Wesley and the Anglicans - A Review

If you’re like me, you probably don’t know that much about how Methodism separated from the Church of England. There were a few minutes of discussion in my Church History II class about John Wesley trying to keep his people inside the Church of England, but having it fall apart shortly after he died. That’s about all I knew, though if you had asked me, I would have credited it to some of the theological differences between the Anglican communion and the revivalistic Methodists.

In his recent book, Wesley and the Anglicans: Political Division in Early Evangelicalism, Ryan Danker gives a much more nuanced account. Even if the origins of Methodism are not a major interest for you, this book is enjoyable for students of historical theology.

Danker’s argument, fleshed out in nine chapters, is that the the divisions between John Wesley and the Anglicans were much more than theological. In fact, they were not primarily theological. After all, the same Church of England that eventually spit out the Methodists remained hosts to some Unitarians and other heterodox (and perhaps some heretical) theologians. Instead, the chief points of dissent between the Church of England and Wesley were those related to politics.

Summary

Chapter One outlines the characteristics of English Evangelicalism, which included Methodists, but also included more traditional members of the Church of England and dissenters on the outside of the sanctioned church. The second chapter places Wesley within the context of English Evangelicalism. He lived on the edge of acceptable circles, given his seeming drift toward dissenting ecclesiology combined with a surprising desire to remain within the high church tradition. He was at once too radical and too conservative for many English Evangelicals.

In Chapter Three, Danker surveys the vast array of pamphlets and tracts published about the Wesleys and by the Wesleys, which served to confuse people regarding the actual position of the Methodist movement about many issues. Fake news and propaganda had a place in this dispute as well. The fourth chapter considers the influence that political history in England had on the Methodist movement. As outliers on the ecclesial scale, the drift away from the Anglican communion caused many to remember the negatives of Cromwell and his revolutionaries. Indeed, there were echoes of ethical stringency among the Methodists that brought back unpleasant memories of Puritan political hegemony. This added to the negative view many had of Wesley and his followers.

Chapter Five reflects on the territorial tensions caused by Wesley and his large network of lay preachers. Parishes were generally divided by geographical boundaries, but Wesley’s unsupervised, unsanctioned lay preachers went to wherever their message was needed. This led to tension between Evangelical Anglicans who saw Methodist preachers making inroads in their territory, making it more difficult for them to reform. The sixth chapter documents how this tension was even increased as the Methodist lay preachers began to administer the Lord’s Supper, which was traditionally reserved for ordained clergy. This is a theological issue that gave momentum to the departure of the Methodists from the Church of England upon Wesley’s death.

Chapter Seven records the shifting political tide against the Methodists, as young men practicing some of the methodistic practices were expelled from state universities. This increased the attempts of the reform-seeking Evangelical Anglicans to distance themselves from the irregularities of Methodism and aided in the final alienation of Wesley’s tribe. Chapter Eight attempts to paint Wesley as a reformer in line with earlier forms of Christianity rather than the English reformation. Danker concludes the volume in the ninth chapter documenting Wesley’s final attempt to be reconciled to the Evangelical Anglicans, which eventually failed and caused him to drift farther from the Church of England.

Analysis

As a Baptist theologian reading about the life of Wesley and the split with Anglicanism, I found myself unfamiliar with some of the nuances of the history Danker expounds. His book, for me, was informative and engaging. It provides a gateway into the conflict of the origins of the Methodist denomination.

Danker argues his thesis well. He makes a solid case that there was much more to the division between the Wesleyan tradition and the Church of England than a dispute over Arminianism and Calvinism. (These are Danker’s terms on page 13.) Based on the story that Danker tells, it is clear that political tensions, territorial feuds, and a whole host of very human difficulties caused the final schism between the Methodists and the Church of England.

Whether Danker is right in his final analysis or whether he has overlooked significant evidence is a matter for the Methodists and Anglicans to fight out. I’ll bring my popcorn and enjoy the debate.

However, as a theologian and one who appreciates Church History, I applaud the care in Danker’s analysis to show that this is a complicated question. Too often history falls prey to the magic bullet explanation that neutralizes all counter arguments and makes simple that which is complex. That is what the Arminian/Calvinism split explanation has been for surveys of Church History and the reason for the Methodist exodus. Danker does well to show that there was much more at play. Humans are complicated creatures and our theological debates are often driven by more than simply the doctrinal question at hand. Here is a nuanced account of how one historical debate unfolded.

This volume could have been improved had Danker added a chapter laying out the accepted arguments for the split. He mentions in passing the soteriological explanation traditionally given in his introduction, but for those of us who have little background in Methodist/Anglican history, a bit more fleshing out would have been beneficial. That criticism aside, this is a helpful and interesting book that a student of Protestant Church History and Theology will likely find instructive and enjoyable.

Wesley and the Anglicans: Political Division in Early Evangelicalism

$18.35

By Ryan Nicholas Danker

Buy on Amazon

Note: I received a gratis copy of this volume from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

Darwinism as Religion - A Review

Although most of the time I’ve encountered Darwinian evolution as a theory it has been within the context of apologetic debates, I’ve never before heard someone from the other side of the debate admit the truth that is very obvious to many Christians. This truth is, namely, that Darwinism functions much like a religion.

To many, the assertion that Darwinism has religious traits is offensive. After all, the reason some adhere to Darwinism is not because they have rationally examined it and accepted it over alternatives, but because it provides a set of defeater beliefs against traditional religions, especially Christianity. In fairness, some have examined Darwinism in comparison to the creation story in Scripture and believe that atheistic evolution better explains the universe than does the possibility of creation by a deity, no matter how long it may have taken. However someone who affirms a form of Darwinian evolution should recognize there are faith structures at work.

Michael Ruse is no proponent of creationism or Christianity, but his thesis is pretty simple: “I argue that evolutionary thinking generally over the past 300 years of its existence, and Darwinian thinking in particular since the publication of [his] two great works . . ., has taken on the form and role of a religion.”

