My Stance on Egalitarianism vs. Complementarianism

Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism



      Within the biblical text, I see a lot of information which points to a role-distinction between men and women.  Even understanding the biblical culture, I believe that God's word reveals a distinction between the roles of men and women.  By no means am I saying that men are any less than women, nor women less than man.  The Bible reveals that men and women were created equally before God, because both are image bearers of God.  Therefore, the essential worth of man and woman is the same. 

      However, this equality before God does not mean that men and women were meant to take on the same roles.  Our worth does not depend on the roles we take.  With this in mind, I believe in a complementarian teaching of role distinctions.  Again, it is not because I believe that men are superior to women.  I believe it makes sense that God differentiated the roles of men and women. 

      Also, my complementarian view of role-distinctions does not mean that women cannot serve in leadership positions in the church.  The main distinction is that women are not to serve as elders (a biblical term for what we call pastors).  I am not saying that there were never or never will be women pastors, or that their ministry will never glorify God.  There are many I know of who have made a positive impact for Christ.  However, by my understanding, this should not be the norm, and it usurps the role-distinctions created by God. 

      Similarly, in a marriage relationship, I believe that the husband is the head of the family as Christ is the head of the church.  This does not mean that every woman's roles is to simply be a submissive wife, because I understand that marriage is not right for everyone.  Therefore, a woman who does not marry is not any less significant than a woman who does marry. 

      From all of this, my complementarian views are more focused on the relationship between a man and woman within marriage and the roles of men and women within certain leadership positions in the church. The following link describes the different perspectives between egalitarians and complementarians.  As I have mentioned earlier, I tend towards the side of the complementarians for similar reasons listed in the document from the link. 
     

Here is the link: http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/summaries-of-the-egalitarian-and-complementarian-positions

About Open Theism and The God Who Plays Dice

A Book on the Openness of God
by Gregory Boyd



      Open Theism places an emphasis on the philosophy of libertarian freedom.  In order to be free, there can be no restraints which limit our decisions.  As free moral agents, our decisions should be free of influence (whether it be from without or within).  If we are influenced to choose something, then we did not, in truth, freely make that decision.  With this in mind, Open Theism tries to build its theological anthropology and theology proper on the "need" of libertarian freedom. 

      Because of their strong emphasis on libertarian freedom, Open Theists view a god who knows the future as an impossibility.  They would say that if God knew the future, then man cannot necessarily held responsible to his actions, because the future is fixed.  Therefore, man did not have the ability to make a free choice.  Gregory Boyd, an intellectual leader of Open Theism, promotes the idea that even though God does not know the future, he knows every single possible outcome and plans accordingly. 

      Boyd, along with a branch of Open Theism theologians, believes that there are some things that God makes happen.  However, Boyd is not clear as to what these things actually are and admits the haziness our Open Theism's understanding of what God actually enforces.  No matter which way it is taken, Open Theism does limit the sovereignty of God. 

    Intellectually, the idea behind Open Theism is very pleasing and comfortable.  Even though it is relevant, is it truly substantive?  I believe that Open Theism falls apart based on its theological foundation of anthropology and theology proper.  True libertarian freedom does not work in this world.  Our actions are highly influenced by the things around us.  With this in mind, we could make excuses all day for our present situation.  Then, is it truly our fault how we lived?  Should we blame Adam, or Eve?  Should God hold really us responsible?

     When we look at everything together, it seems that a compatibilist view of freedom is more in order.  Rather than a God who merely hopes, we have a God who is in control and knows the very future.  He is not bound by time, but sees the whole of history from the eternity past to eternity future.   Because of all of this, I believe the orthodox teaching of God's sovereignty and man's freedom proves itself to be the best explanation. 




Sites/Videos about Open Theism:


For Open Theism:

This video is Part I. of a lecture Gregory Boyd gave concerning Open Theism.  I strongly recommend watching the full series of 13 videos.  They are easily found on YouTube under "Gregory Boyd on Open Theism."  I did not put them all on here because of the issue of space.  



I promise that I am not stereotyping, but this video is pretty amusing while it explains some of the basics of Open Theism.  By no means am I trying to present Open Theism as uneducated or anti-intellectual.  This is meant more for enjoyment...

Against Open Theism:

http://carm.org/what-is-open-theism

http://carm.org/open-theismOLD



What is Pannenberg's Eschatological Idea of Resurrection?

