Animal Farm

I have been wrestling with my philosophical moorings for several months now, and as part of that wrestling I am resuming posting on my blog. This is more as a cathartic exercise, for if anyone still reads this blog I would be amazed. Specifically the problem I am dealing with is how to have a critique of modernity (a necessary thing) and at the same time to go beyond modern impulses to understand my own stated theology. To put this succinctly, modernity reduced everything to empiricism and tautology, human senses and mathematical axiom. Post modernity critiqued the certainty of such an enterprise, ultimately unseating the stranglehold modern positivism had on reason.  This is a good thing and celebrated by many Christians who saw their beliefs relegated to superstition and their beliefs declared meaningless by the organ of positivism. But it must be remembered that post modernity is a subset of modernity, neither of which have ever provided a mechanism for accepting or embracing the theological dogmas of faith which we as Christians cherish. The purpose of my investigation is to see if we can both embrace post-modern ideas and yet come out with a viable faith.

The form of post modernity then which seems the most able to accomplish this goal is that of realist post modernity, which is known variously as critical realism, practical realism or naïve realism. This set of philosophical systems is in distinction to the other more widely known post modern camp of anti-realism. Critical realism (which is meant here in to refer to any variety of realist post modernity) states that actual knowledge is possible, but such knowledge must be held with respect to the knower’s limitations.  It is a limiting factor to the ability of human epistemology, a necessary and purposeful corrective to the positivism of modernity,  without running like a lemming over the abyss of nihilism as its anti-realist cousins seem to do.

The critical realist perspective is attracting everyone from evangelicals such as Kent Sparks of Eastern University to famous atheists such as the late Bertrand Russell.  It promises to be a way forward, out of the impossible philosophical trenches which were dug by modernity. Likely there is no one more directly responsible for this forward march than Dr. Michael Polanyi. Dr. Polanyi was one of those rare people who begins his career as a chemist and mathematician, and decided at some point that he fancied economics (so he just takes it up and helps to change the face of that field) and then turned towards philosophy (again changing that field). He seems to have been the academic version of King Midas everything he touched yielding intellectual gold. Over the next several posts I am going to try and understand his system and offer some commentary of my own for its utility in Christian theological reflection. Ill begin by blogging through Dr. Polanyi’s text “Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy,”  and then move to “Meaning” a text he co authored with Harry Prosch. Finally Im going to examine a collection of critical essays by T.F. Torrance and others responding to Polanyi’s use of critical realist ideas and shaping them into a religious context.  If any of you are still listening/reading this blog your comments and thoughts would be helpful.

Following the lead of other more notable bloggers I am going to begin providing book reviews of texts which I consider to be important for one reason or another. Recently I finished John Barclay’s indispensable history “Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan. “ For anyone interested in either the formative communities for early Christendom or a look at how Diaspora Judaism interacted with various non-Judaic cultures this text is a must read. Barclay undertakes a careful survey of important figures, events and customs which shaped how non centralized Judaism grew and thrived. Rather than the traditionalist paradigm which has Diaspora Judaism radiating out of a Palestinian epicenter Dr. Barclay has convincingly argued that there was a wide give and take between the various centers of Judaism. His main argument is that one ought not view Second Temple Judaism as a monolith with less faithful variants, but rather as a collection of trajectories which all have distinctive elements and define for themselves what Judaism ought to be. In this way he points to a reality of Judaism in the ancient world which is being replicated in some ways in the modern world with the advent of post modernism and cultural specific viewpoints. One of the more fascinating treatments he offers to this end is of Philo and Alexandrian Judaism.  Philo was, according to Barclay, not just a wayward Jew influenced by Platonism and negligent of Torah. Rather Philo was a person who in his own context helped to define just what torah observance was and was not. Because of his integration with Hellenistic customs, Philo was in a unique position to provide both reflection on the core considerations of Judaic identifiers in the Second temple and to establish better relationships with those who viewed these customs as suspect. Because of this Philo (et al) not only played a role for their own communities, but helped to define the numerous trajectories of other less Hellenistic Jewish areas who were also beneath Roman hegemony and struggling with the implications of that relationship. In fact it is arguable that Philo was as important for Alexandrian Judaism as he was for Palestinian Judaism. He was selected as a delegate to represent Alexandrian Jews (and by extension all Judaism within the empire) to Emperor Caligula. As Josephus records the event Caligula had decided to erect a statue of himself in the Judean Temple, effectively destroying the Legis Religionis (legal religion) status which Judaism held. Philo argued against this practice, and for other concerns that effected specifically the Alexandrian Jewish contingent, but universally were important to all Jews everywhere. Rather than seeing Philo’s level of Hellenization as a loss of Jewish distinctive, Dr. Barclay argues that Jews living in nexuses of Hellenistic culture existed on a continuum of torah observance and were actually necessary for the survival of the Judaic distinctives in other places. In my opinion through examples such as Philo and a myriad of others he has amply proven his case. His even handed treatment of this historical data combined with a good writing style and well researched text makes for an enjoyable and profitable read. I would hardily recommend the book as a strong historical introduction to the world of Diaspora Judaism in the Second Temple.

