else's blog listing, I get in trouble. But sometimes I just have to comment - they stir up something that I have to work out in my own mind.

The latest Paul Owen post at Communio Sanctorum fits this bill. Instead of Mary, now it's the idea of "Penal Substitution" - or rather, in Owen's case, the strong link between the Atonement and the appeasement of God's anger. He doesn't specifically say what he's writing against, except to call it "a foreign theological framework which emphasizes the anger of God, and the legal demand of just punishment, in a way that is (in my view) foreign to the Bible." That kind of wording will get him into really hot water with some of his Internet foes. What I hope to do here is to ask some questions of Owen's arguments, in a (hopefully) less "hot" tone (pun intended).

1. Owen's first point is that there is no specific mention of the appeasement of God's anger in the passages detailing the sacrificial system, only that the pollution of sin is transfered to the animal sacrifice. Well, OK. But are we to assume *no* connection between our sin and God's anger? That connection is made abundantly clear throughout the Old Testament - just type "anger" or "wrath" into the ESV Search Engine and look up all the verses where these words are attributed to God. Does it also have to be mentioned in the specific sacrificial accounts to be taken into consideration? His treatments of Isaiah 53 and Romans 3 also depend on severing anger from sin, and are flawed to that extent.

2. Owen then claims that God's anger cannot ultimately be satisfied with the destruction of animals, but with the sinners themselves. Just so. But then he goes on to say that Jesus was *not* punished in our place, because the NT does not specifically say so in that language! I think Owen here is making the same mistake that some of those he would castigate does - he's asking for dogmatic/systematic statements from the Bible like our systematic theologies would make. If God does and must punish sin, and our sins were upon Christ, and He died though living a blameless life Himself, does the conclusion that He bore our punishment not follow?

I think that the severing of the connection between our sin and God's anger is the key flaw in Owen's argument. If some sort of link between human sin and divine anger can be drawn - and there is ample biblical evidence that this can be done - then the whole discussion is moot. I'm sure that there *are* people who have overemphasized God's anger, but that is no excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Surely the appeasement of divine wrath is one of the many benefits that we have received from the Cross of Christ. And it is one for which I, myself, am profoundly greatful.

Who (or What) Are We Fighting... And What With?

2005-10-25T07:46:00.000-07:00

This is probably going to get me "Blogspotted" again. :-( But what the heck, the symmetry is too great to pass up.

In doing my usual trek through my blogroll in my browser's favorites column, two blogs hit on spiritual warfare today - and wound up on opposite sides of the fence...

Curses

Real Spiritual Warfare is Not Like a Round of "DOOM"

Frankly, I get nervous at both.

Dan's post makes me nervous, because I *don't like* the idea that demonic influence can permeate families without any positive action on the part of the descendants. I think that coming to faith in Christ should automatically sever any such things, even if they do exist. And there are things in *my* past that some folks who follow this line of thinking might want to pray over *me* for, and I don't know if that's appropriate... or not...

Phil's post makes me nervous, because it reduces spiritual warfare to promulgating and arguing over theology and philosophy. For all the insistance in Reformed and Fundamentalist circles on the supernaturality of the universe - at least, where God is concerned (creation, Incarnation, Resurrection, etc) - there is little taste for allowing that the dark side of the supernatural just might be active today too. "Charismatic (*and* demonic) activity ceased at the closing of the canon!" If you say so. But I've seen the biblical arguments for this, and I am not impressed. (EDIT - in the comments section, Phil says he *has* encountered demon-possessed people, but he addresses the *person*, not the demon. That seems the opposite of the NT pattern, and I have asked him about this.) I think that both Fundamentalism and strict (r)eformed theology have absorbed at least this much modernism - that they are very uncomfortable with the idea of ongoing supernatural activity that does not fit in their theological box.

And I am still this much of a rationalist, that I am too. So Dan's article makes me uncomfortable.

And I have changed in my thinking enough, that I acknowledge that there is a possibility that divine and demonic activity is more than possible in this life. So Phil's article makes me uncomfortable.