Ruse is not claiming that evolutionists believe in a supreme being, but rather, “in the way that evolution tries to speak to the nature of humans and their place in the scheme of things, we have a religion, or if you want to speak a little more cautiously a ‘secular religious perspective.’”

What Ruse does argue is that the are ordering principles and moral demands that people have derived from evolutionary thought during its rise and sustenance. Just as deities have inspired beautiful poetry and prose, so, too, have authors used the muse of random chance plus time to serenade the world with their art. Darwinism has become for some a suitable replacement for the Christian God.

Summary

This volume is an analysis of pre-Darwinian and Darwinian evolutionary thought. He begins with the rudimentary ideas of evolution that preceded Darwin. He offers a quick summary of Darwin’s theory and its early reception, emphasizing the many of those who heard his theories early on recognized the potential for them to serve in replacement for the creator God. These are the first four chapters. The sub-thesis of these chapters is that Darwin’s most signal contribution was being able to transition evolutionary thought from pseudoscience to popular science.

In Chapter Five, the emphasis shifts. Beginning in this section through the end of the volume, Ruse is demonstrating that through Darwin, evolutionary thought “became a secular religion, in opposition to Christianity.” Ruse recognizes that evolutionary thinking requires faith just as Christianity requires faith; it posits thinking in traditional theological categories just as Christianity does. In fact, because of its competition with Christianity for dominance in the world, Ruse spends the remainder of the volume outlining, to some extent, a systematic theology of evolution.

He begins with God. Ruse argues that evolutionary thinkers like Thomas Huxley active sought to replace God with evolution. Thus, he and others had to deal with topics like suffering and meaning in life. Something had to be used to fill the God shaped vacuum and some evolutionary thinkers sought to do that through Darwinian evolution. Meaning, then, becomes not about glorifying the creator God, but fulfilling your evolutionary destiny. For some that appears to have been enough.

Evolutionary thinking is largely seen by some Christians as a theory of origins. It is, in fact, on these lines that the greatest Christian criticism of non-theistic evolution is levied. Instead of seeing God as the eternal creator, they tended to begin with the material as inexplicable and eternal. This left some, like Thomas Hardy presenting the world in somewhat pagan terms in order to avoid the hopeful message of Christianity.

Ruse traces literary evidences of other doctrines, like humanity, race and class, and ethics. Another sharp critique against evolutionary thought from Christians has been the difficulty in founding morality. Thus, Ruse’s efforts to explain how Darwinian thinkers produced a new formula for ethics. It is basically that morality is founded in the evolution of pro-social behaviors in culture. This explanation worked for the likes of Herbert Spencer, George Eliot, and Thomas Huxley, but it worked in part because of the Christian ethos of the culture. There was division even among evolutionary thinkers on the foundations of morality, as Ruse shows that even Jack London anticipated some source for morality besides a properly evolved human nature. Whether one agrees with the foundations of morality developed by evolutionary thinkers or not, Ruse’s chapter is invaluable in showing how they attempted work it out in their literature.

There are similar formulations for topics such as sex, sin and redemption, and the future in Ruse’s book. His exposition of these themes, which are direct answers to Christian questions, are well done. Ruse effectively shows how evolutionary thought has developed in categories that correspond to most theistic religions. He closes out the book with chapters on Darwinian theory as it developed and is developing and reflects on the continued strife between traditional Christian understandings of the world and Darwinian thought.

Analysis

The summary above does not do justice to the subtlety and significance of Ruse’s demonstration of the religious aspects of Darwinism. He is working from the works of poets, novelists, and playwrights. While they might not be as ideologically precise as a professional philosopher, artists tend to reflect a more full-bodied, authentic expression of ideas than the careful, precise, sometimes defensive words of those engaged in philosophical fencing. In other words, writers tend to say what they actually think something means, not just the pieces of the puzzle that are defensible. Apologists tend to be more coy and to phrase their counter-arguments less clearly when they are difficult to defend.

As Ruse covers his selected topics through literature, it becomes clear that the sense of religiosity that Christians tend to find in evolutionary thinking is actually there. In other words, Ruse exposes that Darwinism is really a religion, with tenets of faith, concern for orthodoxy and the like.

Demonstrating the religiosity of Darwinism doesn’t automatically discount its credibility, but it does put it on an even footing with Christianity in terms of its content. In other words, instead of being able to claim that evolutionary theory is an impartial, scientific truth, Ruse shows that as it is often proclaimed—by Darwinists, neo-Darwinists, and other evolutionary apologists—evolutionary theory is simply a competitor to other religions.

This is an important step, because if this reality is accepted, it means that Darwinian thinking and its later evolutions should be subjected to the same sorts of rationalist critique as revealed religions such as Christianity. It means that apologists for evolutionary faith over against Christianity must do their leg work to engage the Christian faith and demonstrate the value of their own faith system. Ruse is helping the discussion to be more honest.

Such a calling to honest self-evaluation and openness to legitimate discussion is a good thing for the dialog for evolutionary thinkers and Christians. Recently proponents of unguided evolution have come to ridicule anyone that presupposes a divine being who is engaged in design and creation. They claim this is because of science, but as Ruse shows, the basis of their assertion is really a serious of quasi-religious faith assumptions.  After all, evolutionists must still grapple with where it all came from and why there is something rather than nothing. That isn’t science, it needs religious thinking to explain it. Simply positing that aliens sent life to earth is really just cheating, because it isn’t far from aliens to God in reality—at least not as far as the need for belief. In fact, given the possibility of revelation, there is much less evidence of aliens than there is God.

Conclusion

Darwinism as Religion does not end any discussions. It is a solid literary analysis by a well-read, fair-minded author. Instead of killing discussions or proving anyone’s point absolutely in the whole evolution vs. Christianity debate, it shows that the debate is necessary and that those who dismiss Christianity as irrationally faith based need to pay attention to the faith assumptions that got them where they are.

Ruse has done a great work to produce this volume. It adds to the field of scholarship on the topic and is a great addition to the library of both Christians and atheists seeking to understand the historical and literary presentation of evolutionary thought.

Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us about Evolution

$26.88

By Michael Ruse

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume with no expectation of a positive review.

A Fun Activity for your Family

Some extended family time is upon us. Once you’ve exhausted the possibilities for polite discussion, you may be wondering what you should do or talk about.

 In some families, this may be the time that the traditional family game of Twister is launched. However, for those of more sedate minds, other games may be in order. Some games are entertaining, some humorous, some dauntingly boring, and some just plain fun.

 I’m here to suggest a fun game that can fill your afternoon even if you didn’t plan ahead. In fact, all you need for this game is a timer (like the one on your cell phone), some paper, and writing utensils.

 This is a version of Madlibs, but without the prefabricated story.

Photo used by CC License. For credit: http://ow.ly/zcxK306twQu

 The gist of the game is that everyone will answer a series of questions by writing down a clause of a sentence. At the end, the resultant sentences will be read aloud. Typically much hilarity results, especially if you have an odd assortment of ages, interests, and personalities.

 You’ll want to set a timer for 15-30 seconds (otherwise someone will think too hard), announce one of the questions, have people write on their papers, then fold their answer back and pass the paper along.

 The game can be played with any number of players, however, I would recommend having five or more. We recently played with a group of college students, ourselves, and our kids.

 There are five questions that participants will need to write a clause in response to:

1.  Who did it?
2.  What did they do?
3. Where did they do it?
4. When did they do it?
5. Why did they do it? 

Since we just played this game, I’ll produce some of the results below: 

My stinky dad
Searched for the formula to turn iron into gold
At the North Pole
After mother said to
To get back home. 

[Two Participants]
Ate a stack of pancakes
On the moon
As the sun rose and the choir sang Old MacDonald in falsetto voices
Because she forgot bubble gum.

 16 yellow monkeys with names that start with ‘z’
watching TV
in Fred’s stomach
while Ronald Reagan was President
to win one million dollars. 

Everyone in this house
Stacked some coins
On Hoth
As the snow fell on a quiet July evening and the banjo music lilted on by
Because no unicorn had come 

Princess Leah
Landed terribly
In a ramshackle house on the edge of a cliff in Texas
In the 1600s
To feed mom carrots. 

George Washington
Flew upside down deliberately
In New York
On November 18, 2016
To be able to retire early and learn to play shuffleboard. 

 

Doctors in the Soviet Union
Got soaking wet in the rain
In Greece
In 1812
Because no one had ever asked her to the prom. 

Dr. Wierdo
Advertised on the internet
At McDonalds
Before dinner
To destroy the dark side forever. 

A co-op of ladies making and selling jewelry
Did the hokey-pokey
Down by the river side
In the second century of the new republic
Since her mother hadn’t ever seen her left toe uncovered.

Obviously, all of these are a load of nonsense, which is exactly why they were so much fun. If you are bored, or in need of some cooperative levity, I recommend playing this simple game.

Stay Salty, Christians

When I was in the Navy, being salty referred to being experienced. It was an oft joked about phrase because the first few years I was on the USS Jimmy Carter, it was on blocks inside a building. We were concerned about knowing enough and being good enough so that it didn’t look like amateur night when we first went to see in a very expensive new vessel.

In some circles, salty is a term that refers to crassness. One may speak in salty language, which probably comes from sailors, too, who have been known to swear fluently. I can attest that I’ve known a few experienced sailors that could do so quite well, though that skill is far from exclusive to mariners.

Salt Shaker, by Rachel. Used by CC license. http://ow.ly/wFjH306d08S

Both of these uses of the term salt refer to a distinctiveness of the salty person of the salty language.

When the authors of Scripture use the term salt, they are also getting at distinctiveness. In Christian contexts, though, the distinctiveness of saltiness is viewed as a positive contrast to the sin of the world. According to Robert Stein, in the New Testament, "salt" refers to the characteristics of Christians as disciples. He affirms that in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:13-14, that is clearly the meaning of the term.

Christians are to be distinct from the world. We need to look no farther than Paul’s oft quoted command to the Roman church in Romans 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world.” Being distinct is a good thing.

There is a paradox in being Christian in this world. We are to be in the world, but not of it. We are citizens of our nations, but ultimately owe a higher allegiance to God. We will use the accepted professional techniques in our work, but remain distinctly Christian in our motivation. We are to participate in the work of the world without succumbing to its temptations.

We are to utilize our regular lives to illuminate the distinctiveness of the gospel. This is what salt does. When you add salt to your food it doesn’t become a different sort of food, but it sure tastes better. I once ate with a family in which a member had had significant heart trouble. They cooked and ate without salt in their food. I decided that I liked salt a lot in that moment. But unsalted meatloaf is still nourishing. It may even be healthier.

Salt is useful when it is salty, but when it isn’t salty it is worthless. That’s what Jesus is talking about in the Sermon on the Mount.

As Matthew records, “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is not longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.” (Matt 5:13-14)

Christians risk so much of importance when they lose their distinction from the world. That’s part of the reason I reject the idea of America as a Christian nation. There are certainly strong Judeo-Christian influences in the culture in which our nation was founded, but it never has been a Christian nation. To argue that it has been a Christian nation is to accuse Christianity of the massacre of Native Americans and the sustenance of racially based chattel slavery. These are distinctly anti-Christian practices. Obviously, some Christians got sucked into them and even defended them. However, these violate the very principals of Christianity. They are evidences of occasions that people that claim Christ sacrificed their saltiness for political or material gain.

We are over-proud when we make the assumption that we are not swimming in a cultural sea of temptation to lose our saltiness. Those gross violations of Scripture may be in the past, but we face new errors today.

Faithful Christians must fight to retain their saltiness. We must work to avoid conformity to the incorrect practices of this world. A failure to do so may cost us, and the Church, a great deal more than we should be willing to risk. It may cost us the ability to freely proclaim the gospel. It may result in an environment in which the gospel is so buried with baggage that we have to debunk Christian-created myths before we can ever share the wonder of redemption with someone. We need to fight to be salty.