Last week was great for the Blog. We actually broke records in numbers of visitors. Nothing like controversy to stir the pot and attract viewers I guess. A certain poster going by the name TR4LIFE was posting on a thread on this blog. At times I suspected that he (she?) was someone posing as a TR to mess with me. Other times I was totally convinced that this person was just the most TR ultra-conservative that I had ever met. Then last night some friends called me up and invited me out for a drink. I went out, and I had a suspicion when I found out who would be there. A common friend, who has a background in latin (see the post) was there, and so I walked right up to her and asked her if she was TR4LIFE. She hesitated, but said no – and I really thought she was lying, but she covered it by seeming offended and also as if she didn’t understand my question (I should have known, this is a classic way of covering your tracks, it was a rookie mistake on mypart). I didn’t want to push the issue so I explained to her why I had asked. We had a few drinks, I let her read the blog posts. She pretended to be angry and upset at the things posted; and then at some point and time in the evening, she unzipped her sweatshirt to reveal a name badge reading TR4LIFE. The whole thing was a big practical joke and I bought into it hook, line and sinker. I know when I am licked – and she burnt me good. I was punk’d (etc..etc…etc). So a word of congratulations is in order – you got me good. You played the game well, and had me totally fooled (even had me worried about you showing up on Friday; I had to promise my wife that I wouldn’t tolerate rude behavior at my party.) Warning, you should know that I am always looking for revenge.

So congrats Rebecca; great prank – you sure know how to push my buttons ;

I had a lengthy discussion today with a fellow student on the subject of radical egalitarianism and yet the subject of women in ministry never came up. No one quoted qualifications for elders, the book of church order, or made references to Romans 16. Our discussion actually ignored the place of women in the church for a much odder and more interesting discussion. Specifically we were discussing the merits of personhood. Recent happenings in various fields of Philosophy of Mind, as well as advances in scientific processes have led to questions of what it means to be a person. What will follow on this blog is a series of posts which concern these questions; what does it mean to be a person, what does it mean to be made in the image of God, and how will future considerations change our theology of man?

The first topic under discussion is how artificial intelligence relates to questions of worship. Specifically; what are the limits of personhood and how might this become a problem for Christian theology.

Suppose someone enters your church with an artificial heart; is there any reason to deny him the ability to worship since he is less than “fully” human? I think most sane people would agree that he is still considered human, even with a mechanical implant which is necessary for life. But supposing science continues to develop, what percentage of a person must be “original” to be considered human? What about a man with an artificial heart and four artificial limbs, or a person with an entirely artificial internal organ system, or a human brain placed within a mechanical body? Does this sound ridiculously science fictionish to you? It shouldn’t!

Recently engineers and neurobiologists developed a robot whose central processing center is comprised of rodent brain cells which can successful navigate obstacles and solve simple problems. Simply put this is a very primitive brain within a mechanical device. Presumably, it is not a tremendous leap to have part or all of a human brain within a mechanical body. In fact one can imagine a person who underwent a severe trauma receiving a full body prosthesis in the future. Suppose that this mechanical body with a human brain had the range of human emotions, will, personhood, etc…Should he/it be allowed to serve you communion on Sundays?

