Category Archives: Doctrine/Theology

September 23, 2008 · 5:52 am

More comments from the SCP conference


Some tantalizing quotes from our recent conference unapologetically taken out of context for your tasting pleasure:

Bill Hathaway: “Psychology is a social construction that gives us pockets of truth about the real world.”

From a presentation on the history of the psychology of religion project begun in the 19th century. He was talking about this historical project that was originally undertaken to explore and explain religious experience. Of course, the explanation was also reductionistic since it was undertaken from a naturalistic worldview–one that rejected the possibility of the supernatural. We should admit that all human explanations are reductionistic. But some more closely approximate the world as God created it. 

Another Hathaway quote: “We don’t need to be therapy prostitutes, doing whatever the client wants.”

I’ll leave that one without explanation.

JKA Smith: “All science is hermeneutic, a take or interpretation of things…Science is culture…so the interaction between faith and psychology or theology and science is cross cultural.” And, “The most important questions of Christian psychology are these, What’s at issue…What’s at stake?”

Richard Schultz:

“Biblical interpretation is not complete by coming to the meaning of any one text.” On the necessity of reading the bible in light of the whole, or, the importance of building a biblical theology.

1 Comment

Filed under Christian Apologetics, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, Doctrine/Theology, Great Quotes, Psychology

Tagged as ,

September 22, 2008 · 10:28 am

Bobblehead Christianity


At the Society for Christian Psychology, JKA Smith (a Calvin Coll. philosopher) made an offhanded comment about bobblehead Christianity–the kind where the head is huge but the body is nearly non-existent. This image has really stuck with me.

We fill the head with truth and facts about our faith and we expect that to transform us into Christ. But we ignore the body, or the practices of the faith. He made mention of this problem in a discussion about worldview. He said something to this effect: “I think worldview conversations are important. I love worldview. I’d marry it if I could. But we must pay attention to our practices as they are attached to worldview and shape it in reverse. Worldview discourse places too much emphasis on what we think and less on what we do. We need to include visceral ways of knowing…tactile involvement in worship.” (phrases from my notes, not true quotation)

Seems we ought to take his critique to heart. Where are we overemphasizing truth statements or thinking about self as change agent and underemphasizing performing (use of disciplines) as acting into the truth as a work of the Holy Spirit?

2 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, church and culture, Cultural Anthropology, Doctrine/Theology, Evangelicals, Psychology

Tagged as , , ,

September 19, 2008 · 5:01 pm

Overheard at the Society for Christian Psychology


In Chicago for the annual conference for the Society for Christian Psychology. My head is full. Good conversations with colleagues from different parts of the country. This is a unique opportunity to have philosophers, theologians, and counselors talking together about Scripture and counseling.

I’ll blog more about this but Kevin Vanhoozer, a theologian from TEDS, gave two talks about counseling as acting into the theodrama of Scripture. He likened the playwright as God, the Holy Spirit as the director, the theologian as the dramaturg (a person who is to research the history of the play, give rich detail about its meaning, etc.), and the counselor as the acting coach.

Nice imagery I think.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling science, Doctrine/Theology, Psychology

Tagged as

August 29, 2008 · 12:23 pm

Society for Christian Psychology Conference


Folks, those interested in the field of Christian psychology and counseling should consider making last minute plans for a September conference in Chicago. The Society for Christian Psychology: www.christianpsych.org, a division of the AACC, is holding a great conference Sept 18-20 in the northwestern suburbs of Chicago. It will be small and very intimate conference and the speakers are great. You can read more on the site but with theologians Kevin Vanhoozer andTremper Longman, and quality counselors like Leslie Vernick, Mike Emlet, and many more doing breakouts, the conference ought to be quite meaty!

So, if you want to grow in your understanding of Christian models of change, haven’t decided to go and you’ve always wanted to take a road-trip to the windy city, then take the plunge and sign up.

1 Comment

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Doctrine/Theology, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

August 12, 2008 · 1:13 pm

Divorce & Remarriage 14: Summary and application


In chapter 14 of David Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church(IVP), we find a summary of the book and some practical applications. In this next to last chapter of the book, he summarizes each chapter. Here are some key points.