Danny Akin preached a powerful sermon a few weeks ago in the chapel at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. It expands on this topic and proclaims in light of a call to missions.

Against White Identity Politics and Religious Registration

For all of the tizzy that some people are in over the election and the counter finger-wagging from others, there are some signals of significant causes for concern. There have been a number of false reports that have come out about the transition team and, since they supported the prior assumptions of many, they have been run with. This is problematic. However, through the noise of exaggeration and misreporting of news, there are some signs that ought to concern people of good conscience.

Against the White Genocide Movement

This election has revealed that there are good people that are becoming attracted to a movement for white ethnic identity, which is often described as opposing “white genocide” or “cultural Marxism.” As a response to the perpetual hammering of identity politics on the left, it is an understandable development. However, as a strategy for unity and justice, it is doomed to failure. Any political system that seeks disunity over unity should be rejected. The United States has already tried separate but equal once. It failed. It was mostly separate, but hellishly unequal. We should not think about going there again.

As Christians, our identity is first in Christ. As Paul tells us clearly, in the church “there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” (Col 3:11) The church is a fundamentally political institution. We have “immigration policies” in which we offer membership to believers who have participated in the initiation rite of baptism by immersion. (At least in the Baptist context.) We seek justice in our relationships toward one another. However, the church is doomed to fail in the pursuit of justice if it retains distinctions based on nationality or ethnicity.

Photo: Lighting Strike by Fabio Slongo. Used by CC License:  http://ow.ly/48DR306gJNI

The future of the church is unity across ethnic barriers. This is the image we see in Revelation 7, “I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the lamb, clothed in white robes with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’” This is not a vision that should fuel ethnic division or even permit us to countenance such as the body of Christ. While we are unlikely to attain to this vision while on earth, this is what we should pursue today.

Rejecting white nationalism or white genocide does not equal a call for an “open border” immigration policy. (A common accusation against many on the right and left by those supporting white identity politics.) The United States has the right to set immigration policies that take into account the good of its citizens—this is a function of nation-states in our day, and is not inherently unjust (although it may be pursued unjustly). However, the perception of some (and some that I’ve seen who claim to be Christian) is that we must build a movement of white ethnic solidarity and ban all immigration or risk being overcome. The second is implausible, despite ridiculous claims to the contrary. The first should be anathema to Christians given our eschatological hope in a supremely diverse chorus of voices joined in worship.

Against Religious Registries

Recently someone actually went onto national television to argue for a registry of Muslim believers. Or, at least, he argued there was precedent for it. Much news can be made of this person’s relation to the incoming administration. Of greater concern for me is that such a terrible idea should never have seen the light of day outside of a condemnation of our distant past.

The person speaking was correct to note that the U.S. has a precedent for registering people. He was also correct to note that during World War II we registered and interned ethnic Japanese, some of whom were immigrants. There is a precedent for such a registry.

However, the internment of ethnic minorities during World War II is an instance of protectionist government overreach. This is a black mark on our nation’s history, not the sort of historical event we should dust off and try to recreate in the present. We should not even consider it an option, though I will engage in a thought experiment for the sake of discussion.

Let’s assume we create a registry of everyone in religion X. To do so, we have to ask ourselves how we will determine whether someone is part of that religion. Is it attendance at a worship service? Is it being born into a family that has at some point attested to being part of religion X? Is it having grown up in a nation that is perceived to be predominately filled with religion X? What happens if someone converts to another religion? How do we determine whether that conversion is authentic?

All of a sudden, the government is trying to make decisions about things that it is simply not qualified to do. Religion isn’t ethnicity, where a family tree justifies inclusion. Even when dealing with ethnicity, how much is too much? One parent? One grandparent? A brother in law? For religion, the government would have to ask a different, more nebulous set of questions.

The obvious and necessary outcome is that the government steps into the role of religious authority. Person A has demonstrated sufficient effort to be considered Christian even though he grew up in a Muslim home. At the same time, since Person B simply stopped attending the Mosque and hasn’t picked up another active religion, should he be considered to still be Muslim? Unless he eats some bacon and draws a cartoon of Mohammed? Would open sacrilege be sufficient (or necessary) to change a classification?

Suddenly, I’m catching a whiff of the Inquisition. That’s not a high point in human history, much less in Christian history. I’m also hearing echoes of the persecution of the Jews under the Nazi regime. Certainly it wouldn’t start there and it might never get to that extent, but the echoes of that horror of the persecution of the Jews should be enough to steer us clear.

So what happens when the anti-theists get hold of the government? Now we can get parallel registries of Muslims and Christians. No worries, they will just be keeping tabs on people of faith. Why? Just to keep everyone safe and ensure the government knows what is going on. And then to perhaps ensure that we don’t have people of certain faiths in certain government positions. Does this sound like a dystopian fiction? Yes, but it’s only a step or two beyond registering Muslims, which someone felt comfortable bringing up as a possibility in a TV interview.

This is the sort of thing that Christians (and any reasonable people) should speak against. It’s not a good idea. It’s not going to make us safer. It’s not going to end well. If we’re for religious liberty for some (ourselves?), then we need to hold out the same rights for all. That needs to be the principle we stand on.

The government does not have the wherewithal to regulate religion. The common good is not enhanced by the government regulating religion. Making people register their religious affiliation is not simply information gathering, it is regulating. We must keep this power away from the government.

Just a Media Overreaction?

One of the tragedies of contemporary society is the 24-hour news cycle. This creates the problem of the proliferation of interviews of people who might know someone that knows something speaking authoritatively about stuff. There is such a need to fill the airwaves that they bring people that might float the idea of something like a Muslim registry on national television. This, then, fuels dozens of hot takes (like this one), replays, edits, and discussion panels. Sometimes the furor is over nothing.

