I recently got into an argument on Facebook with an atheist who was questioning why Christians were complaining about Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani who is facing a death sentence in Iran. Now, I do not know this person to whom I was interacting, but was very frustrated with what he said. I don’t like to enter into these conversations without being able to sit down and discuss this face to face but the conversation was very revealing. His first comment was, “but doesn’t the bible say that anyone who believes in any other deity beside the christian god shall be put to death? that’s no different than this. Iran is just following thru with their beliefs. I’m not saying its right. but Christianity is only arguing about this because it’s someone of their own faith. if Christianity were the ones holding a person captive, they’d think it was justified by the bible.” Many times, people make grand statements like that without justifying their claims anywhere in Scripture, so I asked where this was in the Bible, as well as pointed them to Luke 6:28, which tells us to bless those who curse you and pray for those who persecute you. This person then listed Deuteronomy 13:6-10,17:1-5, Exodus 22:20 and Mark 16:16. I then tried to explain that Christ came to fulfill all the commandments of the Old Testament, praise God that we now live under grace instead of law! They then brought this comment up: “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.”

They continued: “and just to bring us back on topic, old testimate is still valid. Jesus said so. so punishment by death for worshiping another god is still valid. so as my original point stated, Christians r hypocrites. Iran is simply following thru with their belief. Christianity is just mad because it’s of someone from their own faith.”

So that brings us to the question: What is the purpose of the Old Testament today? We see in Luke 24:27 that all of the Old Testament points to Christ who has now ushered in a covenant of grace instead of law (Romans 6:14). The Old Testament tells us of the creation of the world, mankind’s fall from perfection relationship of God, and promises us a king is coming who will restore everything. Because of this coming king, we will no longer be bound by the law for the law will be written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33) and we will have the Holy Spirit to help us grow more Christ like.

This conversation has reminded me again that I need to always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within me, as well as pray for those who do not see.

The second session of the EFCA Theology Conference was done by Dr. Bob Yarborough again who gave us a biblical framework for studying the complimentarian position. He began by asking the question: why not chuck “complimentarian” rather than redo?

The first reason we should not do so is because of an ecclesial reason in that well over 90% of those in church affirm the historic view of men and women in church and marriage. Those who advocate for egalitarianism are going for a schism. Avoiding the ordination of women also avoids losing witness in many parts of the world who view ordaining women as imposing western worldviews on them.

The second reason is that there is an empirical reason to not abandon complimentarian, even as we improve upon a historic complimentarian understanding. Dr. Yarborough then quoted an article from Christian Century which showed that when men led the church, the church was overall healthier.

Third, there are hermeneutical reasons not to abandon this term. This calls into question the teaching of Scripture when cultural changes occur. Western culture has seen as pullback from some of the aspects of classic feminist doctrine as well. A helpful articled titled ‘Where Have the Good Men Gone?’ was read. Also, number social indicators in the West point to disastrous results for large numbers of women and children since the 1960s when social circles began an aggressive departure from biblical teaching in areas like sexuality, divorce and abortion, and as women’s ordination became more acceptable with the rise of feminism. (see the July 9 edition of the Wall Street Jouranl ‘The Divorce Generation’).

Fourth, there is an evangelistic reason not to abandon the term complimentarian. Marriage, by definition, is supposed to be hard, therefor getting men and women to work together in the church isn’t going to be east. The church is also a volunteer organization which makes things even more difficult. Men also have a tendency to avoid a church if women are ordained there because they will chafe agains the leadership, just as they chafe against women leadership in the home.

Another question Dr. Yarborough asked was Why do we cling to the complimentarian teaching when Paul was so obviously a flawed man of his culture when it comes to this topic, and when the household codes he used to dictate to women are so obviously cultural artifacts with no bearing on today? And also what about slavery? If the Bible is wrong there, why can’t we be wrong about its teaching on the sexes?

To answer this he began by talking about the importance of the Bible and its implications (see Ephesians 5-6 and 1 Corinthians 11). The term “helper” in Genesis 1 is a term of functional subordination. It is not enough just for a couple to enjoy each other, there also needs to be an outpouring of love. The church is also God’s household (1 Tim 3), a family of redeemed families which natural reflects family polity. Galatians 3:28 tells us that we are together the body of Christ.

Many people point to slavery as a gradual shift that should continue with the roles of women. However, slavery in the Bible is very different than the form of slavery that comes to peoples minds today. In the Bible we have the first appeal to treat humans as humans for human sake, and not just for the interest of the masters. During Bible times, slavery was typically for a limited amount of time as well. Slavery is also a universal human institution and still goes on in many parts of the world. Western culture was the first culture to break away from slavery with the help of Christianity. F.F. Bruce says that, “the Bible brings us to a place where the institution [of slavery] could only wilt and die.”

