Intellectual Elite Or Evangelical?

 

My recent writings on the Norman Geisler issue has brought to mind a topic related to the importance of using knowledge (rather than instinct) to interpret the Bible. That is, whether the search for such knowledge is one that should be exercised within certain limits. And if so, to what degree? Can one go too far in learning about the contexts needed for good Bible's interpretation? Should we be suspicious of the perceived "intellectual elite" in Christianity - scholars like Licona, NT Wright and such who challenge people to deeper study of the Bible? This is worth considering when such studies reveal conflicts with the interpretation of Biblical texts assumed true by the majority of church-goers.

This issue first came to mind for me months ago as I was following the Facebook posts of a prominent Christian author of the "emergent" philosophy (which includes such individuals as Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, etc). I say it was a few months ago because it has honestly been that long since I have read any of his posts. Why? The more I read his writing, the more I saw a disturbing pattern develop as the author's biggest enemy became more clear and concise. That enemy? Nothing more than what he perceived as an 'intellectual elite' in Christianity, that being scholars, theologians and individuals running seminary institutions. In short, the very people responsible for mentoring and training the next generation of Christian leaders.

Relating his own personal experiences, our emergent friend saw in these individuals a hindrance to the practice of Christianity. By over-emphasizing studying, doctrinal integrity and context, the author saw his professors holding him (and likely others) back from authentic life-changing ministry . In his mind, after all, the early church was not so stuffy and organized. It was more “organic” in structure and “dynamic” with their preaching – shouldn't he be the same?

The crux of this conflict was wanting to “do” ministry and make a difference for people, but not wanting to get overly concerned about the details. He wanted to be active – and for this I think anyone can respect him and identify. What he continuously found frustration with (and where I think his childishness comes through), was that his mentors warned him that, without more schooling, he could do as much harm as he perceived he was doing good.

So, can one be too concerned for doctrine? Was this author onto something important for Christians to consider? Are apologists, scholars and like-minded individuals keeping too many people away from Christianity? Are we not putting enough emphasis on “sharing Christ”? This is an important issue - in the balance is whether or not the efforts of seminaries are overdone; whether or not orthodox Christianity panders to an exalted cadre of modern Pharisees. In question is whether or not the gospel is even communicated effectively. Take every thought captive with me as we look to investigate this further!

First, it is important to point out that variations of statements such as “the early church was organic and dynamic” are well-meaning but ill-conceived. Justification for the emergent over-emphasis of “sharing Christ” is found in this perception of the 1st century Christians. But while we don't see the level of organization that would exist in the 16th century Catholic church, the Bible has clear indicators the early church relied on structure and order. Paul spends much time in his letters to Timothy laying out qualifications for positions of hierarchy – deacons, elders and the like – the whole time preparing Timothy himself to serve as a pastor. Without structure, after all, how would a deviant and unpopular movement like Christianity even expect to thrive?

Structured or not, the evangelistic tactics of the church in Acts is portrayed as emphasizing Christ, right? Well, yes - Christ was the focus of every message delivered by the early church to the Gentiles. Christ was the founder of the movement, the catalyst for the entire religion. But what was it about Christ that was so critical for the apostles to share? Missing from the words of Peter's early sermons are anything about “relationship with Christ” or personal therapy. When Christ was mentioned, what was important was proof: of his identity (Acts 2:22, 36; Acts 3:13, Acts 5:31), of his death and resurrection (Acts 2:31-32; Acts 3:15, Acts 5:30, Acts 10:40) and of his fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:33; Acts 3:18, 24-26). It is only in the letters of Paul, written to fellow believers, that we see any emphasis towards how we treat others (that is, within the church).

This should not be surprising – many apostles, though often considered to be something like the cast of “Twelve Angry Men” (ordinary citizens called to jury duty), were the scholars and intellectuals of their day. Luke was a physician, and many scholars of Greek have pointed out how advanced and polished his mastery was of the language. Paul was a devout Pharisee and scholar of the Old Testament literature before his conversion. Matthew was no “drug store” tax return specialist but a “chief tax collector” - someone responsible for getting the Roman government their money. All individuals more concerned with knowing and proving their point, not making friends!

In other words, these were not average Joes, but individuals who worked hard at what they did, and were likely chosen for that reason. They could be trusted to go more than halfway with Jesus. Perhaps that is why Paul admonished Timothy to present himself “as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed” (2 Tim 2:15) and to be “diligent...so everyone may see your progress” (1 Timothy 4:15) This being the same Paul who encouraged the Corinthians to “eagerly desire spiritual gifts” (1 Corinthians 14:1, emphasis mine) Examples are plentiful, if I would continue, but if we consider this a model for our behavior, doesn't it seem as if we should work harder to show appreciation of the gift we are given?