I’ll be glad to find out that this suggestion is really nothing. Unfortunately, there are some that will hear it and begin to think that such a simple encroachment on civil liberties is really worth it to prevent the explosion of another IED or another religiously driven night-club shooting. Because of the protectionist stance some (particularly whites) are taking, this will begin to sound like a good idea. Reading Twitter and some of the Alt-Right propaganda sites provides evidence that this idea isn’t just nothing.

Sometimes there is an overreaction that deserves to be neglected. The media cries wolf too often, as a rule. However, we can’t let their failures in the past prevent us from seeing problems in the present. These are issues that have the potential to take root in the minds of some in our churches and we should be careful not to let sin get a foothold.

The purpose of this post, therefore, is not to fuel the overreaction, but to offer some consideration for the ideas that are actually being floated as plausible and to encourage Christians to think about how these ideas betray the gospel (as with white nationalism) and put impartial justice in jeopardy (as with the Muslim registry). People are actually talking about some of these things as if they are good ideas. They aren’t, and we should make sure that the church is clear in standing against them.

Lessons Learned from my Dissertation Defense

I still have that feeling of contentment in light of last Tuesday. Not because of the results of the election, but because I successfully defended my doctoral dissertation. I’ll leave the politics to others; frankly, I’m just glad this election cycle is over.

Photo: The Leeds Library. Public Domain: http://ow.ly/QmT0306bLEN

Seminary has been the best decade of my life. I started on my Master of Divinity in the Fall of 2005. It’s now the Fall of 2016 and I’ve finally completed the final step of the process. All that remains are a few typographical revisions and graduation. I’ve invested the arm and a leg that it costs to get regalia, so that’s out of the way.

For the handful of folks that read my blog and are interested, I’ve been summarizing some lessons learned from each stage of the game. Today I’m going to do the same for my dissertation defense.

Readers should recognize that some of this depends on your topic, discipline, and committee composition. However, in general, here are the lessons I learned:

1.         You really do know more about the topic than your committee. Most of my life, the person giving the examination knew the answer before asking the question. However, at my defense, there were multiple occasions that my examiners asked questions out of legitimate curiosity or simply because they weren’t aware that the literature pointed a different direction. Being able to cite specific examples and argue cogently why I wrote one thing and not another was important, and my argument was accepted because I was more current and more deeply read on my topic than the examiners.

2.         Sometimes the committee is asking questions just to see how you’ll answer. After spending years looking up to the professor, now the professors are asking you for your judgment. There were a few questions that they asked that seemed to be more concerned with the manner that I answered them than what I said. Confidence is important, but so is humility. I admitted my knowledge, but it was important to admit when we went beyond what I had researched.

3.         Part of the defense, at least at Southeastern, is an assessment of character. This was more than just a test of knowledge. The committee wanted to see what I had learned about myself from the process. For me, one of the most important lessons was to have a greater degree of compassion for the authors whose imperfect books I read. There were points in my dissertation that I knew were not as strong as others, but at some point I had to accept that was the best I could do right now and move on. Other authors are doing the same.

4.         The extra time I spent making the dissertation readable paid off. There is little doubt from the comments of my committee that working to make the prose as clear as possible encouraged them to give me grace in other areas. Readability does not replace good content, but it was worth the effort. I think that the work on the front end helped contributed to the positive outcome that includes no mandatory revisions. I have some typos to fix, but only a few hours of work.

5.         The best dissertation is still the done dissertation. Even with changing jobs and moving halfway across the country last year, the dissertation still took me only about a year and a half to write. It was much better to push through than to drag it out for two or three years. (This assumes that you aren’t waiting on research, etc.) It was worth it to write nearly every day, give up some family fun and push to completion even when taking a week off would have felt really good.

6.         I benefited greatly from choosing my general topic (environmental ethics) at the beginning of my program. That allowed me to read broadly, explore various tangential topics in seminars along the way, and finally find a good working thesis.

7.         The best way to prepare is to re-read your dissertation and review your bibliography and footnotes to refresh who the conversation partners are. I also made sure I checked the committee’s publication lists to see if there was something they were thinking about that I should be prepared to discuss.

All in all, I’m glad to be done. It was a long process; I learned a lot about my topic and about myself. Now I need to set out a research agenda for the next few years. There is a stack of books on my shelves and another set in my Amazon wish list that I have been putting off and want to catch up with. I have some kids to play with and a laundry list of small projects around the house to do. Oh, the places we can go.

Preparing my Defense

Today I defend my dissertation. I imagine it will be something like this video. I'll let you know when I'm done.

Celebrating Bibfeldt

Franz Bibfeldt was conceived in frustration on a Sunday afternoon by seminary students in Chicago many years ago. His conception was driven by the pernicious insistence on keeping the seminary library closed on weekends before Monday term papers. This led to students inventing their footnotes. One such footnote, fabricated and false, led to the birth of the infamous Franz Bibfeldt.

According to his biographers, "Franz Bibfeldt was born in the early morning hours of November 1, 1897, at Sage-Hast bei Groszenkneten, Oldenburg, Niedersaschsen, Germany, and was baptized the same day." His rapid baptism, of course, was to ensure all of the saints were appeased, which would set the course for Bibfeldt's life. "His birth was one day premature, since he was conceived on February 2 after a Candlemas party." There's just enough sex in his life story to make it interesting, but not enough to make it popular.

Like most of the great theologians of the 20th century, Bibfeldt was blessed with a funny name that starts with ‘B’. This has led many greater minds to stardom, like Brunner, Barth, Buber, Bultmann, and Bonhoeffer. In fact, according to some sources, one reason Kierkegaard felt it necessary to publish pseudonymously was because he experienced a feeling of sickness unto death in his name’s unfortunate inadequate first initial. Kierkegaard never hit on the secret to success in his search for a marketable pseudonym; however, hindsight is 20/20.

Similar to most jokes told by theologians, Bibfeldt’s life story has a few groan-worthy punchlines buried in paragraphs of torturous reasoning. (What can you expect from people whose idea of fun is listening to papers being read about immutability, moral agency, and the problem of evil?) At the same time, part of the value a figure like Bibfeldt brings to theology is a critique of the theological enterprise.