What about memory implants – suppose that a person’s memory was supplemented by mechanical devices (and assume that the computer you are using to read this doesn’t already count as an extension of your memory.). Sound amazingly impossible. It’s not! Researchers have already begun work on neural implants which would supplant memory. Would a person with this implant be human? Probably so – but what if she had all her memory functions driven by neural implants? What if her brain was comprised entirely of artificial neural networks?

Combine these two examples, and you have a difficult question; is artificial intelligence possible and what does this do for our theology. Suppose you have an entirely artificial system of neurology combined with an artificial body; a machine, pure and simple. Does such a thing have a soul. If not, then where ought the line be drawn on the spectrum between a person with an artificial limb say and an artificial person.

In the near future it is at least feasible to see people who in part or whole have their various biological systems supplemented by machines? At what level of supplementation (if at any level) are these people considered less than people? – Could a partial human brain, supplemented with memory chips and artificial processors and housed within a mechanical body be considered “created in the image of God?” Should such a person (thing?) be allowed to worship God? Is there the possibility for a soul in the machine?

 Hebrews 9:23

“VAna,gkh ou=n ta. me.n u`podei,gmata tw/n evn toi/j ouvranoi/j tou,toij kaqari,zesqai( auvta. de. ta. evpoura,nia krei,ttosin qusi,aij para. tau,tajÅ”

It is necessary then that on the one hand the copies of “things in the heavens” to be cleansed, but the things of heaven themselves, (are to be cleansed) with better sacrifices

The writer of the book of Hebrews is writing about the implements of the temple and the temple itself (Hebrews 9:21). He states that these things are copies of heavenly things. What precisely does he mean by copies of heavenly things, and the things themselves? In the next verse he compounds this language when he says…

Hebrews 9:24 - For Christ did not go into a holy place made by hands, which are an antitype of the true things”

The word for antitype which many translations render copies, is pivotal for understanding the viewpoint of the writer of Hebrews.

What does it mean to have a heavenly representation, a true thing, which on earth exists as mere copies of what it actually is? Well if you were a first century Greek it would mean you were a Platonist. The way in which the writer frames his theology is necessarily dependant on the Platonic philosophy of his day.

Some people are content to ignore evidence such as this. They simply gloss over the connection between this sort of language and the dominate philosophical themes of the era in which it is written. I personally find it impossibly dissonant to do so. It appears to me overwhelmingly the case that this is Platonic language. Others acknowledge the implications of the passage, but speak of it as a borrowing of a language and a culture for a purpose. These argue that the writer of Hebrew was not a Platonist but he used Platonic language as part of a missionary strategy to convert gentiles. In both cases the assumption of the a-cultural nature of the writer is being maintained. Why is it that we must frame the writer as a-cultural rather than see him as a product of his time? Why must the inspired writers of scripture be spiritually aloof from their own culture?

I think there are two or three psychological / sociological factors from our modern culture which lead us to reread the writers of scripture as a-cultural beings. The writer of Hebrews (some would reason) could not have had a metaphysical belief in Platonism for one or all of the following reasons.

(1) Truth is transcendent not culturally contextual. If we say this text represents Platonic thought we make the Bible dependant on a specific culture which we dont share, but for scripture to be true it must be a-cultural and transcendent.

(2) Platonism is wrong (because our culture has transcended it philosophically) and therefore to say that a human author is Platonic in his thinking is to say the Bible is sophmoric and unadvanced and in error.

(3) Some people are just mired in cultural classism, which unconciously assumes that one’s own culture is representative of all cultures in matters of philosophy and perspective. Therefore they reason that “The Bible’s culture must be essentially like my culture.”