Chapter 1 points out that some things we thought were in the bible (re: divorce) aren’t actually there. Chapter 2 looks at how in the OT God corrects an ANE tradition of allowing men to abandon and then return to their wives at will by requiring them to give a divorce certificate to their wives if they refused to provide for her or to be faithful. This certificate allowed her to remarry. Chapter 3 runs down the rabbit trail of God as divorcee. Chapter 4 shows Jesus’ teaching to be in continuity with the OT. Chapter 5 looks at Jesus’ criticism of groundless divorce. Chapter 6 explores Paul’s rejection of groundless divorce and his recognizing that if one is victimized by a groundless divorce that they shouldn’t be enslaved to it and are free to remarry. Chapter 7 and 8 look at whether there is biblical teaching that divorce is always wrong (even for abuse) and that even if they get divorce, whether or not they are really are in God’s eyes. I-B believes there isn’t credibility for these teachings from Scripture and that the OT does allow for divorce in cases of neglect/abuse. Chapter 9 looks at whether remarriage is possible. He believes the NT doesn’t really address this matter in grounded (opposed to groundless) divorces since it was commonly accepted in the first century. He believes both Jesus and Paul assume this in their teachings and didn’t clearly exclude remarriage.

He cites early Reformers who also saw the Scriptures this way (Erasmus, Martin Luther, Zwingli, Cranmer) and allowed for divorce on grounds of abuse, abandonment, neglect as well as adultery.

He then cites modern writers who also have similar positions (although he admits they may hold these positions but fail to use proper biblical grounds).

Finally, he suggests these policies for consideration:

The biblical grounds for divorce are adultery, neglect and abuse, any of which is equivalent to broken marriage vows.

No one should initiate a divorce unless their partner is guilty of repeatedly or unrepentantly breaking their marriage vows.

No one should separate from their marriage partner without intending to divorce them.

If someone has divorced or separated without biblical grounds, they should attempt a reconciliation with their former partner.

Remarriage is allowed in church for any divorcee after a service of repentance, unless they have divorced a wronged partner who wants to be reconciled.

The final chapter (15) are several letters written to him asking his opinion on their situation. He replies to each with what he think can be said and what is not clear from Scripture.

——

So we have come to the end of Divorce & Remarriage. It seems I-B has helped us understand some of the cultural contexts in which the OT and NT texts are written. He helps us understand where some of the text may be repeating current “legal” language. A chunk of his viewpoint is based on silence in the text and that the bible may not stipulate every kind of divorce. So, how do you feel about this? Does his arguments have merit? Where? Does he help clarify places where the church has misread the text? For me, I think his work helps me better defend 2 beliefs: a unrepentant breach of the vows may allow the victim to seek a divorce and then remarry; and separation “just to see what happens” is not only unwise but unbiblical.

Will some abuse this work and proclaim their right to no longer suffer? Sure. But that is nothing new. Will a few more who are suffering silently be willing to talk about their victimization? Hopefully. And hopefully church leaders will take their concerns seriously.

I do wish he addressed matters of sexual abuse. Sexually abused individuals are easily triggered by sexual activity. I would be very much against the spouse of a victim of sexual abuse using “neglect of conjugal love” as a reason for divorce. There are other forms of love besides intercourse.

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, Christianity, conflicts, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage

Tagged as , ,

August 4, 2008 · 5:09 am

Divorce & Remarriage 13: A conspiracy?


On our journey thought David Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church we come to chapter 13 where he raises the question why, if the church has had access to rabbinical literature and understanding of the issues at play during Jesus and Paul’s time, hasn’t the church revised it’s understanding of the divorce passages. If you have been following along, I-B has been arguing that most of the church was unaware of the controversy surrounding the “any cause” divorce during Jesus day and that was what he was reacting to in Matt. 19. But now that we have this background available to us again, it helps us understand the context of Jesus comments. So, why hasn’t the church revised divorce teachings? Is it conspiracy? Or just disagreement with I-B?