In case my focus on the apostles has you wondering “what about Jesus? Didn't he still want people to take it easy?”, allow me to share with you some things Jesus said about hard work. In Luke 10:2, Jesus laments a plentiful crop of souls without enough people working to harvest it. In John 6:27 we're told by Jesus to work for the fruits of eternal life. He tells the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) to warn against laziness in responding to God's generous gifting. Jesus even warns us to count the costs of following him before doing so (Luke 14:27-33) – implying that it is not an easy life by any means, but one that is difficult and committed to learning.

Clearly, Jesus wanted us to work hard for the sake of his kingdom. This means individuals who persist in working hard and growing more will ultimately stand out against the pew warmers of the faith. Some sort of “elite”, in other words, will exist within Christ's body - by nature! Viewed another way, there will always be Christians more prominent in the public than others. The reason is their dedication to studying, teaching and evangelizing persists beyond what others are capable of (Billy Graham comes to mind). Otherwise, why do we remember these individuals, or the apostles themselves, so well?

In fact, I can find no place in scripture where God has put limits on hard work and knowledge, beyond the basic need for discernment in being sure such was used properly. In fact, a high emphasis on doctrine can merely be seen as the result of an intellectual Christian hard at work! But this is as valuable as a serving Christian whose life is all inner-city ministry and soup kitchens. Neither one is dangerous to the work of the kingdom. Both help advance it and serve to ensure God's full and complete message is communicated.

Our emergent author's insistence that doctrine is over-emphasized also fits poorly into the bulk of New Testament scriptures warning against false doctrine. (1 Timothy 1:3-4, 18-20; 1 Timothy 4:1-8, 2 Peter 2:1-3, Titus 2:1-2, Hebrews 2:1)  It would almost seem our friend thinks too much emphasis in churches is put on learning, but clearly is afraid to emphasize learning himself! In fact, the level of education, discernment and discipline we expect from our leaders should be high. Allow me to share examples of well-known teachers and preachers who pressed on in pursuit of ministry without the relevant education of their day. JP Holding has pointed out:

“Joseph Smith was a barely educated teenager...Mary Baker Eddy...didn’t have any serious education to speak of and was mainly self-taught. Jim Jones, head of the People's Temple, had a degree…in education. Ellen White of Adventism had no formal schooling.”

Each of these individuals is very well-known in Christian circles today. But if you didn't recognize them, they are all well-known for having started unorthodox Christian groups (often called 'cults'). They are all individuals who taught the Bible in ways that are questionable or contradictory to the majority consensus. (whether or not you believe their teachings wrong is a matter of your own discernment).

To be sure, studying hard and reaching high levels of achievement are not a fool-proof barrier against doctrinal error. One can certainly ignore the other disciplines and virtues Christ has called us to practice and overdo their learning. History has clear examples of such individuals. Marcion, a bishop in the early church who first proposed a New Testament cannon be formed, clung to many pro-Gnostic philosophies [1]. He started countless churches where he taught that YHWH, the God of the Old Testament, was distinct from and antithetical to the God of the New Testament, which Jesus was born of. His interpretations on the Bible, in fact, led the Roman church to realize a need to define orthodox belief apart from heresy! Arius, a presbyter and student of St. Lucian, was known as someone of strong convictions, and yet stirred up a controversy that led to the church's first ecumenical council. [2] He was convinced that if Jesus was born of God the Father, then Jesus at one point did not co-exist with God.

But these individuals were rare, and for a reason. In their time, they were part of the few, the proud, the literate – less than 10% of their population. They were the small pool of people from which your teachers could come.  This meant there was an equally small pool of people who could challenge and correct them. The people warming the pews simply weren't able to understand such matters themselves. They could only hang on every word they were given. And this is why such a position had immense, unfathomable responsibility - one only met with equal care in learning and training. Otherwise, why would James give such a harsh warning to teachers? (James 3:1) 

With a larger pool of people being literate in modern days, it ensures it's harder for people in positions of power to cause doctrinal delusion. However, such literacy does not guard against delusions – it only means individuals themselves are now more responsible for them. Whether it's predicting the end-of-the-world, making Jesus a therapist or legitimizing Jedi as a personal religious choice – many literate and intelligent people develop weak beliefs like this by not being trained and disciplined. “Emergents” who fight against the mentors concerned about discernment and influence are merely mistaken in thinking they can help more people. Help them how – by making them feel better but still letting them create a false God, in their image?

