Dijon University Club indoor tournament
Coach Klaw (left) at the Besançon tournament chilledly awaiting our next game
For this softball game we will of course need an umpire. And before the game starts we will have the luxury of choosing an umpire from one of three schools of interpreting balls and strikes.Coach Klaw (left) at the Besançon tournament chilledly awaiting our next game
The IDEALIST umpire says: “I call it the way it IS. If it IS a strike I call it a strike. If it IS a ball I call it a ball.”
The PRAGMATIST umpire: “I call it the way I see it. The rules are not right or wrong. We agreed on them; they facilitate the game. Cut the chatter and play ball!”
The CRITICAL-REALIST umpire says: “I call it the way I see it. There is a real pitch and an objective standard against which I must judge it, but I can be shown to be right or wrong.”
Well, maybe we aren’t going to play softball. These three “umpires” reflect differing philosophical approaches to the relationship between truth and understanding. And the issue before us is, if one accepts by faith that God and the Bible are absolute Truth, to what extent can one understand it?One of my French interns once reacted rather strongly to a Bible discussion on eschatology that I facilitated with our university group. He had heard so much bellicose, deductive dogmatism in his ecclesiastic tradition (his father was a theology professor with a conservative denomination) that he said, “You know, I break out in hives whenever someone brings up the subject.” He preferred to take a wait-and-see position.
So let's take the rapture for example. Based upon Jesus' words, “You… must be ready, because the Son of man will come at an hour when you do not expect him” (Mt. 24:44), are the following assertions Truth or an understanding of Truth?
a) Jesus will return suddenly.
b) Jesus will return before the Great Tribulation.
TO WHAT EXTENT CAN ONE UNDERSTAND TRUTH: ABSOLUTELY?
The IDEALIST umpire was prevalent under modernism. Many scientists and theologians alike saw virtually no distinction between objective truth and their understanding of that truth. So the “idealist” (a philosophical school of thought) theologian tacitly asserts, “Scripture is perfect and my understanding of Scripture is perfect.”
Returning to the tribulational discussion, idealist pastors might confidently claim, “The Bible says Jesus will return for His Church (fill in the blank: before, during, after) the Great Tribulation. But as Paul Hiebert (Anthropological Reflections on Missiologial Issues, 26) wryly points out, this claim to a one-to-one correlation between Truth and understanding of Truth “raises problems when disagreements arise”!
Two limitations that hinder even regenerate, godly theologians from arriving at a perfect understanding of Truth are that the human intellect is finite and tainted by sin.
Jay Adams refers to “the noetic effects of sin” that causes people to “distort” messages. (Theology of Christian Counseling, 165, 172). And sin does not only affect the understanding of unregenerate people.* If sin influences regenerate people in the physical realm — materialism, sensuality… (Eph.5:3) — why might we imagine that it does not affect our intellect and understanding of Truth?
David Wells says, “There has long been a Christian argument that reason… is not neutral but it is tainted by sinful bias of various kinds” (Above All Earthly Powers: Christ in a Postmodern World, 83-84).
D.A. Carson states, “Our sin ensures that even a system closely aligned with Scripture will be in some measure distorted.” (Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 68)
So I contend that our understanding is subject to distortion and bias and that this applies to our interpretation of the Truth. A contemporary, almost universally recognized example of sin-tainted reasoning was the theological justification of racism by some Dutch Reformed theologians that supported the Affricaans superiority over the majority autochthons — apartheid.
Rez Band first brought apartheid to public awareness with the blistering song, "Afrikaans" (1979)
And we are finite beings, not omniscient. As Carson says, “Human beings can know some true things, even if nothing exhaustively” (Becoming Conversant, 104-110).
So Truth is objective and universal, but our understanding of Truth is local and subjective. Due to the effects of sin and finiteness it is critical to distinguish between the Truth of Scripture and one's understanding of Truth. Scripture must retain its rightful place, far above human understanding (Is.55:8**).
TO WHAT EXTENT CAN ONE UNDERSTAND TRUTH: NOT AT ALL?
A consequence of not recognizing this distinction leads to a PRAGMATIC postmodern allergic reaction to conflicts resulting from contradictory “perfect” understandings of truth*** like that of my intern above, pragmatic avoidance.
A postmodern person could easily say, “We don’t even know if truth exists and we certainly will not have the same interpretation of it, so just play ball!"
But there is a position that accepts the absolute Truth of God and His Word while recognizing man’s provincial, sin-tainted, biased understanding.