I-B tells an interesting story at the beginning of this chapter. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, one scholar refused to make public one particular scroll. After he died, the scroll was translated and made public. The controversy? The scroll contains a 1-2nd century divorce certificate written by a woman for an “any cause” (or better, no cause) divorce. The scholar had previously published that this sort of thing didn’t happen in this wonderful period of orthodox Judaism so he sat on the document to hide it. I-B tells the story here because he believes this shows how even Jews had forgotten the only reasons allowed for divorce in Exodus 21 (neglect, infidelity) and that no cause divorces were allowed by both men AND women.

Yet I-B doesn’t really believe conspiracy is the problem with the church. Just confusion. Why the confusion? I-B reviews the sexual mores of the early Christian world. Outside the church immorality was a given at levels we don’t even have today–open sexual contact with prostitutes, friends, etc. even when married. So, I-B reports that the church reacted to this to even become suspicious of conjugal love in marriage. If a marriage ended due to the death of a loved one, the widow should not remarry and if he/she did, it was a sign of lust. He quotes Tertullian’s belief on this matter that Christians should seek abstinence. It is I-B’s believe that this view of sex and celibacy is what grew until the 9th century when the Roman church instituted celibacy for priests and comes out the believe that Paul and Jesus both taught that celibacy was superior to marriage. (Remember that in a prior chapter I-B stated his believe that Paul’s comment in 1 Cor. 7:1 that it is good for a man to not marry is not Paul’s belief but his quotation of a common belief which he rejects in following verses).

Further, I-B reports to us that many early church fathers (and contemporaries as well) believed that the OT was for then and the NT is for the church. So, even if the OT had other rules about divorce, Jesus rules supercedes and is the only rule for Christians today.

But since this “any cause” dispute has been known to us for 150 years why haven’t we reconsidered the divorce interpretations? I-B ultimately says it is because of the status quo. Church doctrines shouldn’t change. He says the thinking goes like this: God doesn’t change, the bible doesn’t change, doctrine doesn’t change.

I-B ends this chapter rather abruptly (IMHO) with the admission that he has undertaken this scholarly study given our better understanding of the misery of abuse within the church. And yet he believes his understanding of the key issues surrounding the culture of the 1-2nd century Judaism and Christianity helps us re-consider the meaning of Jesus and Paul’s words on divorce.

So, what are we left with? There may be more ambiguity in some of our passages on divorce, reasons for divorce, and remarriage. Certainly, we must admit there are some silences that trouble us. We would have liked greater clarity. We all recognize that Jesus and Paul rejected baseless divorces. That sexual purity is essential. That marriage is good, sex is good, but not to be worshipped. I think we can also see that divorce is part of the fall but a reality. It is forgiveable but there remain questions of whether remarriage is possible. If we take the no remarriage passages as speaking about baseless divorces, then we are to work for reconciliation. But if that is not possible, we must acknowledge that there are many situations with the Scriptures do not provide us clear direction. In those cases we ought to be careful not to act as if we did get a clear message from the Lord. We ought to be very careful not to hang weights on the necks of believers and to bind their conscience where there is ambiguity. This does not mean we cannot seek to preserve marriages as our ideal.

Well, we are almost at the end of the book. Two more chapters on recommendations for what the pastor/church should do given the possible new interpretations.

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, book reviews, Christianity, church and culture, conflicts, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage

Tagged as , ,

July 23, 2008 · 10:51 am

Divorce & Remarriage 12: How did the early church misunderstand Jesus?


We’ve covered 11 chapters thus far in our review of David Instone-Brewer’s Divorce & Remarriage in the Church.  His main point is that the Scriptures in Exodus 21 require marriages to be built on the covenant promise to provide food, clothing, and sexual love. When these were not provided then the woman was allowed to go free. The controversies in the NT are about the “any cause” divorce that some Jewish leaders supported. Jesus, I-B says, is only speaking to this problem in Matt 19 when he says no to “any cause” and only yes to causes that break the covenant. Much of I-B’s argument is based on how early rabbis interpreted the OT and Jesus’ lack of criticism of their interpretations. He also looks at cultural/evangelisticreasons for the matter of submission in Eph. 5 and questions whether these are timeless truthes (last week’s post).