Unlike books such as Wildlife in the Kingdom Come, that I reviewed here, or articles like the one on “New Directions in Pooh Studies,” that someone included in an academic journal years ago, Bibfelt is a figure of greater potential.

As Martin Marty describes it in the satirical book, The Unrelieved Paradox, Bibfeldt is a figure who is malleable to the needs of the day: ‘The Bibfeldt ideology has changed after twenty-five years; he embodies the principle of responding-although-he-will-be-changed gone awry. His coat of arms displays the ever-changing god Proteus atop a weathervane, and his motto is the Spanish line, “I dance to the tune that is played.”’

One of Bibfeldt’s most profound, hopeful, and representative theological statement is the inscription he left on a bathroom stall at the University of Chicago Divinity School, “God grades on a curve.”

He wrote his dissertation on the so-called Year Zero problem. After all, we went from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. What happened to the year in the middle? As a result of this confusion, Bibfeldt has very rarely been physically seen; he tends to show up exactly one year early or one year late. Though artifacts like the scrawl on the stall door described above tend to attest to his reality. Or, at least the possibility of his reality.

There is enough to the story of Bibfeldt (may he live forever) to encourage otherwise respected scholars to publish a book of essays about him. There is sufficient humor in the concept that a known publisher would print said book and even, to the surprise of literally everyone involved, publish a second edition of said book. Of course, it came out as the “18th perhaps 19th anniversary edition.” Whichever it is, it is worth the money. Maybe. If you need a joke.

The Unrelieved Paradox: Studies in the Theology of Franz Bibfeldt, 18th (or Perhaps 19th) Anniversary Revised Edition

$20.00

Eerdmans

Buy on Amazon

One of the things that makes Bibfeldt funny is that it is written by people who are making fun of themselves. Too much humor these days is focused on trying to shame people in the outgroup. Viewers only have to look at late night TV and the way that the left uses humor to express their hatred of the right to see this. The one line “gotcha” against the other side’s strawmen is the order of the day.

(Of course, there is some of that on the right, too. The Babylon Bee sometimes takes cheap shots. They also dig in pretty heartily to their own conservative, Reformed foibles, contrary to the complaints of offended liberals.)

Bibfeldt is a figure that is useful for lightly mocking one’s own camp and maybe the other guy, too. However, because Bibfeldt is written in a long form scholarly format, it lends itself to a bit more consideration given to actually being funny and actually presenting the position being critiqued more carefully.

While you’ve probably never heard of Bibfeldt, and probably shouldn’t have, you could stand to read (of) him if you do theology. He’s worthy of a late night guffaw among a group of professional theologians. He’s also worth resurrecting from time to time to highlight some of the errors of the Zeitgeist. The world would be a better place if Bibfeldt studies continue among both conservative and liberal scholars and, from time to time, if new manuscripts are discovered.

Bibfeldt is a man of all seasons and a master of none. He’s an ever present goat in times of trouble, though he tends to be regularly late to dinner when called. The world needs a little more Bibfeldt. Perhaps Bibfeldt, and not more cowbell, is the prescription for the fever of the world today.

There is No Second Order Guilt

There is no such thing as second order guilt.

This election, economic reasoning, and so many of our choices would be greatly simplified if more people were aware of this.

What is second order guilt? I’m glad you asked.

Freedom by Osajus, used by CC license. http://ow.ly/TL2U305uPoi

Second order guilt is a situation where you are morally culpable for the actions of someone else that led to your actions or resulted from your actions. It is the basis for many contemporary decisions, but it is not really a thing.

For example, some people argue that if you purchase clothing and that clothing was made by a slave somewhere that you are morally culpable for the person’s slavery. Or another example: some people argue that if the government funds abortions and you pay taxes that you are morally guilty of abortion.

If these sound compellingly familiar, it is because a great deal of argumentation in the public square is based on this sort of reasoning:

“Don’t use the Firefox browser because their CEO supports marriage.”

“You have to vote for X because if Y wins there are going to be more abortions in the US. Therefore, if you vote for Z and Y wins the blood of those babies is on your hands.”

“I buy fair trade coffee because I don’t want to be guilty of abusing poor Peruvian farmers who sell to non-fair trade companies.”

Where the Real Complexity Lies

There are two separate pieces to consider here. First, there are decisions that we make to leverage our economic or political power to bring about social change. Second, there is the actual assignment of guilt. It’s important to recognize the difference.

Boycotting a company over their policies is completely licit and ethically permissible. I think that evangelicals have gone off the rails and use it altogether too much as a blunt object, but people are free to leverage their money to bring about social change. The sugar boycotts that were implemented to help end slavery in Britain were useful both for raising awareness and for putting economic pressure on the plantation owners that used slave labor.

The risk in boycotting is that if it is used too much it loses its impact. Often, too, the products or companies that replace the banned product are nearly as bad or bad in other ways, so there is a great deal more moral ambiguity than people generally allow.

The second is the more significant issue. For many boycotters (or this year, political activists), in order to increase participation, they leap from making boycotting a power play to assigning moral guilt for a failure to participate.

Part of this, I think, is because for many people the ills that are driving the boycott are really that important. Also, there is the fact that no one wants to admit that they are really just making a power play and trying to beat someone else into submission. That’s what a boycott really is. It can be described in a more genteel way, but it is simply a legitimate means of coercion.

However, since the mushy middle, which is the vast majority of the population, is unlikely to take significant action based on a desire to reshape society through genteel economic pressure, activists often inspire commitment to their cause by claiming that someone who doesn’t participate in the boycott is participating in the evil that is driving the boycott.

Like sex outside of marriage, this idea sells, but it isn’t actually biblical. We aren’t guilty of unjust violence even if we pay taxes to a government funding an unjust war. We aren’t guilty of abortion simply because the federal government funds Planned Parenthood in lieu of health centers that provide health services and not abortion. We aren’t guilty of sexual assault because we vote for a particular candidate, nor necessarily for condoning it. (Now, if we minimize the actions...that is another story.)