In all three cases assumptions like these fail to take into account that their viewpoint is itself a product of its own specific philosophical culture. Unreflectively they assume that one’s own culture is “the right culture” when it comes to philosophy. Our post enlightenment minds read overtop the Platonic message of Hebrews because it is unthinkable to do otherwise for the modern man. To allow the writer of Hebrews to be a barbarous Platonist is tantamount to calling God’s word worthless. We have transcended that sort of base philosophical speculation and have come into true modernity.

This assumption of one’s own culture is what is responsible for much of the fundamentalist backlash against supposed “liberalism” which seeks to understand scripture from within its own contextual world. I am one of these “liberals.” I simply think that the human author of Hebrews is a Platonist, and he is framing his theology through Platonic patterns. There is nothing odd about this at all; all cultures try to do this. The question at hand then is which culture has the “right” philosophical worldview to properly understand the Bible?

The answer is all of them, instead of none of them. The message of the Bible is neither culturally centered nor a-cultural, but trans-cultural. It crosses over worlds, kingdoms, tribes and nations and somehow unifies them.

Take for example the modern evangelical Christian world. When it argues against evolutionary theory it does so to demonstrate that Genesis 1 has a literal fulfillment; and why is this important? It is important because in our culture literal is equated with true. Interesting enough St. Augustine when speaking about creation and the same passage of Genesis 1 argues that creation must be instantaneous. And why does Augustine depart into such rank heresy? Because he was a neo-Platonist, and what was “actual” was what was heavenly and of the world of the forms; not what was actual on the earth. What a different viewpoint Augustine held! Many today try to make the story of Genesis fit within a scientific framework, because what is naturalistic and material is what is real. Augustine, however, was the exact opposite. What happened in the material world was immaterial (this word itself is a vestige of our culture) only what happened in the invisible, metaphysical world of the forms counted.

WHich is the “right” answer? Which culture has the Biblical world view? I think the answer is both of them do. Biblical worldviews are conversations, not paradigms. The transcendent Logos speaks into the cultural world of its readers and produces a worldview which is a combination of them both. This is as true of the Bible’s writers as it is of its readers. We reproduce worldviews when we read scripture and transport them into our own world. What Genesis 1 meant to the original writer is different than what it meant to Augustine and different than what it means to a modern creationist. There simply is not “transcendant worldview” which we are supposed to appropriate. Rather there is “transcendant Logos” which appropriates itself contextually into our lives.

We ought not try and sort out which one of these is the one and only true philosophical world, but accept that God’s message crosses worlds, working within them not outside of them.

Perhaps if we would stop viewing the Bible through cultural lenses to identify the correct philosophical world from which to read scripture and would instead focus on Christ, in whom the panoply of philosophical worlds have been united, then maybe we could move beyond the debates which have so bitterly divided the church. In short I am suggesting a post modern turn, but then again…it is my philosophical world.

Ok, so the Peter Enns debate is basically finished. Those who were in power consolidated their power, those who could not do so were marginalized out of the debate. I’m not saying I am ok with that, but I have come to terms with it the best I can. My question is now what? Assuming that Pete Enn’s answer to say Matthew’s use of Hosea is wrong, where do we go from here? So Peter pulled the lever and came up two cherries and a diamond. Game over, he loses his nickel and retires to the casino bar for not hedging his bets properly; but where do we go from this point?

All of his critics have robustly argued that he is not confessional, not very reformed, and while apparently he is evangelical, he is not the good kind of evangelical. He is (in their words) a post-conservative or a post-liberal, a Barthian or just post-post. Ok, so Peter Enns was horrifically bad and not WTS material, so…now what? We still have Matthew who seems to be doing funny things with Hosea. Personally I am sold on Pete’s answers to this problem, but since some are not maybe they (you?) can tell me what you do with the text. I personally am getting a little bit sick of sycophantic appeals to the confessions and hardly anyone ever opening a Bible and seeing if Pete got it right.

Here is what Richard Gaffin had to say. To his credit he is the only person I have read so far who actually addresses, albeit briefly, the scriptural data in his position paper. Because of this I exclude him from those who, in my opinion, are just avoiding the obvious and hiding behind the confessions. Since he has stated his commitment to not shirking the difficult questions, I would like to respond to one of his answers to a difficult question.