So now we come to a key question in chapter 12: How did the early church misconstrue Paul and Jesus so quickly? Why did they come to believe the texts taught that divorce was never allowed.

I-B suggests the following reasons:

  1.  
    1. The Destruction of Jerusalem of 70AD. He reports that almost all of the various Jewish teachers were killed–with the exception of the Hillel Pharisees who then became the dominant interpreters of Scripture. This is key in that it was the Hillel teachers who argued for the “any cause” divorce. Thus, the no cause but sexual immorality proponents were gone and so the debate that Jesus weighed in on was lost. 
    2.  Changes in word meanings. I-B points out the changes in the meaning of “wicked”, “gay”, and “imbeciles. ” The sentence, “Isn’t it wonderful that so many imbeciles are naturally gay” has obvious meaning differences depending on which generation says it. (p. 143). He also notes the different meaning of “intercourse” (speaking) in the 1800s
    3. Similarly, how we use shorthand phrases change over time. He reminds us that he explored the phrase, “Isn’t it unlawful for a 16 year old to drink” and that it obviously means alcohol to us but may not to later generations. So, shorthand phrases interpreted outside the context have a great chance to be misunderstood. And I-B believes that Matthew uses shorthand phrases regarding divorce because it wasn’t necessary for his readers to say the whole thing.
    4. Punctuation. I-B reminds us that the original Greek text does not have punctuation markers. Translators must provide punctuation. On p. 145 he shows how the addition quotation marks changes Mt 19 from the Pharisees asking if any divorce was legal to whether “any cause” divorces are legal. The church got this wrong, he thinks, because it forget about the “any cause” controversy.

Of course this brings up issues around interpretive process, authorial intent, and how God intends these passages to be timeless, or better yet, for all time. I-B says we ask the wrong questions when we try to ask what it says in plain English or what the traditional interpretation has been. Better, he believes, is to ask what the original audience understood it to mean.

As Christian we have to assume that the Holy Spirit was able to convey truth accurately to the original readers in language and with concepts they would understand. We who come later have to do more work than they did in order to understand the same message, because we have to learn an ancient language and read it through the mindset of ancient thought-forms. p. 147

But if you are following I-B’s argument you can see that he believes we need the historical evidence to interpret the bible correctly. Does he believe we need more than the bible to interpret the bible? Yes! But he does not reject sola scriptura. This means that that while Scripture itself gives us everything we need to know for salvation it does not provide us with the background on things beyond our salvation (i.e., divorce and remarriage principles mentioned in the bible).

He ends with the question of whether there has been a conspiracy to withhold teaching on the background of this issue in the church. It might be understandable that those in the first 2,000 years of the church would get it wrong since they didn’t have access to such resources. But in the modern era, these resources have been available. So, why didn’t they teach us the background? In the next chapter he will take up that matter.

MY THOUGHTS: I-B clearly believes that we need historical records to understand the original intent of Scripture. I think it is important as well. But, I would also assert that the NT writers interpreted the OT in ways that seem not to follow that system. It would seem that they cherry picked verses and gave them entirely different meanings than the original hearers of the OT passages–especially those that they interpreted as foretelling Christ’s birth.

At heart, I-B challenges us to understand the shorthand in Scripture regarding marriage and divorce. It is good for us not to become too self-assured that we have it all right. This doesn’t mean we can’t have convictions but we must be careful here when many good and godly men and women differ in interpretation. For example, John Piper at DesiringGod.org has strong reservations about this book and continues to assert that there should never be divorce and definitely no remarriage. You can check out his thoughts here and find links to Instone-Brewer’s only webpage (HT: Ron Lusk). The point is good Christian scholars disagree. Be careful to avoid being an uninformed know-it-all.

14 Comments

Filed under book reviews, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Relationships

Tagged as , , , ,

July 17, 2008 · 12:30 pm

Divorce & Remarriage 11: Where do our vows come from?


