New book by David Beale

Just got a note from Dr. Beale about his new book, Christian Fundamentalism in America. I encourage you to order it. Dr. Beale is a favorite! He thinks a lot about these topics and is well worth reading. This book is an update of his earlier work, now out of print, In Pursuit of Purity.

Here is the promo from the Amazon listing:

Christian Fundamentalism in America: The Story of the Rest from 1857 to 2020 is a fascinating account of the Christian Fundamentalist movement in America. The first section unfolds the story of great men and women who were song writers, Christian businessmen, great scholars, and much more, who experienced great Prayer Meeting Revivals, Prophetic Bible Conferences, the first Scofield Reference Bible, the famous 12-volume set, known as The Fundamentals, and finally the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association of 1919. The Grace Brethren story transitions into the turbulent twenties between Fundamentalism and Modernists.

For another section, beginning in the 1920s, the author dug far beyond the surface to bring to us the "story of the rest" within the Presbyterian and Baptist denominations struggling between truth and error. The reader will learn what really happened secretly when Des Moines University was shut down by riotous students and everything got out of hand. The reader follows down pathways of well-researched aspects of the fascinating Dr. J. Frank Norris and life trials. In the detailed story of Billy Graham, John R. Rice, Bob Jones Sr., and Bob Jones Jr. the reader will discover how the lines of separation were drawn.

Most importantly, however, the author knows without doubt that a true Fundamentalist: (1) believes and defends the whole Bible as the absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God; (2) seeks fully to obey His Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and (3) desires to reach out in sacrificial love and compassion to all people.

By far, most in this "story of the rest" are godly believers who will bring joy for each of us. David Beale taught courses on Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism for some thirty years at Bob Jones University and Seminary. In 1986, he wrote a book (now out of print) titled In Pursuit of Purity. Our new book, Christian Fundamentalism in America, replaces the old, out-of-date one.

He has written several other books, including Historical Theology In-depth (Volume 1 and Volume 2); Baptist History in England and America; A Pictorial History of Our English Bible; and The Mayflower Pilgrims.

Submitting to Froward Governments

What to do when our authorities are wrong in what they command?

In 1 Peter 2.18 we find that archaic word in the King James Version, “froward.” The verse calls servants to submit to their masters, even “the froward.”

KJV 1Pe 2:18 ¶ Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

The verse is the only New Testament occurrence of the term, though it shows up 20 times in 19 verses of the KJV Old Testament. The dictionary gives this meaning:

“habitually disposed to disobedience and opposition” ((Frederick C. Mish, ed., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).))

Other translations give these renderings: “unreasonable” (NASB); “unjust” (ESV); “perverse” (NET); “cross” (YLT). In the context, the word refers to a master who is not congenial, a difficult boss, rude, arrogant, mercurial, and likely tyrannical.

What do froward masters have to do with our discussion of submission to government during the Covid pandemic? In our last chapter, I closed with this:

“However, what if the government is wrong in its approach to a public health emergency? What if their orders make no sense, and they require something of us that will not address the emergency they declared? We’ll take that topic up next.”

I don’t know of any passages directly referencing submission to government when it is wrong. However, the third (and weakest) line of argument the Covid rebels use is the argument to the effect that government overstated the risks of Covid and added to our misery by proposing ineffective measures to combat a negligible effect. I summarized that argument in chapter 1, “The Covid Rebels and Their Rationale.” In its public statement, this is one of the primary arguments of James Coates and the GraceLife Church near Edmonton, Alberta. (( See the statement of GraceLife Church posted here.))

[Read more…]

The Extent of Governmental Authority

A closer look at Romans 13 and its implications

The Covid rebels argue against government authority over church gatherings on two grounds. The first ground is that God commands Christians to meet in person, so when government commands otherwise, the Christian duty is to God rather than man. The previous chapter addressed the “command” argument, in which I held there is no such command in the Bible, and certainly not in Hebrews 10. Some Christians, who are not Covid rebels, disagree with my view, but offer no exegetical or theological support to contradict it, at least so far. There is, of course, Biblical precedent for the commands of God superseding the demands of authority (see Peter before the Sanhedrin, Acts 4.19, 5.29). If there is no clear command, the principle is irrelevant; and even if one believes there is a command to meet, we must answer several other questions before we conclude, “This is the time, I take my stand, do what you will with me.”

One of those questions is the extent of governmental authority. The Covid rebels say that God limits governmental authority to matters of crime and punishment, to “justice,” but grants no authority over public health and safety. To refresh, here are two statements from pastor Tim Stephens of Calgary’s Fairview Baptist Church, cited in my first chapter:

“There is nothing in Romans 13 that teaches that the government is responsible for the common good. There is nothing in Romans 13 that teaches that the government is responsible for keeping people safe from a virus such that they even command what takes place in the church and in the home.” ((Source: COVID-19: A Romans 13 Issue?))