He writes here about the organic unity of scripture; specifically between Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:13

“For I&I, in contrast, any thought of unity, organic and interdependent, between the text of Hosea (what he, the human author, wrote, his intention) and the text of Matthew (his intention) is not only not present but denied, and with some emphasis. Contrary to Murray, given with the text of Hosea is ambiguity and disjunction, even contradiction it seems, between the meaning of the divine author and the human author (“what ‘the Lord has said through the prophet,’” on the one hand –“Hosea’s words,” on the other; again, “what God says” – “the surface meaning of the words on the page”

His critique then of Enns is that he has destroyed this organic unity between the texts…

“What I find Dr. Enns not only lacking an awareness of but also calling into question is the organic unity, that is, the unified coherence and didactic harmony, there is between the OT and NT documents…” 

(Dr. Richard Gaffin - http://nbatzig.googlepages.com/Gaffin_Critique1.pdf)

Dr. Enns would indeed read Hosea 11:1 to be about the exodus event, and would argue that Matthew 2:15 is reinterpreting the original meaning of Hosea 11:1 in light of the resurrection of Christ. This is not to say that Matthew is “misinterpreting” Hosea, but reinterpreting him in light of new evidence of what God is doing. Enn’s, to support his thesis, often cites that this was a common genre and style in 2^nd temple Judaism and in Matthew’s world it would not have been out of place at all.

What Dr. Gaffin appears to be arguing (to the contrary of Enns) is that Hosea 11:1 has only one possible meaning. Therefore, when Matthew quotes Hosea and speaks about how the prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, this is the one and only meaning of the Hosea passage. It follows logically that Hosea, when writing this passage, had in mind the same meaning as Matthew; e.g. Hosea interpreted his words to be about the messiah. According to Gaffin (and apparently Murray) to preserve the organic unity of the Old and New Testaments, Hosea must be self consciously writing about the Messiah in Hosea 11:1.

I think a cursory examination of the passage at hand, however, reveals substantial problems with this flat reading of Hosea.

Hosea 11:1 – When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

 Matthew 2:13-15 – When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

While the idea that there is a singular meaning to each passage may help to round out systematic views of scripture it runs over top of the grammatical/historical context of the actual text. If Hosea had in mind the Messiah as he wrote Hosea 11:1, which Dr. Gaffin claims he must have for the sake of organic unity then our problems have just increased innumerably. Assuming Hosea had in mind the person of Christ here, as Dr. Gaffin does, then the rules of Grammatical/Historical Exegesis require us to continue his train of thought with the following verse (Hosea 11:2) since it uses pronouns which “organically” refer it back to verse 11:1.

Hosea 11:1 – When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

Hosea 11:2 – The more they (Jesus or Israel?) were called, the more they (Jesus or Israel?) went away; they (Jesus or Israel?) kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols.

If Hosea has in mind the Messiah in verse 11:1, then to preserve the organic unity of the text he must also have in mind the Messiah when he continues using the pronouns which refer back to the noun of 11:1. On Gaffin’s reading then Hosea is possibly a bit ADHD, and his text is an organically rent text, because verse one is about the messiah (even though is seems to be about the exodus) and verse 2 is about the nation of Israel? This is a very odd construction indeed.

Might I suggest that if “organic unity” (a bit of a red herring, IMO) is to be preserved about the text itself, then a better construction than what I offered above is to simply read the ENTIRE passage of Hosea 11:1-12 as being about the Messiah, not about Israel and Ephraim. Hosea then must be arguing that the Messiah would sacrifice to the Baals and burn offerings to idols! Of course if Hosea has in mind here the image of the only begotten son of God sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols then I have a very Lutheran suggestion. Hosea has committed the chief blasphemy, denying the Holy Spirit, and his entire book should be stricken from the canon immediately!