In Chapter 11 of Divorce and Remarriage in the Church, David Instone-Brewer explores the origin of the promises made in wedding vows. You know, to honor, cherish, love, obey, etc., depending on cultural contexts. I-B suggests that from good scientific evidence (findings in Cairo of ancient Jewish marriage contracts) we can be confident that vows to honor, cherish, nourish come from Exodus 21:10. But what about “obey” or “submit”? Is that part of Scripture? You might be surprised at what I-B contends. He suggests that this idea comes from Greek moral law. He doesn’t deny that Jewish women didn’t practice submission to their husband, but that it wasn’t part of the contract. He reports that the issue of submission became more significant during the 1st century AD when Roman and Greek women were demanding equality and freedom. In response to these societal shifts, leaders of the day tried to force folks back to the writings of Aristotle who believed that hierarchies in families and between masters and slaves would make for a peaceful, well-working society.

Paul himself picks up on these rules (wives to husband, children to parents, slaves to masters) but with “Christian comments added to it.” (p. 132). Yes, wife submit to husband, but husband should love sacrificially, children submit to parents but fathers should not provoke…and so on.

I-B suggests that Paul encouraged Christians to keep this code so that they wouldn’t be seen as immoral and give a bad impression of Christianity (Tit 2:5, 9-10; 1 Tim 6:1). Interesting. So, are these commands to submit God’s views on what makes for right living or peace? OR, were they given because they would most aid evangelistic efforts. [DOES THIS DISTINCTION MATTER?]

I-B then turns again to the question of whether the church should allow a divorcee to make vows again to honor, cherish, etc. Should the church remarry divorcees. He believes that if they have made an effort to reconcile and cannot then they should be allowed to remarry. However, he does not believe that the divorcee who causes a divorce by his/her adultery should then be allowed to marry the person they slept with. This, he says, would be condoning the sin of adultery. And he argues that the OT and NT Rabbis flatly refused to as well. He admits this position doesn’t have clear biblical support but thinks it makes good sense.

My thoughts?  This chapter has some good points but doesn’t hang together very well. There is good reason to remove the words “obey” as it was an idea designed to make Christianity not be offensive to the surrounding moralistic culture. This helps us understand why women were told not to bejewel themselves (as the out of control women of the day were doing).

Finally, he adds in this interesting line from an early English marriage vow (from 1085) , that the woman promise to, “be bonny and buxom in bed and at board.” He translates this for the readers, which I will give you tomorrow. What would you think it means? Give me your best shot!

3 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, Christianity, divorce, Doctrine/Theology

Tagged as , , ,

July 9, 2008 · 9:24 am

Divorce & Remarriage X: Is remarriage adultery?


We come to chapter 10 of David Instone-Brewer’s book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church(IVP). He starts with this question: “Do people whose divorces were not biblically valid have to stay unmarried for the rest of their life?” (p. 118).

In answering this question I-B starts and finishes the chapter with the problem of how we might know whether a divorce was valid or not. Unless there is a trial, pertinent information may not come to light (abuse, adultery, etc.). So, I-B takes the stand that there are many who have valid grounds who are considered to have divorced for unbiblical reasons. He considers that God is to be the judge of this. Second, I-B reminds us that he has already covered the issue of being forced into an unbiblical divorce. The wronged partner is not enslaved and is free to remarry (1 Cor 7:15)

Third, and this is the most controversial, I-B states that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:32 (that the one who divorces for any reason other than unfaithfulness and then remarries commits adultery) is rhetorical and not literal. I-B believes this verse falls in a section of high rhetoric (5:21-31). Just as Jesus is not advocating gouging out eyes, nor is he saying that a woman has grounds for divorce if her husband lusted after another woman, neither is he saying that we ought to treat remarriage for groundless divorcees as literal adultery. This, I-B says, is not to take away the serious violation of groundless divorces. They should not happen and it is a sin if they do and all sin is serious!

Finally, I-B takes on the issue of whether an invalid divorce BEFORE conversion is any different from after conversion. Should they be treated differently as many churches do? I-B says no. He points again to 1 Cor 7:12-14 where Paul tells converts not to look down upon their marriages and not to leave their unbelieving spouses but only to let them go if they demand to leave. Here Paul is saying to honor the vow and not to be the cause of breaking up a marriage.