TO WHAT EXTENT CAN ONE UNDERSTAND TRUTH: SOMEWHAT?
CRITICAL REALISTS hold that meaning can be adequately determined, but that understanding must be “constantly probed, critiqued, improved, revised, replaced, and evaluated (hence the adjective ‘critical’)” (Becoming Conversant, 104-110).
In the above example, a critical realist would contend that response a) “Jesus will return suddenly” qualifies as Truth, while b) “Jesus will return before the Great Tribulation” is a particular understanding of Truth.
Now it is very appropriate to hold the latter as a personal and even as a collective conviction. But it is not proper to claim, “The Bible says that the rapture will occur prior to the Great Tribulation.” Because the pre-trib view is a theological construct involving significant amounts of human interpretation, both deductive and inductive reasoning, it is preferable to say humbly, “I believe the Bible teaches… Here’s why…”
"Foot Washing" by Wanda Teel. The artist says, “The foot washing picture is about my g-g-grandparents’ church. This was about being humble.” http://www.marciaweberartobjects.com/teel.html
As Tom Julien wrote in “Identity Shock-A Plea for Consensus” (1980s), it is “alarming... to assign certainty to logical inference. When inerrancy is assigned to interpretive systems… this represents a new creedalism…” which historically, my tradition, the Grace Brethren, has staunchly opposed.
Dr. Manahan, president of Grace College and Seminary, wrote, “A significant part of what Grace is comes from the pietistic heritage … Pietists are very pessimistic about the capacity of reason to fathom the mysteries of God.” (“The Pietistic Spirit”)
Paul Hiebert comments, “The Anabaptists … were critical realists. They affirmed that there is objective reality and objective truth (reality as God sees it—as it really is). They recognized, however, that all truth as perceived by humans is partial and has a subjective element within it… This awareness led the Anabaptists to make a sharp distinction between God’s revelation as recorded in Scripture and human understandings expressed in theology.”
The critical realist “view led Anabaptists to take a humble view of theology. They held strongly to their theological convictions; many died for them. But they readily admitted that their understanding of truth was partial, biased, and possibly wrong. They were, therefore, willing to test their convictions by returning to the Scriptures.” (Missiological Issues, 98, 100)
A biblically tenable position, therefore, that I believe will serve the local church well in an increasingly postmodern climate is that of the critical realist, distinguishing between the absolute, objective Truth of the Word of God and our partial, subjective, sin-tainted and biased understanding of that Truth, a humble position that Scripture is perfect, but our understanding of Scripture is imperfect.
NOTES
* Millard Erickson (Christian Theology, vol2, 617-618) points out that some the effects of sin are self-deceit (Jer.17:9), insensitivity (1 Ti. 4.2), coveting (James 4:1-2), inability to empathize (Phil. 2:3-5)…..
** “My thoughts are completely different from yours,” says the Lord. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.”
*** “I have observed one thing among true Christians in their differences in many countries: what divides and severs true Christian groups and Christians—what leaves a bitterness that can last for twenty, thirty or forty years (or for fifty or sixty years in a son’s memory)—is not the issue of doctrine or belief which caused the differences in the first place. Invariably it is lack of love—and the bitter things that are said by true Christians in the midst of differences. These stick in the mind like glue.” (Francis Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian, 195, italics mine)
6 comments:
Hi Paul . . .
Good to see your discussion continuing. But, while I agree with your observations regarding epistemology, especially the noetic effects of sin, several things about your article really bother me.
First, what about the doctrine of illumination? First John 2:20-21,27 refers to an anointing from the Holy Spirit guaranteeing knowledge of the truth. So does not the grace of God in illumination overcome the effects of fallenness on our understanding so that we may believe/know? Of course this is experienced only in dependance upon the Holy Spirit, but you rather make it sound like it cannot be experienced at all. I hope I am misreading you at this point, and that you will correct my perception.
Second (and I realize I am again revealing a sensitivity), why is the example this time the pre-trib rapture?? I know, it is only a "for-instance", like previously "dispensationalism" was only a "for-instance". But it does appear that there must be an axe to grind. To take Matthew 24:44 out of context (it has nothing to do with the rapture) and then use it to "prove" syllogistically that the pre-trib rapture is not biblical teaching but a theological construct, is invalid logic and sloppy use of the Bible. Of course that verse does not teach a pre-trib rapture - it is not even about that topic! Why would you not have selected a passage like First Thessalonians 4:13-5:11? Could it be that an "anti-pre-trib-rapture-theological-construct" is being superimposed on Matthew 24:44 so that you force the verse to "not say" what it never intended to "say" and then think you have demonstrated something? In that case, I really, really agree with the point of your article.