There are elements of truth in both sides, I think. The ultimate "spiritual warfare" is the preaching of the Gospel, not funky "territorial prayers". But I also think there is a demonic side to the evils around us that rational theology is blind to.

I am forced to acknowledge, once more, that there are things in theology and life that I cannot pin down, that defy my ability to rationally set them in a row.

Theological "Need-To-Know"

2005-10-24T20:50:00.000-07:00

In addition to sensitivity level, information that is classified is restricted in its dissemination based on the "need to know" the information. Having a "top-secret" clearance does not give one access to all documents classified at that level. Rather, information is disseminated based upon sensitivity level and the need to know.

- "Classified Information", Wikipedia (italics added by me)

The drive, the need, to explain things that don't make sense to us is very powerful. Especially for theologians. And accepting that there may not be an answer - or worse, that God may not deign to give us an answer - is very hard indeed.

Dan Edelen's latest post resonates with me on this topic. When faced with evil, with tragedy, with Things That Just Don't Make Sense, we want to know "Why?" We demand to know why. And sometimes, if we don't have ready answers, we extrapolate them from what we think we know (or just make them up) so that we have some comfort to fall back on. But, perhaps, there are things we just won't be told the "why" for. God's answer to us may be, "You don't have need-to-know for that information right now."

Dan references Job and his trials in his post. I would like to elaborate on that theme. We, the readers of the book of Job, are given the "inside scoop" on why Job suffered - Satan's challenge to God about the ground of human faith. When, at the end of the book, God does appear to Job, He could also have told Job the reasons why. God doesn't. Instead, He confronts Job with Himself, and insists that Job admit his ignorance. And even after that, God keeps the "secret". I don't think Job ever knew, in this life, why he went through what he went through.

When faced with tragedies like Katrina, like Dan's sad story of the missionary who died before she could fulfill her calling, we want the "classified data" in the background - we want to know WHY. And sometimes, I think God's answer to us is the same as His answer to Job - "You're not cleared for that information!"

Accepting mystery, the incompleteness of our understanding in this life, has been a big hurdle in my walk of faith. Sometimes, it's nice to know that others have faced the same struggle, and that I can learn from their acceptance that there are some things that God just hasn't seen fit to clear us for.

If You Play with Fire, You May Get Burned...

2005-10-22T13:22:00.000-07:00

And if you decide to go playing politics, you should not be surprised if you get attacked politically.

Case in point - James Dobson of Focus on the Family. He has, over recent years, become more and more involved in political matters, often in belligerant style. Most recently, he has been focusing on the politics of the federal judiciary, as evidenced in his involvment in the Justice Sunday rallies and the nomination of Harriet Miers.

It would seem that Dobson has been very deeply involved with the Miers nomination almost from the start. If the reports at the Wall Street Journal are correct, Dobson was expressly courted by the Bush Administration with assurances that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. His involvement has raised some eyebrows, and may be engendering a backlash - apparently, Arlen Specter is considering calling Dobson as a witness in the Miers nomination hearings because of his involvment.

I am not saying anything here about the fitness of Miers for the post, or why Bush really chose her. So what is my point in all this? Just this. If Dobson does get called before the Senate and roasted over an open fire (not just the Dems would enjoy this - Specter's appointment to the Judiciary Committe was opposed by Dobson), he and his supporters will likely paint it as a martyrdom tale - the brave Christian leader standing in the path of the godless secularists seeking to stack the courts against traditional American/Judeo-Christian values, and being slandered and attacked for his heroic stand.

As Hagrid would say, "Codswallop!" Politics is politics. And Dobson knows this well. As the book Blinded by Might showed, Dobson has been playing the political game for quite a long time, so he cannot be blind to how it works. Now, if one wants to play politics, that's fine. But playing politics is NOT the same as advancing the Kingdom. And when the political wheel turns, and you find yourself on the receiving end of what you've dished out for so long, to cry "Persecution!" would ring hollow to my ears. And it would ring hollow to many more ears as well - ears much more hostile than mine, who would rejoice to see the name of Christ and the Church dragged through the mud yet one more time.