He concludes that since divorce is forgiveable, churches ought to be willing to remarry even the person who demanded an unbiblical divorce:

I think that a church should remarry somone even if that person had forced a wronged partner into a divorce–though only after that person has gone back to their former partner with a genuine offer of reconciliation and has truly repented of this sin. (p. 124)

MY THOUGHTS:

I-B tries to steer clear of having churches decide guilt or innocence. Seems he wants to do this because we often don’t get all the information and don’t have clear procedures for how we do this. And yet, it seems that elders and pastors are called to be leaders and to make Solomonic decisions. Maybe the problem has been church leaders too unwilling to get their hands dirty in a messy situation, or too unwilling to take the time.

Following his mindset a person who forces an unbiblical divorce ought to remain unmarried and open to reconciliation until their former spouse remarries. However, he doesn’t really say this.

I’m reminded of Philip Yancey’s line in “What’s So Amazing about Grace.” He tells the tale of a friend who asks him if God will forgive him if he divorces his longtime wife and marries a young woman. Yancey says something like this, “Yes, but the question is whether you will want it” (meaning if you want God’s forgiveness then you have to repent and turn AWAY from your sin and back to righteousness).

Leave a comment

Filed under book reviews, church and culture, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Repentance

Tagged as , ,

July 8, 2008 · 5:43 am

Do YOU know where you are going on YOUR journey?


This post is prompted by a sermon I heard last Sunday. Duane Davis, student at WTS preached a wonderful sermon on Hebrews 11:8-22 and Abraham’s journey to the promised land. During the sermon I thought of this application to my own Seminary’s quest to teach and train missional church leaders and counselors for the 21st century. A little background: not everyone has been happy with our move to reach the emerging leadership of the emerging church. The emerging church has been willing to criticize sharply the prior evangelical style of church. In their effort to try new things, some emerging leaders, writers, etc. have tried on theological positions that run counter or at least perpendicular to conservative Christian doctrine. Because we at the Seminary haven’t led with our criticisms of emerging church, that has led some to criticize and attack us. One criticism has been the challenge that the emerging church and Biblical Seminary don’t know where they are going. We’re on a journey that can only lead to heresy and rejection of the Gospel–or so it is thought by some. Enter Hebrews 11.

Notice that Abraham travels with much uncertainty. He surely knew that God called him (at least he knew this enough to leave all his family and homeland at an elderly age) and so he went expectantly. I wonder if he grew tired of saying, “Here, Lord? This looks like a good spot. No, you want me to keep going???”. I wonder if he second-guessed himself.  But Hebrews does tell us that Abraham did look expectantly to one thing: heaven (v. 11). In fact, the promise of heirs the number of sand and land was never fully realized in his lifetime. As Duane reminded us, he even had to buy some land to bury his cherished wife. Even at age 100, he had yet to receive the promise of Isaac. Then a few years later he is asked by God to sacrifice Isaac.

We who have the entire canon seem to forget that we too do not know where God is taking us. We have a clearer picture of heaven and clear calls to seek and serve God’s kingdom. And yet we do not know exactly to what God is calling us to. We, like Abraham, may try to bring about God’s promises (these usually lead to bad consequence). God is faithful none-the-less. Unless He returns, we too will not see the full promise delivered.

So, in answer to those who ask whether Biblical Seminary knows where it is going, I say no. We don’t. We do know that God is faithful, the land is foreign, we own nothing, but we trust in his goodness both now and in eternity. We seek to live faithfully in worshipful service to God and in loving our neighbors as ourselves. It would be more comforting to think we had it all figured out. It is tempting to do so since that would make our vision planning much easier. In fact, it is tempting just to say we have it all figured out. That would be more attractive to students and donors. But, we believe a more faithful response is to ask the Lord to send us into the harvest and use as as He can.

One last point. Our lack of knowing just where we are going is not to say we have NO idea nor to say all viewpoints are valid and everyone’s expression of faith is good. Those interested in knowing more what we do seek and believe are welcome to check out our President’s “Missional Journal” at http://www.biblical.edu/pages/resources/missional-journal.html

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Biblical Seminary, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, Evangelicals, missional, Missional Church

Tagged as , , , ,