Biblical Basis

I will provide one Old Testament example that there is no second order guilt, two examples from Paul, and one example from the life of Jesus. Other examples could likely be provided, however, these should be sufficient for this format.

In the Old Testament, in 2 Kings 5, after Naaman is healed, he expresses concern about bowing to an idol in the house of Rimmon while supporting his master. In reality, he was both bowing and facilitating the false worship of his master. However, his heart was not worshiping, he was merely fulfilling the terms of his employment and his patriotic duty. Elisha’s simple comment, “Go in peace,” provides evidence that Naaman was not going to be held accountable for false worship because he in some way helped his master honor a Rimmon. There is no second order guilt in that situation.

Second, Paul urges Christians to submit to a government in Romans 13:1-7. The reader should remember that the Roman government would kill Christians, commit what we would now call war crimes, and generally be barbaric by our contemporary standards. At the same time, Christians were to submit. They did not become guilty for the sins of the nation that they were submitting to. Paul didn’t indicate that by failing to protest or attempt a coup that they were guilty of the war crimes committed by the Romans. In fact, despite the fact that some of their taxes would pay for instruments of torture used against Christians, Paul tells the Christians to pay taxes (13:7).

Third, Jesus himself encourages people to pay tribute to the occupying nation that had desecrated the temple, slaughtered many of his countryman, and would someday kill him despite his absolute innocence. Despite these ills that such tax money would enable, Jesus did not hold himself or others guilty for paying such taxes. There is no second order guilt.

Fourth, dealing with the issue of conscience directly and commerce secondarily, Paul declares eating meat sacrificed to idols licit in 1 Corinthians 8. Buying meat from animals that had once been sacrificed to idols helped to finance the false worship. And yet Paul’s concern is with whether the eating the meat will violate someone’s conscience due to its having been sacrificed to idols. The purchase of the meat, which could support the false worship, is not considered. In fact, Paul makes it clear that it’s not the eating of the meat itself, but the individual’s sense that it is wrong; violating the individual's conscience is the problem. There is no second order guilt.

But My Conscience

The obvious rebuttal to the final example is that a person’s conscience can make the eating of temple meat a sin. This is correct. You can put yourself into a state of conscience over an otherwise good act that makes it a sin to do it. However, Paul calls the conscience that is thus violated weak. The reader is left to infer that mature Christians should not have concerns--at least that they should not make a practice of looking for concerns of conscience.

The upshot is that someone should not violate their conscience or encourage others to violate their conscience, but at the same time, Christians shouldn’t look for ways to create a labyrinth of conscience to navigate.

Synthesis

There is no second order guilt. Someone does not become guilty of abortion because they vote for someone who affirms revoking the Hyde Amendment. People do not become guilty of sexual assault because they vote for someone who has bragged about sexual exploits. Consumers do not sin by buying coffee that was produced under unjust circumstances. Property owners don’t become guilty of crimes committed on their property.

This does not free us from making wise decisions. We should look for proximate justice in our political and commercial activities. Christians will be wise to avoid supporting companies that force people to work in unsafe conditions. They will be wise to choose political candidates that on the whole affirm a biblical concept of holistic justice whenever possible. The Christian property owner should not be negligent in fencing his property or lighting it if crime is a significant problem.* However, these are matters of prudence.

Christians must pursue justice, but that is inevitably a messy affair in our world. For some Christians, advocating for a free market is equivalent to celebrating the moral evil of greed even when it can be shown to alleviate poverty in many cases. For other Christians, voting for a party that celebrates abortion at their national convention is reprehensible even though others view their redistributive economic policies as a moral necessity. In these cases, we are better off arguing the issues rather than binding each others’ consciences and repudiating one another.

What we must not do, however, is attempt to assign second order guilt to someone else because we don’t like their purchase, political party, or policies. That is simply unbiblical.

* (There may be laws that exceed the actual moral culpability regarding property use. In these cases, submission to the government entails following proper codes and local ordinances. To neglect these codes would be sin.)

Worth Reading - 10/21

1. There is a generation who never knew the threat of communism nor the evil that centralized government control of the economy perpetrated on the people of the former Soviet Union. Instead, many younger Americans have witnessed moderate socialisms in Europe, which, despite ongoing economic instability and struggles, appeals to many because it appears to be compassionate on the surface. However, in this post, economist Anne Bradley of the Institute for Faith, Work and Economics discusses some of the real legacy of the Soviet economy:

“It is a true story of Boris Yeltsin, who came to the United States in 1989. Yeltsin was newly elected to the Soviet Parliament and the Supreme Soviet. At this time, the economic collapse of the Soviet Union was looming but had not yet happened.

Yeltsin and his cronies were visiting the Johnson Space Center in Texas. After they left, they made an unscheduled trip to Randall’s Grocery Store in Houston. That grocery store experience changed Yeltsin forever. He would later write about it in his autobiography.

Yeltsin roamed the aisles to see products in wide variety waiting for customers. The store was offering free cheese samples. Yeltsin was overwhelmed. He could not believe the bounty before him. He also couldn’t believe there was no fanfare about it – it was just an ordinary day in America. Yeltsin said that even the elite Politburo did not have these choices. He asked the store manager if he required special education to manage a store like Randall’s.”

2. At Mere Orthodoxy, the often provocative Alistair Roberts takes on Daniel Kirk's recent criticism of Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and conservative Christian scholarship in general, regarding its "whiteness." It's a long piece, but his argument is careful and worth reading if you are wondering what the fuss is all about and what the most significant problems with Kirk's accusations are. Significantly, Roberts' arguments resonate with my own findings in dealing heavily with contextual theology for my dissertation.

“While historical criticism should not simply be rejected or ignored as evangelical theologians have often been in danger of doing, nor should it be elevated to the place of primary significance. The Scriptures have complicated historical origins that we need to study, origins that can be illuminating for our understanding of the sort of text that it is. Seeing the challenge to faith presented by higher criticism, it may be tempting to restrict ourselves to reflection upon the final synchronic form of the text as a literary object of analysis, divorced from its historical origins, or to adopt a lazy form of fundamentalism. Yet, as the witness of Scripture depends upon a historical referent for its truth, such a retreat is impermissible. Both historicism and overly synchronic reading distort our reading of the Scripture.