Third, is there not room for valid, authoritative inference from the text of Scripture? This would not be a superimposed theological construct, but a legitimate inference. Nor would this necessarily be the text of Scripture itself, but a legitimate inference from the text. Nor would this be merely an opinion or interpretation about the text, but a necessary inference from the text. For example, I have been looking at Matthew 1&2 for my remember-the-incarnation season messages this year. Matthew 2:23 says that "He shall be called a Nazarene" is a prophetic statement that is being fulfilled by Joseph taking Jesus to Nazareth. Yet,no OT prophet is recorded as saying those words. Matthew (maybe Joseph too?) is inferring this statement from other OT prophetic statements the identity of which we can only guess. Yet it is a true, authoritative inference. Granted, if we do this we are not writing Scripture, so we end up using words like "it seems that" or "appears", but this still carries more authority than "it could be" or "in my opinion".
Finally, in complete agreement with you and Francis Schaeffer, I affirm that what divides is lack of love. So, let's put this together. First Corinthians 13:6, "love rejoices with the truth". Ephesians 4:15, "speaking the truth in love". Thus, truth without love is harsh and is no longer truth, and love without truth is sloppy emotionalism and is no longer love.
Hi Keith,
Wow. Okay, I’ll take your points one by one. Illumination: I definitely believe in the doctrine of illumination, more than you can guess. I am simply attempting to apply it to the entire priesthood and not simply to gifted teachers. I believe that it counters, but does eradicate, the effects of sin on a regenerate person’s intelligence.
The rapture: I thought of just presenting the epistemological material, but without connecting the dots, it would be much less helpful. And because there are a number of readers who are not from the FGBC, I took an example that a broad audience can relate to — the rapture debate.
You say that I have taken Matthew 24:44 out of context. Some writers I have read would disagree. And certainly, the overall passage deals with eschatology so must be considered. When I was preparing for my licensure exam many moons ago, a prominent Grace Brethren pastor who was coaching me cited the “suddenness” in Matt. 24 as a primary consideration leading to a pre-tribulational conviction. So I must say that that is the very first time I have heard that Matthew 24:44 “has nothing to do with the rapture.” I understand what you mean, however, in regard to a pre-tribulational position based upon a Church-Israel distinction. And I am surely capable of being sloppy, especially when being reductionist to fit far-reaching missiological concepts into a bite-sized blog box. I think however that you would be hard pressed to find many people who call me “sloppy” when it comes to exegesis or missiological rigor. It sounds as though part of the misunderstanding between my presentation and your refutation is you draw a sharper distinction between biblical teaching and theological constructs than I would. Maybe you could clarify what you mean?
I really have no axe to grind about the issue; I am pre-tribulational. Please remember, I am coming at these issues from a European missiological standpoint, issues that slow or hinder church planting with postmodern people. And I am leading up to a presentation of the hermeneutical community. The issue is not a collective pre-tribulational conviction, (which explains why I did not bring in other passages, nor did I attempt to present a logical argument), but rather the attitude that the one who embraces pre- (or mid- post-) has toward someone who does not embrace that same position.
I have spoken to so many believers who listen to the arguments, hear the harshness and shy away viewing it a partisan speculation. This runs counter to the postmodern dogma of “tolerance” and we are perceived as being bellicose. This causes us to repel evangelists and church planters (who generally do not seem too concerned about such issues but could come to espouse a pre-tib conviction through extended relationship and study). And of course, “tolerance” is not the golden rule, so at times one must state Truth. I am simply attempting to get Truth the best hearing possible by distinguishing between Divine Truth and human understanding. In postChristendom Europe, when one mixes Truth and understanding people tend to reject both. The critical realist position allows me to authoritatively state, “The Bible says…” and humbly share, “I conclude…”
You cite Matthew 2:23, "He shall be called a Nazarene." There too I draw a sharp distinction between the liberties that New Testament authors took and what we are permitted to infer. So I agree, that Matthew presents “a true, authoritative inference” and that we rightly use “words like "it seems that" or "appears." In Europe we interact with people, believers and unbelievers alike, who utilize a hermeneutic of suspicion and have an innate anti-authoritarian bent. When presenting secondary and tertiary doctrines we present them as collective convictions to be respected, something that the elders of this European Grace Brethren “tribe” hold in common. We distinguish between these convictions, the common evangelical core and Bible quotations.