But then again, too many evangelicals cannot see the difference between advancing the Gospel and appointing strict constructionists to the Supreme Court - so if Dobson does decide to play the martyr, it might work. Sad to say.

Taranto's Law

2005-10-19T11:48:00.000-07:00

Named after James Taranto, ringmaster of the "Best of the Web" blog at OpinionJournal.com. My formulation of it is, "Sooner or later, real life WILL imitate The Onion."

Case in point -

Israelites Sue God for Breach of Covenant - The Onion

Romanian Prisoner Sues God for Failing to Protect Him From the Devil - Pakistan Daily Times

(HT to Mere Comments)

Another Fine Mess

2005-10-19T06:16:00.000-07:00

...I've gotten myself into.

The *one* thing that gets my blog noticed beyond myself and a small circle of friends is this whole mess about Mary. *sigh*

Paul Owen and Eric Svendsen are slugging it out over the details of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary (or PVM), so I'll refer interested parties to those blogs. (After cramming for a final this week, I haven't had time to fully digest either argument myself.) For my part, I will reply to Kevin Johnson's reply to my last post.

First off, I am well aware of the venerability of the PVM doctrine. So my criticism of it is not based on any animus towards the Roman church (which didn't evolve until the Middle Ages in my viewpoint, but that's another matter). The extent to which the Reformers held to PVM is another matter, currenly being debated in the blogs listed above, so I'll withhold comment.

RE: the question of tradition vs. modernity - for me, this is not a question of blind rejection of tradition. I speak as one who has already come from such a viewpoint. I have moved from indifference to liturgy and the centrality of the Eucharist, to one who ardently embraces both. I have moved from a strict credobaptism (including the denial of faith and salvation to infants) to a broad paedobaptist position - clearly the *traditional* position. I am no longer so blind as to think that the traditons of the Church (including Biblical interpretations) are to be ignored on the basis that *we're* so much more knowing and informed than they were.

However, let me also make a few counterpoints. I am still, self-consciously, a Protestant - which means, among other things, that I hold that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority and court of appeal in matters of doctrine and practice. *Any* tradition, no matter how venerable or ecumenical, has the right to be brought before the bar of Scripture and examined. (Of course, the interpretations of the Scriptures used are another matter, and that is where the problems I have with Paul Owen began.) In abandoning the modernist acid of total distrust, let us not leap blindly into a total acceptance of all things received either. Error and truth were co-mingled from the start, as any reading of the Pastoral Epistles will show.

Kevin asks, "(A) doctrine such as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is so widely attested that we shouldn't abandon it at the very least without reviewing our own presuppositions and understandings of the issues at hand in rejecting such a doctrine."

A fair question, and I am trying to lay my cards out on the table in this post. However, as the comments section in Kevin's own post attests, the "presuppositions and understandings of the issues" by those who initally put forth the PVM should also be on the table. And here is my second biggest beef with PVM - the very idea of it smacks of Platonism and a denigration of the sexual nature of our Lord and those who surrounded Him. Why is the idea that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations - and children - so abhorrent to some of the Early Fathers? And how much of that attitude went into the establishment of PVM?

Kevin also asks, "My question back to our almost-Reformed-Catholic friend and other interested parties is this--What does it hurt to embrace the majority opinion of the Church on this matter? A more important question is this, 'How seriously do we take the traditions of the Church and how much do these traditions form our thinking in this matter and others?'."

To answer the first question - in the whole question of "reformed catholicism", Protestants are being asked to give up a *lot*. Our sectarianism, our theological snobbery, our biblical reductionism. What are *we* bringing to the table in return? If we cannot bring what makes us distinctly Protestant - if we still think there is any worth in identifying ourselves as Protestant - to the table, is this really a dialogue? I have often said in other venues that for there to be true ecumenism, *everybody* would have to bring something, and everybody would have to give up something. I think Protestants *can* bring something to the table, as Protestants - our high view of Scripture's role in theology. And I think a reasonable result of that (pardon the word choice) would be a re-examination of the PVM by other communions.