Wolfhart Pannenberg

      Wolfhart Pannenberg is known by many as a theologian of the Theology of Hope.  He is also a German Lutheran.  During his years in college, Pannenberg studied both philosophy and theology at universities including Gottingen, Basel, and Heidelberg.  One of Pannenberg's teachers was actually Karl Barth. 

      Pannenberg holds a very strong view of history.  He believes that history itself reveals God's action in the past and gives hope for the future action of God.  Philosophy and science seem to have a large impact on Pannenberg's theology.  One example is that Pannenberg stresses creation of doctrine by strong historical evidence and analysis which points towards the Kingdom of God in the future .  History is eschatological in the way that the climax of history is the Kingdom of God.  Therefore, history can point us in the direction of God and give hope towards his Kingdom. 

      In order to understand Pannenberg's eschatological idea of the resurrection, we need this understanding of Pannenberg's view of history.  Jesus, according to Pannenberg, is a very eschatological figure.  Pannenberg claims that Jesus' historical resurrection confirms the hope of the future Kingdom of God.  By this, Jesus is confirmed as the one who is to lead us to the Kingdom of God.  Jesus' resurrection provides a foundation and evidence for the hope of our future resurrection.

      The experience of the resurrection is in the future.  Thus Christ's resurrection provides us hope, but does not make our own future resurrection real.  It is in the future that the general resurrection will become real and we will see that it was true all along.  Events in the future are confirmed by their occurrence which reveals that they were true all along.  Therefore, we do not experience our own resurrection with Christ now, but after it happens it will be as if it always was. 

      Pannenberg's views of history and its eschatological nature of revealing God and the path towards the Kingdom of God are very interesting.  His view of the resurrection is sometimes hard to follow.  Much of what one needs to know in order to make sense of Pannenberg's view on resurrection is his understanding of history and its beginning and ending (or at least climactic continuation). 


Here are some interesting sites and videos concerning Pannenberg: 



This is a lecture Pannenberg gave in regards to Frank Tipler's book The Physics of Immortality.  Pannenberg discusses resurrection in this.
http://129.81.170.14/~tipler/tipler/tipler3.html

These following videos are very interesting.  However, the second one does not finish the lecture.  I cannot find the next clip in the series though...sorry. 



The Importance of Vatican II

Peter and the Keys to the Kingdom

     

      The very controversy behind Vatican II represents the tremendous importance it has in the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity in general.  According to David L. Smith, "the Second Vatican Council...was an intentional effort to renew the church and redefine Catholic dogma." (1)  At the heart of the council was a desire to be more relevant and open to humanity while still maintaining the Roman Catholic tradition. 

      In a very real sense, Vatican II softened some of the traditional Roman Catholic dogmas.  One such change brought by Vatican II is that people can actually be Christians outside of the Catholic Church.  Before Vatican II, both Protestant and Eastern Orthodox were considered among the lost.  This second council encouraged the view that people can follow Christ outside of the Catholic Church as opposed to the traditional view that the Roman Catholic Church is the mediator of salvation. 

      Another dogma which changed within Catholicism was the Roman Catholic doctrine of the nature of the Church.  The Second Vatican Council urged a change from the understanding that only the pope and clergy represented the Church to a view which included all Christ followers as part of Christ's Church.  With this, laity were encouraged to take part in ministry.  This is reminiscent of the biblical teaching of the priesthood of believers.

      Along with these changes for the good, Vatican II also brought about some changes for the worse.  Rethinking the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, the council affirmed that the Bible is inerrant to the extent of the passages which deal with salvation.  Instead of holding to a firm view of the inerrancy of Scripture, the council reveals a similar tangent as Liberal Protestantism with its doctrine of limited inerrancy. 

      One of the stickiest topics debated about surrounding Vatican II is the council's tendency towards universalism.  Norman L. Geisler wrote that though many commentators believe the council recognized non-Christian religions as ways of salvation, traditional scholars disagree, "believing that this line of interpretation reflects more the presuppositions of the individual thinkers than the direct teaching of the council." (2)  Smith, who is mentioned earlier, promotes the idea that Vatican II truly does teach universalism. (3)  This reminds us that we need to be careful when we take stances on issues of which certainty is elusive. No matter the case, if the council promotes universalism, then it follows in the path of Liberal Protestantism and is found theologically lacking within Christianity.