The final question he left us with was, “Is our church order an apt vehicle for administering God’s grace in the church by the gospel of our crucified, risen, ascended, reigning and returning Lord?”

The first session of the conference was titled ‘The Cultural and Ecclesiological Landscape’ and was done by Dr. Bob Yarbrough. He gave us some background to this very sensitive issue by giving 5 theses and asking a question. The these were:

1. We’re hurting
2. The complimentarian term needs a redo
3. Redo would mean blessed repentance and the good works and better practices that the Gospel received would bring.
4. We live in a time of dizzying and sometimes intimidating negative change.
5. The crises and evils of our time can be overstated.

The first point is very true of our culture today; our culture is a mess right now. People are asking a lot more questions than giving answers.

The second point is very timely as well. Men and women together constitute the image of God. That is, both men and women are created equal in the term that they were created, but they are so very different. Our culture today is waging war on the Bible’s understanding of personhood and marriage. Jesus did not address the gender issue as a trajectory that needs to be altered, or a social convention, but as something created and maintained by God.

Under the third point was read James 1:21 and gave many explanations about complimentarian that I’ll simply list below.

1. Complimentarian has too often meant “you can’t”
2. Complimentarian has too often meant catering primarily to men.
3. Complimentarian has been a cover for oppression of women
4. Complimentarian has been wed with Americanism, as in “family values”
5. Complimentarian has not always been robustly biblical enough to repel licentiousness.
6. Complimentarian has been used to justify juvenile and boorish behavior.
7. Complimentarianism has been used to justify male aggression, laziness and refusal to love and serve in marriages.

The fourth point was listed many statistics of the state of our culture in America. One example listed was obesity. People get whatever they want whenever they want and don’t want to sacrifice or wait for anything. (anyone remember dial-up? My cell phone is faster than my first computer)

Finally, we can overstate where the culture is going. “Where there is God, there is hope.” Our media tends to publicize all the bad things that happen, but bury all the good things on the back pages.

Finally, the question: Is our church order and apt vehicle for administering God’s grace in the church by the gospel of our crucified, risen, ascended, reigning and returning Lord?

A good question to ponder that left us thinking and processing through our cultural landscape as we looked at what the Bible said about this issue.

In light of the recent controversy of the Elephant Room and T.D. Jakes I thought it may be helpful to write a summary of what Carson and Keller have said about it. The main issue in this controversy is the issue of the Trinity. T.D. Jakes has been called a modalist and was invited to the Elephant Room in Chicago to discuss this issue with MacDonald, Driscoll and others. Jakes has often played the race card in this discussion saying that those who disagree with him are hating him because of the color of his skin. That has nothing to do with the argument at hand! Many evangelicals are disagreeing with him because of his theology, not because of his skin color. Below is a summary of what Carson and Keller have said about it.

1. Persons and Manifestations

Modalism has been around since the end of the second century. This is the belief that there are not 3 distinct persons with the God-head (the Trinity) but that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different manifestations of that God. This eventually led believers to use the term hypostasis as in the hypostatic union. Within the three persons of the God-head there is a relationship, as seen when Jesus is on the cross and crying out to God, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?”

2. Biblicism One and Biblicism Two

“T.D. Jakes recently said he affirms that God is three persons, but prefers to speak of three manifestations.” Many people have applauded him as a hero because of this and say that we are simply arguing over terms, but the choice of words means so much. The term “manifestations” was used as an attempt to describe what the Bible said about God, yet was declared a heresy. “The “persons” terminology prevailed (along with words like “subsistence”) not because it derived directly from usage in the biblical documents themselves, but because it could be shown that this terminology did a great job of summarizing what the Bible actually says.” Words do carry meaning with them, and “We simply cannot escape the fact that our linguistic labels are shaped by prior discussion.”

3. Prosperity Gospel and Empowerment

Another critique raised against Jakes is that he is preaching a prosperity Gospel. His defense is that he is preaching a Gospel of Empowerment to the social outcasts. While there is something to be said about a Gospel of Empowerment, it is easy to hide a prosperity Gospel under that banner. The two ways to tell if it is a Gospel of Empowerment is to find if the true Gospel lies at the forefront of what is being preached and then to see how much of the “empowerment” comes to fruit in this life.

4. Love and Truth

Correction and reproof must be done in love for one another as fellow members in the body of Christ. Many times people accuse those on TGC of not having enough love, or of not correcting some people enough. Now it is impossible do this perfectly on this side of heaven, but there needs to be both, and as I said before the correction must be done in love.