Hope that helps. I am sorry if my writing comes across as contentious. That is not at all my desire. I seek to remove hindrances to church planting and fruitfulness as one who serves among postmodern people. My catch phrase is: “Speak the truth in love toward the goal of peace.” Guess I fell short of the mark.
Shalom to you and yours my brother during this Christmas season! paul
Yes, Paul. Your response helps a lot!! I am sorry if my questions were perceived as accusatory - that was not my intent.
Thanks for the word on illumination. Your response is what I hoped for.
Apparently there is some FGBC pastor I should be referring to as "sloppy" regarding Mt.24:44 instead of you. I am sorry you had that kind of experience in your licensure exam. It certainly does prove your point. I am not sure what else you've been reading, but I do not know of any pre-trib Bible teacher who would say this is a verse about the rapture of the Church, they would all agree this is about the Second Coming of Jesus.
I guess I am coming from a viewpoint of defensiveness, mostly because it seems that when I am told that something is a "theological construct" it implies that it is not "biblical teaching". Apparently that is not what you mean, although I'm still a little hazy on this. I believe that the "pre-70th week of Daniel-rapture of the Church" is in fact clear biblical teaching. I do not feel that it is a "secondary" level truth to be enjoyed by my "tribe", but a beautiful truth to be enjoyed by all believers. Agreed, it is not a soteriological necessity in terms of regeneration and justification. But it is a necessity in terms of sanctification.
I am trying to learn, which is why I keep interacting with your blog, how to understand this whole communication issue with postmoderns/postChristians/etc. Of course I understand why they, or me, or anyone would react against meanness, arrogance, narrowmindedness, ignorance, etc. The practice of the old saw "logic weak - shout louder" has been all to prevalent, especially in America (and not just among Christians). And personally I don't think I (or anyone) can "impose" anything on anyone, even if they think that is what I am trying to do (which it isn't). But it seems to me that if I hold to anything with certainty these days I am accused of narrowmindedness or arrogance, etc. This is what you call the hermeneutic of suspicion, but it seems to be neverending. So, I'm asking, is this discussion just about compromising for the sake of the suspicious thinking nice things about us? It always seems that those who believe "more" are being told to hold their convictions more loosely - why should not we challenge those who believe "less" to move with us a little closer to the top of the mountain? Even to say I believe "more" is considered by these to be arrogant. So, please forgive my defensiveness, but I do tend to hear some of this as saying that I, or anyone who teaches with conviction and passion is automatically perceived as an irrelevant dogmatist.
I applaud and share the value of peace (Eph.4:3) in the Body. But I do wonder about how this will work out in an increasingly apostate era of the church (2 Tim.4:3-5). Does the prophet Amos' question give us a sliding scale of realism in relationships - how can two walk together unless they are agreed? (Amos 3:3)? When do Jesus' words kick in - "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matt. 10:34)??
I pray that you and your family will indeed have a significant and richly blessed Christmas season.
In the grace of Jesus,
Keith
i think your illustration of baseball is probably pretty appropriate. (though the stakes are pretty trivial when we're talking balls-strikes, not truth-lies).
i guess, using the illustration i'd push a bit farther:
a) are you familiar with the use of QuesTec in MLB? it is a device to record whether umpires have accurately identified balls-strikes. umpires hated it (for many felt that it is their perrogative, and part of the beauty of the game, to identify balls and strikes uniquely) and pitchers got upset (for gracious umpires would no longer be able to call pitches 2 inches off the plate a strike with no accountability). therefore, both chaffed to a higher standard, but not because they philosophically had a problem, but because neither wanted higher accountability.
i wonder if the same problem doesn't happen in the church. could our embrace of "gray areas" not be as due to intellectual vices, but more reside in the area of will....if i accept something as true, i am not responsible.
b) QuesTec is not used to evaluate pitches right over the plate. we don't question if it is a strike if the batter swings and misses. the pitch could even be bouncing its way to the plate, but if the batter swings and misses, it's a strike...no question. therefore, there are two kinds of strikes. those that clearly are a strike, no one can debate. questec was not contracted for those. there are also strikes that are on the "corners" and the batter "took" the pitch. those are the questionable calls questec was employed to bring greater objectivity to.
on this side of the atlantic, the evangelical church seems to be obsessed with the pitches on the corners and not dealing with clear balls and strikes. i'm not hearing this "humility" result in clear, strong statements about the penal substitution of Christ, the need for grace alone or the humanity/divinity of Christ. on the contrary, men like Rob Bell are stating the virgin birth COULD be wrong (though he doesn't say it is, exactly) and claims that would have no effect on orthodoxy. we seem to be obsessed with the subjective, without ever claiming a bold confession of the objective.