In case you still struggle with the importance of working hard over any “personal” connections to Jesus, I submit this practical example of how hard work paid for a special 8 year old boy. By simply putting in effort to study what was put before him - not expecting it to be spoon fed – he achieved something rare and unusual. So do we thumb our nose at him because his exceptional focus on learning rather than living? I hope not! Does it not at least feel natural to marvel at his accomplishment? So should it be with our brothers and sisters as well, working hard to ensure doctrine improves in the church. These people should be respected and heard, not rejected and ignored. Do we desire, after all, for the church to have a semblance of intelligence? Or do we wish it to only be a place of wishful thinking wherein Peter Pan might find a home, too? 



[1]  "Marcion." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 June 2012. Web. 26 July 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion>. 
[2] "Arius." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 21 July 2012. Web. 26 July 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius>.

Author's Intent, Part 1 - Rainbow Chronicles

 

A few months ago, my 2-year old daughter took a sudden interest in Dora the Explorer. Likely, her grandmother had something to do with it, but the fact remains that Claire suddenly is as excited by the mere mention of Dora's name as I get about the latest computer technology. As a matter of fact, just mentioning Dora's name sometimes can turn sour moments into happy ones - for everyone involved!

I was blown away by how quickly this became clear to me when our evening bedtime routine changed almost overnight. One night, looking for books to read, I was asked by Claire repeatedly to "read Dora!".  After asking my wife a few questions, I discovered we actually owned a Dora book, which had been given to us by friends. Pulling it out of the stack, I began to read. And in the 2 minutes it took to read, my daughter became so enthralled with it that she asked for it to be read again - and again and again.

Being the good parents my wife and I are, we did this for days on end without complaint, knowing in the end it was making everyone sleep happier. As a matter of fact, knowing Claire enjoyed Dora so much (and no longer being able to tolerate the same book) we naturally made an effort to get her more Dora books. Or, the cheapskates we are, we got her 1 big book with 6 different stories in it. As you can predict, this has meant we are now reading her multiple stories over and over each night. But it has allowed us to engage her interest for Dora more often without getting bored as fast.

The reason for this post is that I recently noticed something in one of the Dora stories that I think helps teach a great lesson about context, and how we interpret books (ie, the Bible) when we read them. In this story, Dora finds a kite that is stuck in a tree, and rushes off with Boots to rescue it. But that is only the start of the adventure. Their goal? To take the kite to the nearby Rainbow Kite Festival, where a myriad of colorful kites play happily under a smiling rainbow at the top of a mountain.


Upon finally making it to the top of the mountain, Dora's excitement is almost dashed when she discovers the rainbow to have disappeared. The kite she has spent so much time bringing to the festival may not have a chance to enjoy the rainbow after all. Of course, Dora being the optimist she is, has no fear and merely proceeds to call for the rainbow to re-appear. And, like magic, the rainbow promptly responds - Dora acknowledging it for having listened and returned. All problems solved! The kites may now enjoy the rainbow a little while longer, and Dora has given the lost kite a dream vacation.

So where in this is a context lesson, you're asking? The lesson came when I noticed Dora's ability to make rainbows appear on command. I struggled with the logical implications of this. Dora, a mere youth of school age, should not be able to command rainbows to appear whenever she likes. Rainbows are tricks of light reflecting off water, after all. Does she really have that kind of control over nature? Only God should be able to perform such a supernatural feat! How dare the author of Dora the Explorer even think to write this into a story for kids!

Of course, I am joking here. These were the parody thoughts I immediately conjured while reading the book. I clearly recognize that, as a children's book, the author's intention is not to paint Dora as able to command light to reflect off water at her whim. Dora is not intended to be some sort of "nature god" or buddhist monk. It is just a device for entertaining children, ensuring the story has an appropriate climax involving the rainbow. It's as much a source of delight for children as it is for the imaginary kites.

But, had I not considered any of this, do you see where I could have easily decided to picket against the creators of Dora and all of Nickelodeon? I could have recruited Westboro Baptist to drive across country and join me in a trip to Broadway. We could hold up all sorts of "Dora is Satanic" signs (though I imagine someone in the Westboro crowd would still bring their signature "God Hates Fags" signs). I could then give Nickelodeon headquarters an earful for their attempts to trick kids from believing in God. While I'm at it, I could mention how it's anti-science as it does not accurately portray rainbows as a phenomena of light reflecting off water.

The moral of the story is that what an author intends to write is critically important to how a story should be interpreted when read. Yes, I realize some stories can be purposely ambiguous for the sake of art and critical thinking (A Modest Proposal comes to mind), but aside from that it would have been stupid to start a campaign decrying the creators of Dora as Satanic and threatening people to stop buying Dora merchandise. It would have shown a severe inability to grasp the intent of the story. I would have been laughed at on YouTube and parodied by over a dozen amateurs.