     Much of the changes brought about within Vatican II illustrate a swing from rational view of theology to an religious experience view of doctrine where experience is most apt to describe truth.  It is a change from a strong hold on the transcendence of God to the immanence of God.  As we have seen in the past, this swing of the pendulum can be both good and incredibly dangerous at the same time.  One has the potential to incredibly deepen one's relationship with God, but also risks making theology relevant over containing essential substance and truth.

      Vatican II is so important, because it made some drastic changes within the realm of Roman Catholicism.  These changes not only affect the Catholic Church, but the Church in general. Some of these changes were for the good, and some were for the worse.  In this we can give glory to God for the good and strongly uphold and affirm orthodoxy in those areas which are found lacking. 


Sources:

(1) David L. Smith, A Handbook of Contemporary Theology: Tracing Trends & Discerning Directions in Today's Theological Landscape, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 87.

(2) Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 470.

(3) David L. Smith, A Handbook of Contemporary Theology: Tracing Trends & Discerning Directions in Today's Theological Landscape, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 90.

My Opinion on the Emerging Church Movement

       Over the past fifty years, postmodernism has found itself in the forefront of western philosophy.    For the purposes of this article, I will mainly be talking about postmodernism in the United States.   Many see truth as relative and that true objective truth does not exist.  Postmodernism affects most areas of life, even the church. 

       Within the church is a movement usually associated with postmodernism called the emerging church.  Here, the emerging church is not to be confused with the Emergent church.  The Emergent church is actually an organized body under the overarching movement of the emerging church. 

       Though there are many who align themselves with the emerging church, the emerging church is by no means any sort of organization.  Rather, it is an umbrella capturing a truly diverse mix of people and churches.  One central fact about the emerging church is that it is a reaction to postmodernism and rigid orthodoxy. 

      In Christianity Today, Scot McKnight names five areas which characterize the emerging church (of which he confesses to participate).  McKnight categorizes the emerging church as: 1) provocative, 2) postmodern, 3) praxis-oriented, 4) post-evangelical, and 5) political.  Within each of these categorizes, there are many different approaches from individuals and churches alike. Because of the diversity within the emerging church, I find it hard to give it an approving or disapproving vote. 

       One thing evangelicals can learn from this movement is the importance of relationships and how we live our lives.  Even though the emergent church reveals this importance, it generally fails to see the real importance of belief.  We can also glean from the idea of holistic ministry where we minister to not only the spirit, but to the physical, emotional, relational, and other needs of people.  This promotes a more effective method of ministry, because it ministers to the whole person.  These are just some of the many positive things evangelicals should take into consideration about the emerging church movement. 

       It would be nice if the emerging church only promoted good things.  However, there are strands within the emerging church which teach the wrong things.  For instance, some have taken on the idea of a full postmodern philosophy which leads to religious pluralism.  Others live out the social gospel above the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The emerging church finds it is easy to fall into a belief that how we live is more important than how we believe.  Again, these are just some of the negative teachings and doings of the emerging church. 

      Thinking about the emerging church movement, makes me think about Forest Gump.  The emerging church is like a box of chocolates, you never know what your going to get.  There are just too many different groups of people and individuals within the emerging church to make a generalization about whether the movement is good or bad overall.


I highly recommend reading the article titled "Five Streams of the Emerging Church" by Scot McKnight on the Christianity Today website.  The URL is: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html



Here are some videos about the emerging church movement:

John Piper Argues Against the Emerging Church (I think he may be generalizing a bit too much.)

     

This video is an interesting one which argues against the emerging church movement as well.  The speaker may be misquoting people or not providing the proper context.  However, it is interesting to hear his arguements against the emerging church. 

Here are some videos from Mark Driscoll about the emerging church movement.  I tend to like Mark Driscoll's presentation better, because he seems to look at the movement dialectically and break the movement into sub-movements to explain some things more accurately. 

The New Perspective on Paul

Paul

      The new perspective on Paul is really a new perspective of Paul's writings on justification and justification by faith rather than works of the law.  As a reaction to antisemitism in the 1970s, E.P. Sanders argued for a new perspective on the Judaism of Paul's time in his book titled, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. From this reaction against antisemitism came the foundation for the new interpretation of Paul's teachings on justification by faith. 

      First of all, Sanders claims that works of the law such as observing the Sabbath, circumcision, eating kosher, and etc. were thought of as markers which set apart Israel as God's covenant people.  Therefore, works of the law do not mean self-righteousness or meritorious works of righteousness as some may proclaim.  Second to this, faith is viewed as the new marker which sets apart God's people from those people who are without God.  Faith is merely what distinguishes God's people from everyone else. 