Nevertheless, it is the final form of the text that is authoritative, not the texts, sources, communities, and traditions that lie behind it. It is this final form of the text that communicates historical revelation to us in an interpreted manner. The danger of historical criticism is that, as texts are cut loose from the canonical context and canonical elements are stripped from them, they are consigned to an inaccessible past. The authoritative voice of these texts crosses history precisely through their presence within and formation by the broader canon witness. Unsurprisingly, as the canon and the Word-formed people that (cor)responds to the canonical Scriptures are minimized, a divine revelation that traverses the contexts of history will retreat from view. However, the manner in which texts exceed their original contexts and speak directly into other contexts can already be witnessed within the canon itself.”

3. Recently, Townhall contributor John Hawkins wrote a revealing post about the trouble with social media for social commentary. Recognizing that I disagree with Hawkins' rhetoric most of the time, his commentary on this is significant. The man makes a living because of being controversial on social media (like most journalists and pseudo-journalists), but recognizes that it is having deleterious influences on discourse in these United States. It's worth reading to hear him make his case, given this history.

“Even if either page does a story that cuts against its typical ideological grain because of the nature of social media, it’s unlikely to reach a significant portion of its audience. Few conservatives are going to share a story about somebody accidentally shooting his kid with a gun just as few liberals are going to share a story about a gun saving an innocent victim from being raped. This creates a feedback loop that insures that people see very little news that they disagree with because the Facebook pages want more traffic and readers strongly prefer stories that reinforce their existing ideological biases. Worse yet, it has gotten to the point where people GET UPSET if they’re presented with news that conflicts with what they want to happen. As Steven Crowder has noted, point out that Donald Trump is behind in the polls and your timeline will fill with people screaming at you the same way liberals will catch flak for admitting that Hillary Clinton should have faced prosecution for her email scandal. So why serve up stories that your audience doesn’t want to read when the only thing you’re likely to get out of it is grief?”

4. The DNC's e-mail hacks reveal the depravity of politics in general in the U.S. They are, however, bad for democracy not simply because they call into question the validity of our political system and represent overt attempts to mislead and subvert rational decisions, but more simply because they are intended to get us to call into question the nature of our democratic system. This article in Esquire is an important read as we seek to understand the basis and nature of the hacks.

“The Russian campaign burst into public view only this past June, when The Washington Post reported that “Russian government hackers” had penetrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee. The hackers, hiding behind ominous aliases like Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks, claimed their first victim in July, in the person of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, whose private emails were published by WikiLeaks in the days leading up to the Democratic convention. By August, the hackers had learned to use the language of Americans frustrated with Washington to create doubt about the integrity of the electoral system: “As you see the U. S. presidential elections are becoming a farce,” they wrote from Russia.

The attacks against political organizations and individuals absorbed much of the media’s attention this year. But in many ways, the DNC hack was merely a prelude to what many security researchers see as a still more audacious feat: the hacking of America’s most secretive intelligence agency, the NSA.”

5. This is a pretty cool time lapse video of a library having all its books reshelved. The library is beautiful, the reshelving is fun to watch.

6. One of the frightening aspects of our current political climate is the vitriolic hate that is spewed by some on the alt right against those who dare to oppose Donald Trump. There are always screwballs on the fringe, and there is always some rancor during elections. However, this year, the white power movement seems to have taken off in it's vocal and adamant support for the unfortunate Republican nominee. David French, who is a regular contributor the the staunchly conservative organ, National Review, briefly considered running as an independent in opposition to the two major party nominees. This article recounts some of the threats he and other opponents of Donald Trump have been subjected to by alt right supporters of the RNC's nominee.

“I distinctly remember the first time I saw a picture of my then-seven-year-old daughter’s face in a gas chamber. It was the evening of September 17, 2015. I had just posted a short item to the Corner calling out notorious Trump ally Ann Coulter for aping the white-nationalist language and rhetoric of the so-called alt-right. Within minutes, the tweets came flooding in. My youngest daughter is African American, adopted from Ethiopia, and in alt-right circles that’s an unforgivable sin. It’s called “race-cucking” or “raising the enemy.” I saw images of my daughter’s face in gas chambers, with a smiling Trump in a Nazi uniform preparing to press a button and kill her. I saw her face photo-shopped into images of slaves. She was called a “niglet” and a “dindu.” The alt-right unleashed on my wife, Nancy, claiming that she had slept with black men while I was deployed to Iraq, and that I loved to watch while she had sex with “black bucks.” People sent her pornographic images of black men having sex with white women, with someone photoshopped to look like me, watching.”

7. To be clear, both presidential candidates for the major parties are horrible in this election. The US should be embarrassed to have to choose between a man who has bragged about sexual exploits with women openly and a woman who has actively sought to demonize women who reported her husband for his sexual impropriety. The most awful thing, though, is that Christians have jumped into the fray to DEFEND someone who has been accused of doing the sort of actions he openly bragged about doing to women. They've sought to defend the indefensible. Nancy French who is a staunch conservative and talented writer, has written an important piece on what it's like to be conservative and watch the number of good men and women defend abuse in public.

“When the Trump videotapes broke, I watched the news and Twitter feeds of prominent evangelicals to see justice be done. But what I saw was all-too-familiar and yet somehow still shocking. “This is how men talk,” one said. “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” another said another — who used to “focus on the family” and had never uttered that phrase to refer to any Democrat who ever walked the face of the earth.

It’s hard to describe the effect 2016 has had on sexual abuse survivors. I believed the men in my party when they shrugged off the constant liberal accusations of being anti-woman.

But Pope John Paul II’s words ring true: “Christ … assigns the dignity of every woman as a task to every man.” If that’s right, the men in my party, in my church, in my life have failed; they ask me to participate in overlooking the offense.”