The problem - much as it would be for uninformed readers of A Modest Proposal (read it if you haven't!) - would be taking the words too literally, ignoring the obvious (but subtle) cues indicating the work's genre (children's literature) - this is clearly a fantasy tale for kids. It was never on the author's mind to make a statement about nature or control over it. It was only an attempt to engage the imagination of preschoolers. It was not an intention to form a theology or develop a worldview on the supernatural - just to form a world where children straddle the line between fantasy and reality.

At this point, you're thinking "that seems clear; what can we learn about the Bible from this? Does it have to do how certain cults interpret the Bible?" Well, yes and no. Not unlike the series on Marriage Myths, it has more to do with ways in which cults and orthodox believers alike misread the Bible while trying to present it as unchangeable theology, self-obvious to anyone who would just let the Holy Spirit teach them (except, apparently, discern whether or not their "feelings" are from the Spirit). Instead, the only thing obvious should be a greater level of study is needed amongst those who accept responsibility for teaching the Bible (James 3:1 comes to mind).

To illustrate this, there are many examples I encountered in my own studies, where thinking about an  author's intent reversed something  I understood about the Bible. In addition, it became easier to avoid embarrassment when further defending my faith. Of these examples, I will outline at least 3 for you here, some of which are no doubt controversial. But when I am done, I hope you further consider the role author's intent plays in your own studies.
 
The first example is one relevant to recent Christian news and speaks volumes to the need for change in the current environment of Christian theology. It starts with a book published in October 2010 by Mike Licona called The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. To date, this book is the greatest and weightiest defense of the Resurrection of Jesus as a historical event (this is important to note!). It is a milestone in the history of Christian scholarship, building on the work of previous scholars and at the same time clarifying how the method is consistent with proper studies of ancient history.

At one point in the book, Licona speculates whether or not Matthew 27:51-3 was intended by it's author to be taken as literal history. To make his case, Licona compares this scripture to similar examples of "extraordinary" events in ancient literature. He then expounds on how the known intent of such authors was not to report literal history, but to clue readers in to the significance of other events. Hence, it is possible that the author of Matthew is doing the same (considering there are other potential issues seeing the event as real).

In short, Licona is saying what already appears to be a strange event in the Bible may have possibly been intended by its author to highlight the significance of Jesus' death to 1st century readers, rather than report a real event for 20th century westerners. Sounds simple, right? One would only hope that the rest of Christendom were smart enough to follow. Well, perhaps, but this is not for the great and wise Norman Geisler

One of the most prominent names in Christian philosophy and apologetics, Geisler made a public online campaign to insult and rebuke Mike Licona over suggesting that this may not have been considered a real event. Enough condemnation was raised over the event to even cost Licona his university job. And why? Precisely because in Geisler's world, and that of much of the SBC honchos supporting him, such a notion betrays a more literal reading of the passage. Clearly, it mentions a bunch of people were ressurected, and the gospels intend to represent 100% historical events in every chapter and verse.

I will not elaborate on the full extent of the controversy here - much more interesting analysis can be found at the Tekton Ticker. But it is sufficient to notice that Geisler never considered a number of things before starting his tirade. First, that Licona only admits the plausibility of his interpretation. He never lifts it up with full confidence, and later would go on to make a case for why he still thought the event was historical. None of this matters to Geisler (whose attitude is representative of the more prominent understandings of "Biblical innerancy"), who sees little more than a violation of the principles that uphold the foundations of Biblical interpretation. That is, clearly the author's intent should never be considered to be anything other than 100% history.

The fallout from this event has been interesting to watch, and no doubt it has given many Bible skeptics and atheists reasons to further expect the Christian theology kingdom to crumble under the weight of it's unacknowledged absurdity. And for what? To reject the notion that an author's intent might be more important than what we want to read out of a passage? It is no wonder things like Marriage Myths are perpetrated as fact: the same reasoning would have genre, social and cultural contexts in the Bible be irrelevant to meaning.

In short, I am not questioning the innerancy of the Bible, as Geisler might accuse me and Licona of doing. I am merely highlighting how Biblical innerancy has been defined for a majority of Christians - as something existing in a vacuum where context is irrelevant unless given to me by a pastor or popular author. Can we really afford, as Christ's earthly representatives and soldiers of God's army, to continue to represent ourselves this way as the world moves on and gains understanding of the cultures around it?

Of course, I said I would share more examples, and so I shall...in the next part of this series. For now, thanks for following me and taking every thought captive on this issue! The true mental challenges are yet to come!