perhaps the church would be more benefited, not that we discuss whether the rapture is before, middle or post (though i would agree with Keith, i'm probably more willing to make that a clearer strike issue than others) but instead spend our time bolding declaring that which is obvious. i just don't hear those who sympathize with the postmodern movement ever doing this.
c) unity must be based on truth, not on relationship. when an umpire calls a pitch a strike and manager storms out to the throw bases, kick dirt, cuss and spit...the problem is not that we have balls and strikes. the problem is the managers reaction.
however, if the umpire calls a pitch a strike and the manager disagrees, he is permitted to approach the umpire and share his feelings. he is not obligated to remain in the dugout.
i think baseball is a great example of our society. you will far more often see a manager storm out of the dugout to debate a called strike he felt was a ball than you will see a manager come out of the dugout to debate a ball he felt should be called a strike.
this seems to mirror our society. i'd agree with keith that the call always seems to be to loosen standards and i do not hear anything remotely close to a similar call to tighten our standards to biblical standards. why do you suppose it is? i don't think this can completely be blamed on modernism, and a counter reaction. i believe again this speaks to our sin nature and that our flesh can desire subjectivity for the sake of license to sin.
(i don't usually go the illustrative route in discussion. i don't know if this muddied the waters or helped. as a texas rangers fan, i really try to think as little about baseball as possible!)
Hi Keith and Danny,
I need to get start vacation or my wife is not going to be at all happy with me, but I nonetheless wanted to share some random thoughts (so don’t seek the logic because it is not there).
No, it is not about people thinking we are nice; compromise is wrong. Of course, I do not want to be a stumbling block. Christ already is one, so I want to do my best at not creating unnecessary obstacles. And I am very interested in choosing my starting points well, which for me is the lowest common denominator in order to “walk together.” From there we can hopefully move up the mountain.
The problem that I have encountered when I have started the discussion with a “more” highly developed theology, whether it be with unbelievers or with potential evangelist and church planting partners, the preconceived perception of the “irrelevant dogmatist” is imposed on me before they ever get to know me or find out why I hold the convictions that I do. So further opportunity to share the gospel or to serve Christ together gets shut down from the get go. Maybe we will not walk together too far anyway, but hopefully that will be after they find out about Christ, about Truth, about convictions, not before.
Danny, sorry on two counts. I have not heard of QuesTec and sorry about the Rangers!
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the sinfulness of man, the problem of the will unsubmitted to God and His Word, and about the “clear balls and strikes.” Of course we need to be concomitantly humble and bold (the two are not antithetical) about the issues you mention: penal substitution, grace alone and others. But the issues you are referring to are largely an anglo-saxon phenomena. They simply are not on the radar here in France. Here the numbers of believers as so infinitesimally small that true believers must work together to have a voice that overcomes the atheistic and mystical cries. And arrogant dogmatism on peripheral, corner-of-the-plate issues, hinder the Church from having the strongest impact it can here in Europe. And I raise these issues because we Grace Brethren in Europe still struggle with this. I would love for us to get to the place where we can live Romans 14 within our own fellowships of churches and, as you say, “spend our time bolding declaring that which is obvious.” Therefore we must determine what are the minimums that will still enable us to “walk together” in agreement.
I would like to qualify your statement, “unity must be based on truth, not on relationship.” Unity is based on relationship with Christ. Of course the means to entering into that relationship is revealed in the Word which is Truth. But in the real world we will never be completely unified about the Truth, if by that we seek uniformity of understanding in all of its intricacies (as the Grace Brethren did in the 80s). I would contend that relationship and mission that flow from the Truth contribute to unity as well.
My brothers I wish you a rich celebration of Christ's birth. May His peace reign in our hearts! Joyeux Noël, paul
Paul . . .
Even though you were in a hurry, you did a REALLY GREAT JOB in bringing this all together. Your statement that compromise is wrong really helped, and clarifying that you are working from a starting point rather than a more highly developed discussion also helped.
I will have to explain to you another time regarding the constant barrage of attacks we face here from professed evangelicals who not only disagree, but express mockery and hatred against the pre-trib position. We begin these discussions as ones already in the "hot seat". We must answer carefully, firmly, and graciously. We dare not avoid the discussion, or the Gospel of the Grace of God will lose the field.
Have a super vacation. Greetings to your family.
Keith
Post a Comment