In answer to the second question, the answer is probably "Not much, and not enough." Historical ignorance is an American badge of honor, especially it seems in evangelicalism. I am trying to rectify that in my own life, but I am still a "work-in-process". (Side note - One aspect of that work is my working on the Ancient Christian Commentary series by IVP. The volume on Judges arrived yesterday. Tell Paul Owen that everybody listed in the section on Judges 11 - Ambrose, Augustine, Origen, Chrysostom - thinks Jephthah literally sacrificed his daughter.)

In some aspects, I am sorry the rupture had to occur at this point - however much I may think the PVM to be mistaken, it's not something I would withhold fellowship with someone over, and there are bigger fish to fry in ecumenical matters. It does, however, serve to highlight the tensions that still exist between modern Protestants and the other communions.

Well, Since You Asked...

2005-10-17T11:39:00.000-07:00

I was going to do this within the comment section of the last entry, but it probably deserves a post of its own.

Kevin Johnson (of Reformed Catholicism (which I had forgot to add to the blogroll - thanks for the inadvertent reminder) asks for an elaboration on why I listed Paul Owen's post on Mary as a reason I'm not a "reformed catholic". Fair enough.

Let me state at the outset that I am not against tradition per se, and that I have wide agreement with the goals and insights of those who call themselves "reformed catholics" (hence their inclusion in my blogroll list on the right). However, sometimes the acceptance of (C)atholic teachings and traditions goes just a *wee* bit too far. As much we can (and ought to) castigate reductionistic Protestantism, we must also acknowledge that, on occasion, a blind hog will find an acorn - and that there *are* "traditions" that deserve to be thrown out with the bathwater. The perpetual virginity of Mary is, IMHO, one of those instances.

I, personally, find the argumentation Owen puts forth in the article linked above very weak. I'll take it point by point.

1. I will pass on the nuts and bolts of the Greek exegesis of Luke 1 (as I am no expert on that), but if Mary was going to be a perpetual virgin, what on earth was her "pledge to Joseph" supposed to be?

2. There is nothing in the Old Testament about people abstaining from marriage as a "holy order" within Judaism (Jeremiah being a unique exception) - you don't see the eschatological relativizing of marriage until the New Testament. "Temple virgins" are *pagan*, not Judeo-Christian, in origin. Owen's readings of Anna and "the women temple servants" in I Samuel presume, and do not prove, his thesis.

3. Also, Jepthah said he would offer up whatever came out of his house *as a burnt offering*. And why would his daugher's friends have to go on the mourning trip with her if she was just going to be a "vestal virign" - they could see her anytime. No, I am afraid that Jepthah *killed her*.

4. Jesus giving care of Mary over to John and not to his (literal) brothers, I think, demonstrates what He taught all along in the Gospels - bonds of faith override bonds of blood. At least, the John 19 passage can be read just as well my way as Owen's.

5. I will also pass on the interpretation of the Woman in Revelation. To paraphrase Chesterton, the only monsters more fantastic than those in Revelation are Revelation's commentators. :-} I will only note in passing that the identity of the Woman has been broadly construed, even in "traditional" (i.e. non-Protestant non-dispy) schools of interpretation.

To resurrect an old rhetorical phrase of mine, the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity is a "Bartholomew Cubbins"-size hat - and the Scriptural pegs available are way too small to hang it on. The "Protoevangelium of James" is not, to my knowledge, anywhere near being an ecumenical creed, and therefore does not have the power or right to bind my conscience in this matter.

So now I guess I have a question - why do we have to go so far out on a theological and exegetical limb for the sake of "catholicity" in this particular doctrine? Is there any room for saying that, yes, on occasion, our forebears in the faith did take a misstep?