Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New
International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.
Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
Internet addresses (websites, blogs, etc.) and telephone numbers printed in this book
are offered as a resource to you. These are not intended in any way to be or imply an
endorsement on the part of Zondervan, nor do we vouch for the content of these sites
and numbers for the life of this book.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means — electronic, mechanical, photocopy,
recording, or any other — except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior
permission of the publisher.
Published in association with the literary agency of Credo Communications, LLC, Grand
Rapids, MI 49525.
08 09 10 11 12 13 14 • 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
List of Illustrations 11
Acknowledgments 12
Introduction: A Friendly Warning 13
11
12
A FRIENDLY WARNING
everyone agree, but only that they get along. Ethics, or living well, is
now more important than epistemology, or knowing right.4
THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE:
LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE
Liberal and conservative are loaded, elusive terms that are often
used to describe our politics (Are you a Democrat or Republican?),
morals (Is your motto “Try it you might like it” or “It’s a rule for a
reason”?) and religious views (Is your faith open to new interpreta-
tions, or do you embrace conformity to the past?). Here I am using
these terms in a more limited way to explain how we understand
and practice theology.
This distinction is important. Many theological conservatives,
myself included, are frequently embarrassed by the Religious Right
and do not think that God would necessarily vote Republican,
demonize homosexuals, or try very hard to turn America into a
“Christian” nation. We wish that God would stop talking to Pat
Robertson and that Anne Coulter would just stop talking.
So I realize that the terms liberal and conservative come clut-
tered with much cultural baggage. Yet there are no better words to
explain the theological battles of the last century or one’s theologi-
cal orientation today. For all our longing for some third way, every-
one puts the world and the Word together either by leaning toward
the side of reason (liberalism) or revelation (conservatism).5
Theological liberalism began in the nineteenth century with
Friedrich Schleiermacher, who argued that religious beliefs are
merely an expression of our “feeling of absolute dependence.” He
meant that our beliefs about God, rather than beginning with a
transcendent revelation, are generated from below, arising from our
own minds, cultural perspective, or religious experience.
This self-centered theological method led Schleiermacher and
his successors to reinterpret many of the traditional beliefs of the
Christian faith. Since modern culture could no longer believe in
the supernatural, committed liberals denied the deity of Jesus, his
virgin birth, numerous miracles, substitutionary death, bodily res-
urrection, and imminent return. Some even found it impossible to
believe that God was a distinct being, separate from his creation.
Unable to reconcile traditional Christian beliefs with modern
culture, liberals reduced the Christian faith to ethics. They did not
16
believe that the Christian faith is literally true (e.g., Jesus’ tomb is
not empty), but that it still teaches us the best way to live. Jesus may
not be the divine Son who bore our sins, but his death on the cross
does teach us how to love others. If we follow his example and sac-
rificially serve others, then we too will be children of God, points
of light in a dark world.6
Theological conservatives opposed this liberal reductionism
and sought to reclaim the traditional beliefs of the church. Led by
Princton theologians — Charles Hodge in the nineteenth century,
B. B. Warfield at the turn of the century, and J. Gresham Machen
in the 1920s — conservatives defended what they called “the funda-
mentals of the faith.” They insisted that loving your neighbor was
not enough, but that Christians must also believe in the truthfulness
of Scripture, the virgin birth and deity of Christ, his substitutionary
atonement, and his literal, physical resurrection and return. These
“fundamentalists” would continue to believe “the old, old story”
of the gospel, regardless of how untenable it seemed in a modern,
naturalistic world. Unlike their liberal counterparts, they refused to
accommodate the gospel to contemporary culture.7
Modernity Postmodernity
belief. If we continue down this road, it may not be long until our
liberal method leads to liberal conclusions.
Authentic Christianity demands our head, heart, and hands.
Our labor for Christ flows from our love for him, which can arise
only when we know and think rightly about him. Genuine Chris-
tians never stop serving, because they never stop loving, and they
never stop loving, because they never stop believing.
20
ture.3 While a few such dinosaurs still exist, most Christians today
rightly read Psalm 93:1 not as a scientific description of the earth’s
immovability but as a poetic promise of God’s provision for his cre-
ation (full disclosure: my seventh-grade science fair project argued
for geocentricity on the basis of Scripture and a few allegations from
the fundamentalist fringe of science — an embarrassing bunch of
quackery that somehow received a red ribbon!).
Politics. Many nineteenth-century Americans used Paul’s
commands that slaves should obey their masters as biblical sup-
port for slavery.4 But now, in part due to our country’s emphasis on
democracy and human rights, no one outside of an occasional white
supremacist uses the Bible to condone slavery.
History. Until recently most theologians believed that God is
impassible, meaning that he does not experience emotions (a sign of
weakness for an omnipotent and extremely rational God). Typical
is Anselm, who, in an eleventh-century prayer to God, wrote that
we may “feel the effect of Your mercy, but You do not experience
the feeling. . . . You do not experience any feeling of compassion for
misery.”5 Try preaching that! In part because we have just passed
through the bloodiest century in history — from the Holocaust to
Hiroshima to Hotel Rwanda — Christians are rediscovering the first
(because it was smallest) verse they ever memorized: “Jesus wept.”6
We have learned from painful experience that we not only need a
God who is strong, but also a God who weeps and suffers with us.
Society. Not that long ago and still every now and again, various
conservatives cite Genesis 1:28 in the King James Version to justify
their right to “dominate” the rest of creation. Thankfully, society’s
increasing concern for the environment leads most Christians to
interpret God’s command to “have dominion” as his call to respon-
sible stewardship rather than wasteful abuse of his world.7
1. Early Church
The early church benefited from its integration with Greek culture.