5. Racism and Playing the Race Card

There are differences between different ethnicities down to the way we interpret these events. Some of the African American members of TGC were frustrated that T.D. Jakes hadn’t been adequately dealt with, yet a 22 page response was written to Rob Bell’s newest book Love Wins. Many of the African American pastors had been struggling because they had opposed Jakes’ views and felt that he was devastating to the African American church at large. Carson and Keller write:

“Subtleties and ironies surfaced everywhere in the subsequent developments. Some wanted to give T. D. Jakes a pass on the ground that African American churches are more interested in redemption than creeds. That’s a bit like giving Jonathan Edwards a pass on slavery because he was a man of his own time and class. All of us must hold one another to the standard of God’s most holy Word. In fact, it is a kind of insult to Pastor Jakes to give him a pass because of his ethnicity.”

We must help each other stay true to the Bible as a whole, no matter the ethnicity, gender or background.

6. Private and Public

The basic argument here is that these matters need to be dealt with in whatever sphere they have been influencing. T.D. Jakes isn’t an individual who may be speaking heretically about the Trinity, but someone who has a very public ministry and life. The things he’s been saying aren’t suddenly coming into the public eye, but have been for a while. Therefore, the arguments presented here are not simply for and in reaction to the Elephant Room discussion, but are arguments that Pastors need to deal with as they deal with Jakes’ ministry.

Here is the continuation of my previous blog. I’ve tried to quote every place I’ve taken exactly what he said, but as the conference was a week ago, I’m sure there are parts here that I wrote down verbatim. All the thinking in this was done by Hans Madueme, thank you very much for walking us through some background to this very important issue.

Hans Madueme who further explored the historical Adam and Eve did the second part of the theology conference. He gave some very helpful background information to this question, as well as some practical questions to ask for us today.

Hans talked in great detail about Charles Darwin not being the first person to push for an old earth view.

Over 50 years prior to Darwmin’s Origin of the Species, many theologians agreed with geologists who said the earth was older than Bishop Ussher’s date of 4004 B.C.  Darwin was not the only “bad guy” in our history. One of the key figures who began questioning the historical Adam and Eve was Isaac La Peyrère (1596-1676).

Isaac La Peyrère was a controversial figure in his day, born in France to a Calvanist family. He had many questions about the beginning chapters of Genesis. People at his time had begun to ask some very important questions regarding the history of the world. They had become aware of ancient histories (Chinese, Egyptian, etc) who went further back than the Bible’s histories. Columbus had also discovered the “New World” and where did those people come from? There had also been myths about giants, Cyclops and other mythical creatures. How did they fit into the creation story? It was in the midst of these questions that he wrote a two-part magnum opus in 1642-1643 defending the theory that Adam was not the first human. His proof text for this theory was Romans 5:12-14. He was labeled as a heretic and was forced to recant his heresy and fake a conversion to the Roman Catholic Church where he blamed those “Calvinists” who had brainwashed him.

This then leads us to Darwin, who we now know wasn’t the first to ask the questions about the origins of the world. The questions about the historical Adam and Eve are not new to us today, but have been asked many times before. As Hans said in his lecture, “People had doubts about the traditional picture of Adam before 1859, but Darwin made it much harder to believe in Adam and Eve as the first human beings who later fell.” Many liberal scholars today have come to the conclusion that Christian theology needs to be done without a historical Adam and Eve. Now, “it is possible to have “Christian Theology” without a historical Adam and Eve, but it’s not the theology our Church Fathers would recognize.”

Hans then went on to discuss the question, “How should Christians relate science and theology?” Ian Barbour, who published Issues in Science and Religion in 1966 was helpful in the emergence of this study. Hans continued by saying, ‘Regarding the controversy over Adam and Eve, the authority of Scripture is the hinge on which it all turns.” Barbour developed a typology of how Christians are to relate science and theology. Christians can view them: in conflict, as independents, in dialogue with each other, on in integration with each other. Barbour recommends the dialogue position (avoid conflict at all cost) he wanted to show the “reasonableness” of the Christian faith. However, sometimes there are real conflicts between science and theology (e.g. the traditional doctrine of the fall and mainstream evolutionary theory).

**Following are the exact notes I took during the conference, there are a lot of definitions with my explanation next to them that I thought would be helpful for you to see as opposed to me trying to write it out in paragraph form**

Scriptural realism is the proposal for how to relate science and theology. It tries to address a concern that theology keeps being revised because of new scientific data.