      This new perspective on Paul limits the doctrine of justification by faith.  Instead of taking a balanced approach and seeing "works of the law" as referring to both that which distinguished God's covenant people and things people were doing to try to earn divine favor, the new perspective limits "works of the law" to solely that which distinguishes God's covenant people.  In light of this new interpretation of "works of the law," the new perspective on Paul limits the meaning of faith as well by making it to be only that which distinguishes God's people.  Faith is the new distinguishing marker for both Jews and Gentiles of who is a member of God's people.  By this, justification takes on so much of a community oriented approach that individual justification takes the back seat.  Thus the new perspective of Paul leads to a view of justification where the importance of personal individualistic faith is diminished in importance. 

      I like the cultural connections the new perspective of Paul brings to light.  However, the new perspective limits too many things, just as a solely works based righteousness view of "works of the law" does ill in limiting the definition of  "works of the law."  There needs to be some balance.  The Bible reveals the Jewish people as striving to fulfill the law in order to gain favor and standing with God, just as it reveals the "works of the law" as a distinguishing marker of Israel as God's covenant people.  Because these are both biblical, they need to be incorporated in an integrated systematic understanding of justification.  The same thing goes for the issue of faith.  It is both a distinguishing marker of God's people as a whole which incorporates both Jew and Gentile, but alsoindividuals are justified by grace through faith apart from meritorious works.

      We cannot lose sight of the importance of individual justification by faith rather than by works.  Because the Bible reveals both sides of the coin on justification and the "works of the law," we cannot sit back and say it is only one sided.  To do so would lose the richness of the meaning behind Paul's teaching.  Thus we need to have a balanced approach when interpreting Paul's teachings on justification, the works of the law, and faith. 


Sources:

My information on the New Perspective on Paul came from the following article from Christianity Today.


Simon Gathercole, "What Did Paul Really Mean?," Christianity Today, 2007, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/august/13.22.html.  Accessed on November 23, 2011. 

    

The Inerrancy of Scripture

The Bible

      The inerrancy of the Bible is a much debated topic in Christian theology today.  Much of the debate stems from the emergence of Higher Criticism in the nineteenth century.  People claim that the Bible is erroneous and contains many issues that cripple the Bible as the inerrant word of God.  Inerrancy is a very important doctrine, because a lot of Christians view the Bible as the authoritative revelation of God.  If the Scriptures are fallible, then there is no reason that the Bible should be used as the foundational revelation of God to man.

      I hold to the inerrancy of the Scriptures.  The reason why I believe in this is because I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible.  Because the Bible is inspired by God, it contains his authority. For more on the topic of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, please read my article titled, SOLA SCRIPTURA: AN OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC OF BIBLICAL AUTHORITY located in my September 2011 posts. 

      The post I just mentioned is a concept study I did on the topic of biblical authority.  In it I explain my position on the inspiration and authority of the Bible.  With this information in mind, I will lay my convictions of the inerrancy of the Bible. 

      As the authoritative word of God, the Bible--in its original manuscripts--is without error in what it says when interpreted properly.  First of all, I believe that the Bible is true in what it asserts and affirms, not necessarily in what it reports.  For instance, the Bible contains accounts where ungodly men and women report things that are not true.  In this case, the assertion of what was said is true, but the actual statement said by the ungodly person is not true.  Second, when interpreting the Bible, people need to look at the proper contexts of the passage and find the meaning which best fits within these contexts.
 
      Also, the Bible needs to be read and understood according to its purpose.  For example, there is an approximation of Pi in 1 Kings 7:23-26.  If one were to calculate Pi from this, one would find the value to be erroneous.  However, was the intent of the author to give an exact numerical analysis Pi, or was this section mainly intended to be an estimate?  Naturally, this passage is dealing with an nontechnical estimate and should be interpreted this way.  From this example I stress that the biblical text should be read through a natural interpretation which looks at the central purpose and context of the biblical passages in question. 

     Though the validity of some passages may not be scientifically resolved, it is because we do not have enough information to make conclusive statements about them.  Even though there exist some of these minor problems which would be cleared with more information, the Bible is inerrant in and of itself.  Problems that arise are usually problems of interpretation or lack of information.  These should not be used to deny the inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures. 

    

Here are some good links:

Reformed Declaration of the Inerrancy of the Bible:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

Pi in the Bible?:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/pibible.htm