So Enns has to be wrong, right? So Hosea didn’t have one meaning by Hosea 11:1-2 and Matthew wasn’t doing a Christotelic read of the Old Testament. So which one of the views above is correct

1.)    Rend Hosea 11:1 from Hosea 11:2; which makes Hosea functionally schizophrenic in his writing and makes organic unity in the 11^th chapter of Hosea impossible.

2.)    Claim that the Messiah was sacrificing to the Baals, which makes Hosea a wicked text.

This post is in honor of what I consider to be the most influential (and prophetic) book of the 20^th century, so I thought I would write this homage to my old friend George. I reread this book on a fairly regular basis because its warnings serve as dire messages for our culture; especially to the politically correct, fundamentalist culture of the church that seems to be so prevalent.

Today I may have been vetted to debate someone on an internet radio show. It seems that the rational response squad, which achieved infamy some months ago with the “Blasphemy Challenge,” is trolling internet chat rooms looking for Christian cannon fodder to invite on their show. I volunteered to take a spot at some time as I’m sure they are not used to educated people engaging their often pedantic arguments. As I thought about possible topics and arguments something occurred to me today about the theology of the atheist.

Before jumping into the pool here, a word of thanks is in order. Thank you to Prof. Pete Enns, Prof. Steve Taylor and Prof. Mike Kelly.  I will likely never return to modernist arguments to try and defeat the skeptic of scripture because of your tutelage. The evidence the skeptics raise simply cannot be denied, and you helped me to understand that. Equally, however, the framework the skeptic uses can be understood in different lights, critiqued and even overthrown. Because of their work I find myself looking more and more at presuppositions of people and their assumed notions of modernity. Ironically, my Van Tillianism did not come from the various systematic and apologetic courses that were supposed to inculcate it in me. Rather watching how people responded with preconceived notions of what the Bible ought to look like to the sustentative points the BT department at Westminster made helped me to clearly see presuppositions in action. 

Now, to apply the excellent application of Van Tillian Presuppositionalism which Dr. Enns taught me.

The atheist who attacks the Bible as being hopelessly problematic, and therefore ineligible as the word of God, makes a tremendous mistake. He points to “errors” again and again; contradictions, anachronisms, and the like to try and destroy the claim that scripture is infallible. He, like many fundamentalists and TR folk I encounter daily, subjects the Bible to a modernist dock. He poses questions about the texts veracity and conformity to modernist standards of truth. The TR walks away, bending the facts to support his modernism. The atheist confirms his believe that the scripture “fails” the test of the facts and so it is declared non-divine. The atheist’s empirical cross examination vindicates his atheism, or so he thinks. 

The problem is that the atheist has just played a theist. He argued that if the Bible was truly the word of God, it wouldn’t have all the errors and mistakes it contains. Since it contains all these problems it must not be the word of God. Here is the problem; the atheist just formulated systematic theology. What the atheist is saying, in effect, is as follows… 

“Writings which are inspired by God must be without contradiction, error or scientific inaccuracy.”

It is amazing that an atheist, who claims to lack knowledge of or about God, could know how God ought to write his books, if he were to write. The atheist position which rejects scripture because it does not meet up to his standards of what inspired scripture ought to look like is making an implicitly theological argument about what God would and would not do, if he were to inspire a text. He has made an argument about the nature of God, which he cannot do since he lacks knowledge of or belief in a God!

Bart Ehrman, a self confessed agnostic, has written an entire book of his theology in the above manner. He writes;

“…how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes – sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly?  (Bart Ehrman on p. 7 of his book Misquoting Jesus).”

Ehrman’s life story is to surmise that this means scripture fails the test of divine revelation. Of course he has to hold to a theological tenet before he can pronounce that scripture does not meet up to it.

Since by definition an atheist or agnostic (such as Ehrman) cannot have theological convictions, then he cannot critique a text because it doesn’t line up with his “theological convictions” of what ”God would do if he were to inspire a text.”

So atheists simply cannot reject the Bible as the Word of God because of perceived errors. To do so gives them positive knowledge about a God which they claim not to have.