• Canonical Epistemology – Scripture is inerrant. It is true and without error. Scripture in their original content is infallible. Everything we know from the Bible is true in an absolute sense.
• Critical Fideism – We do not always understand the true parts of Scripture because of human error in understanding. We are sinful, fallible interpreters of Scripture. These things are supernaturally affirmed by the Holy Spirit. We are certain of these things, because and only because we receive them from the living God.
• Christian Eclecticism – there is no one-size fits all method of approaching scientific theories. Warranted theological agnosticism-when a scientific belief is in conflict with a scientific theory.

How would scriptural realism help us in the debate over evolution and the historicity of Adam and Ever?

• The doctrine of the fall is a central doctrine (and presupposed in all of Scripture).
• All major church traditions affirm these doctrines despite differences in detail.
• Christians can be theologically agnostic about conflicting evidence from scientific data (a warranted agnosticism).

Difference Evangelical Positions

• Traditional Young Earth Theology
• Creationist Preadamism (Old Earth Creationists)
• Evolutionary Preadamism (fully embraces theistic evolution, Adam and Eve share a common ancestry with other animals)
• Federal Headship Preadamism (there were many pre-adamite creatures who existed before Adam and Eve, the world was full of pre-adamites before Adam and Eve were placed in the garden who became the first human beings)

The final question, then, is how should churches, seminaries and us as Christians deal with the questions of science and theology? Hans suggested 3 things for us to think through as we continue to grow in wisdom with both God and men.

1. They should set dogmatic boundaries on these sort of questions.
2. We need more scientists who are confessional and who are wrestling with the most difficult questions in science and theology.
3. We need to think about how we can best create “intellectual space” for our best theologians and scientist to explore tentative, non-binding hypotheses (from a scriptural realist perspective)

Hans did a great job of helping us think through some of the modern implications of these very old questions. It’s a good reminder that it’s all been done before, there’s nothing new under the sun. Praise God for his Word which is timeless!

This past week I had the privilege of attending the 2012 EFCA Theology Conference at Trinity in Deerfield, IL. Dr. Bob Yarbrough and Dr. D.A. Carson were the speakers for the topic of ‘Understanding the Complimentarian Position.’ It was a very helpful conference and took a look at what the Bible says about gender roles and how that affects us today. Over the next couple weeks (if I can get it done) I’ll be putting up some summaries from the different sessions up here.

The first pre-conference session was about the “hot topic” of the historicity of Adam and Eve. This presentation was given by my “dear old dad” Greg Strand and Hans Madueme.

The purpose of this preconference was to discuss this debate with the issues of inerrancy and the authority of the Word of God. The goal was to not become minimalists or maximalists, but instead major on the majors and minor on the minors. In light of that, how are we to think about the historical Adam and Eve, as under attack from the modern liberal views of them being a group of people?

At the core of this denial of Adam’s historicity were listed 3 groups or individuals: Francis Collins, BioLogos, and Peter Enns.

Francis Collins was a part of the Human Genome Project and has written a couple books about science and God, specifically in relation to creation. In his first book The Language of God, he claims that humans emerged from primates about 100,000 years ago, and in his later book The Language of Science and Faith, says that Adam and Ever “do not fit the evidence” that science has presented.

BioLogos was launched in 2007 by Francis Collins, the “atheist turned Christian” to promote theistic evolution. Many people look to BioLogos as the authority in this scientific discussion, and while there are many good Christian scientist who are a part of this organization, we need to be careful of their theological view.

BioLogos group does affirm that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. They have not yet adopted a statement of faith, but affirm 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 and the ancient creeds of the early church. While those are good and necessary to affirm, they aren’t the only things that need to be affirmed. The Bible as a whole is God’s inspired Word given to us. There is no realm that isn’t affected by Scripture. Many people at BioLogos are seeking to make the Bible fit into their science instead of seeing how science ultimately points us to Christ (Romans 1).

The final person that was addressed was Peter Enns who wrote Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. In this, Enns suggests that we read the Bible incarnationally. We must avoid the error of Docetism (that Christ only appeared to be human). The final conclusion he comes to is that because the Bible was written by humans, we must accept errors because of their ignorance, i.e. the biblical writers weren’t as scientifically advanced as us and therefore wouldn’t have written what they did if they knew the whole story. He therefore suggests that Adam is not the beginning of humanity, but the beginning of the nation of Israel. This leads him to say that a strictly literal reading of the Adam story no longer fits with what we know from secular science.

It seems that at the root of the previous 3 arguments is the questioning of the validity and authority of Scripture. This is exactly why point 3 of the new EFCA Statement of Faith states “We believe that God created Adam and Eve in His image, but they sinned when tempted by Satan.” For more information about the EFCA’s position on these issues, see Evangelical Convictions, pages 34-35 and75-77.