The first Christians not only wrote their New Testament in Greek,
but also they used Greek terms such as logos, ousia, and hypostasis
to better understand the nature of Jesus and the Trinity. Since these
helpful words made it into our ecumenical creeds, they remain an
essential part of orthodoxy today.8 The early church also relied
heavily on Greek philosophy — especially versions of Plato — to
lead many Greeks to Christ (Jesus is the fulfillment of your Platonic
thought), read difficult passages of Scripture (allegorize the hard
parts), and write powerful prose (“you have made us for yourself,
and our heart is restless until it rests in you”).9
But this immersion in Greek thought came at a steep
price — sometimes the early church sounded more Platonic than
Christian. They often misconstrued God as a merely transcendent
being — an immutable, impassible force who is unable to enjoy gen-
uine relationships with his creatures.10 They misunderstood what
it means to be human, often implying that we are essentially souls
trapped inside bodies until death liberates us from this decaying
world and our spirits fly to our true home beyond the sky.
This low view of the physical world cheapened creation and
shortchanged salvation from God’s cosmic redemption to the evac-
uation of righteous souls from planet Earth — in the end producing
an anemic, truncated gospel that still afflicts the church.11 It also
supplied a rationale for persecuting heretics, for killing the body to
save the soul was actually doing them a favor.12 And don’t get me
started on the early church’s allegorical interpretation of Scripture,
by which any passage of Scripture could be contorted to mean just
about anything, so long as it seemed orthodox.
2. Medieval Church
The church’s promising and perilous dance with culture contin-
ued in the Middle Ages. The first half of this period is often called
the Dark Ages, for between AD 500 and 1000, most Europeans
were serfs simply struggling to stay alive. In the latter half, when
24
most basic necessities were met and these Christians turned their
attention to developing culture, they soon realized that they were
outclassed by the advanced Muslim societies in Spain and North
Africa, who had developed their culture on the wisdom of Aristo-
tle. By the middle of the thirteenth century, Europe’s greatest theo-
logians realized that they would need to master Aristotle if they
wished to remain relevant.13
They were led by Thomas Aquinas, whose Summa Contra Gen-
tiles and Summa Theologica not only restored Christianity to intel-
lectual respectability, but in the process used Aristotelian categories
to enlarge our understanding of the existence and attributes of God.
To this day every informed discussion of God’s nature runs through
Thomas (tipping the scales at nearly three hundred pounds, few
discussions have the energy to go around him). Theologians may
disagree with some of his conclusions, but Aquinas remains too
important to ignore.
Yet the saying that “he who marries the present culture becomes
a widow in the next” was never truer than in the case of Thomas
Aquinas. His reliance on Aristotle, an immense strength when
Aristotle was the rage, became an insurmountable weakness when
the modern world moved beyond this philosophy. Copernicus’s
discovery that the sun is the stationary center of the universe and
Kepler’s insight that heavenly bodies move elliptically and change
speeds challenged Aristotle’s view that the earth is the focal point,
surrounded by a series of concentric, perfectly circular spheres con-
trolled by a hypothetical Unmoved Mover (Aristotle’s term for God).
Aristotle was finished off by William of Ockham, who asserted
that Aristotle’s cherished forms did not exist; Descartes, who said
that there are no individuals to actualize these forms; and Galileo,
who argued that inertia rather than things seeking to embody their
forms better explains the cause of motion. Thus, the brilliant work
of Thomas Aquinas, so essential to the church’s survival in his day,
had become largely irrelevant by the next.14
3. Modern Church
The trend of benefiting from and getting burned by culture con-
tinued into the modern world. The sixteenth century witnessed the
rise of the individual. Politically, German princes challenged the
authority of the foreign Roman Church; theologically, individual
25
4. Postmodern Church
We are now entering a new age, an age so young that we don’t even
know yet what to call it, so we just say it is postmodern — the age
that comes after and is somewhat critical of the modern period.
27
ers receive this work of God, we cannot expect them to see things
entirely our way.
And who can argue with the postmodern critique that those
“in the know” have often used their position to oppress the weak?
Christians should be leading the charge against this abuse of power,
for we claim to follow a Savior who humbly befriended those on the
outside looking in, whether women, lepers, or tax collectors. The
Trinity itself supplies the model for inclusive love — three persons
who sacrifice their own desires so the others might flourish (see
chap. 3).19 And it’s hard to read much of the writing of the Old Tes-
tament prophets without hearing God’s repeated warning to watch
out for those who can’t watch out for themselves. So far so good.
But our culture’s priority on tolerance can go too far. If we are
going to love and embrace people who are different, so the thinking
goes, then we should also learn to tolerate their beliefs. How can I
say I accept you if I reject those things, such as religion, that lie at
the core of who you are? Who am I to say that you must believe what
I believe to be accepted by God?
And why must we think that beliefs matter that much anyway?
Postmoderns argue that if the modern world (and 9/11) taught us
anything, it’s that those who claim to know the truth are typically
a threat to others. Better to focus on how we live rather than what
we believe. After all, it’s not as if on judgment day God is going to
open our brains to check whether we can verbalize the right facts
about him.20 But he will judge us according to our actions — did
we love our neighbor as ourselves? As long as we are doing that,
does it really matter how we got there — whether by following Jesus,
Mohammed, or the Dalai Lama?
lubricate their lives, metal grinds on metal until their wheels over-
heat and eventually seize up, crippling their faith.
Humbly admit
Used Greek Used rising our dependence
Communication
Used
language and individualism on the Holy
Aristotelian
philosophy for to challenge Spirit to know
philosophy
New Testament, authority and truth and love
to compete with
Trinity, and ignite the those who are
Islam
evangelism Reformation different and
disenfranchised
Discredited
Led liberals to
when Aristotle’s
Produced a deny the super-
worldview was Too much of the
Compromise
30
31