Pax Christi…Nick

One of the things which I think about increasingly is how to formulate my doctrine of church. Specifically I have been pondering the way one ought to structure a church body to move towards Christian unity but avoid doctrinal heresy? A year ago a friend of mine tried to convince me that confessionalism would solve the issues I had with church. The answer, he thought, was to subscribe to a confession and as long as everyone subscribed; there would be no problems. Ironically he ended up changing his mind, without any arguments from me. The debacle at Westminster Theological Seminary was enough for him to question the effectiveness of confessionalism. At Westminster a group of self proclaimed confessional board members ousted another self proclaimed confessional professor. The question of the hour was “who is properly interpreting the confessions,” and unless one believes that might makes right; that question has yet to be answered.  Confessionalism was designed as a way to avoid multiple interpretations of scripture and give unity to a church body. The problem is that confessions, like scripture are interpretive; and this means people can and will interpret them differently. The problem becomes compounded after the Reformation when confessional stances (or lack thereof) were used to define ones church in opposition to other churches. In the age of the church fathers; confessions defined only the “true church” from “heresies;” but in the post Reformation age they began to define “truest church” from other “true” (but not as accurate) churches.”

In effect confessionalism in our age has created what I call Jim Crow Christianity. It has fostered churches which are separate, but equal (and in truth lesser!) One need go no further than to listen to a rousing sermon in many of our churches about the accuracy of our position on the cessation of the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit; and how while Pentecostals may be Christians; they are really ignorant of scripture and less full of the Holy Spirit than we are. I have heard numerous jokes poked at and sermons preached against people who are presumably born again believers in Christ. Not to mention those credo-Baptists, baptismal regenerationists, female ordaining liberals or anti-regulative worshippers. To hear some people talk about these groups they must be functionally spiritually retarded. In effect many people act as if they are southern whites and that other churches are spiritual Negros. They pay lip service to the idea that these others are brothers and sisters in Christ but if truth be told they view others as their subordinates. Jim Crow laws didn’t work in the south because they were evil expressions of racism and hatred which made people anything but equal.  Neither can they work in the church because they destroy the unity of the body.

To this end I have three suggestions…

The first is that from now on I urge us to consider ourselves to be functionally transdenominational. That is to say that we would attend any church (and I mean any church) based on a combination of doctrinal concerns and praxis attitudes. No longer ought we to think to ourselves; “Those Methodists are nice, but it’s a shame they have such weird doctrines.” If Methodists are going to heaven they can be my brothers and sisters in Christ here on earth.

Secondly, we must view doctrine as being either orthodox or heresy. By these terms I mean true heresy; not some sort of “heresy against the reformed position” which is a ridiculous stance to hold.  If a person’s doctrinal position does not disqualify them from heaven; we must not view it as lesser than ours. Rather we must view them as intelligent and spiritual people who have wrestled with the same issues and come to opposite conclusions. Nor can we proclaim out positions to be superior anymore. We should have the humility to recognize that even our most sacred denominational cows might be wrong. We could get to heaven and hear tambourine music and discover that the organ is a banned instrument; we could find people speaking in tongues or discover that “free will” was the correct answer.  In short we can be convinced of our theology; but not of our ability to do theology. We can hold to theological distinctives if and only if we recognize that we <i>really</i> might be wrong about them and should be open to different expressions coming from one Church in various denominations on the same issue.

Finally, and perhaps most radically, I suggest that anyone whom we believe is a Christian must be in full fellowship with us. We need to begin to allow people within our churches to think through issues on their own; to be convinced by the merit of the position not by the fact that it is the only position they hear every week. We should present others positions with charity and when possible let them present their own positions themselves. When we critique their position we should put the best spin on them as we possibly can; not straw man them to show how foolish they are.  We should be ready to simply agree to disagree and move on to bigger issues instead of devolving into debates over “foolish genealogies” and such.

This is my preliminary suggestions for a way out of the doctrinal and denominational mire we currently find ourselves in. Roman Catholic apologists have often pointed to the numerous denominations of Protestantism and asked “If this is God’s truth, why is it so disunified?” It’s a good question; worthy of consideration. Tell me what you think of my answer.