“Romans 13 defines the authority of the state to uphold justice and mete out God’s wrath according to God’s standards. It does not give power to the state to define justice or what is good and evil. It does not give authority to the state to outlaw gathering freely in worship, and then bring the punishment of the sword upon those who do.” ((Source: COVID-19: A Romans 13 Issue?))

And, once again, this is Pastor Aaron Rock of Harvest Bible Church in Windsor, Ontario:

“In Romans 13, civil authority is given jurisdiction over justice in the public sphere. Our Christian forebears were comfortable with that and urged churches to submit to it. But modern states have extended their authority well beyond matters of justice to include public education, public health, private property use, transportation regulations, right down to requiring dog tags for the family pet. To extend the biblical notion of subjection to any and all areas of life that the government chooses to control is a failure to acknowledge the discontinuities between the ancient and modern world.” ((Source: Our Stance on COVID-19: November 25, 2020 | Article: A Call to Divine Obedience over Civil Obedience)) [Emphasis mine.]

In sum, the Covid rebels limit the application of Romans 13 to a narrow window. They claim the state has no authority over the church when it comes to its worship, and this includes when, where, and how the church should worship. They insist they need not follow public health orders when they worship. The result of this in Canada is national news stories with various pastors under arrest, some imprisoned for a time, and many charges laid and fines levied. There are ongoing cases before the courts. It remains to be seen how all these matters come to a resolution. Likely before these matters work their way through the courts, the Covid crisis itself will become much reduced and most churches will be meeting normally anyway.

Nevertheless, the treatment of Romans 13 by the Covid rebels deserves some comment. I should rather say, “mistreatment,” because these men badly mis-apply the passage.

When one examines Romans 13, there is little question about what the passage says. What I’ve read from the Covid rebels shows essential agreement about the content of the passage. The issue is application, not explanation.

To proceed, though, I think we should briefly ((When I preached through Romans a few years ago, I accumulated 18 pages of notes on the passage and preached 6 sermons. Brevity is a challenge!)) summarize the teaching of Romans 13.1-7, the passage in question. Everett Harrison says, ““This is the most notable passage in the NT on Christian civic responsibility.” ((Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 136.))

The passage begins with a universal proposition: “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities.”

The subject of the sentence demonstrates universality, “every person.” The “governing authorities” are “the higher powers” as the kjv translates. The action is passive, every person must order himself under the authorities. He must find his place, submit, put himself in the proper order.

The reason for the proposition is simply that God ordained, or set in place, the authorities. All humans resent (to some extent) the authorities in their lives, due to their sin nature. They do this because they resent God — something very close to the original sin, inherited from Adam. God established authority, so the natural man despises authority. Unfortunately, the Christian man requires reminders that his life-changing transformation by the gospel means the universal proposition that opens Romans 13 is meant for him, too. To rebel against the higher powers is the same thing as rebelling against God.

Thus, we sum up verses 1-2: All must submit, for God appointed the authorities, and rebellion to human authority equals rebellion to God.

When someone resists human authority, pain ensues. If you do good, you have nothing to fear; if you do evil, be afraid. Paul says, “for it [government] does not bear the sword for nothing.” In other words, government has authority from God and power in its hands to back up that authority. If you won’t obey, you will feel it. Paul says that government is “the minister of God” when it punishes wrong doing. The whole idea behind the Western justice systems rests on these principles. Government stands in for God to mete out justice for offences.

However, since Government is a minister of God (Rm 13.4), Christians have an additional reason for submission, because they have a Christian conscience (Rm 13.5) which calls for their submission to God’s ministers.

So far, so good. I think as far as exegesis goes, the Covid rebels would generally agree with what I’ve said about Romans 13 above. However, the Christian conscience that calls for obedience is an interesting thing. Paul offers an illustration in verse 6 that takes the discussion a step further:

Rm 13.6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

Notice here the word “also.” The Covid rebels want to limit the power of the sword and the authority of government to matters of justice. If you check Tim Stephens’ writings, you will see that he argues that the instructions of Romans 13 follow on from the admonition to the Christian, “don’t take vengeance,” in Romans 12. The Lord appointed the government to handle these matters, so Romans 13 teaches that governments may only act in matters where an injustice occurs, when they are to take vengeance on our behalf.

But wait, what about “also” in verse 6? Even if we concede that Romans 13 follows on from Romans 12 (some commentators make this connection), how do “taxes” figure into my desire for vengeance on my neighbour who offended me? Answer: they don’t. Paul offers “taxes” as a further illustration of the principle.

We pay taxes for the same reasons we submit to the laws of civil government: “for rulers are servants of God” – they are doing, in a sense, religious service. The word for “ministers” here is related to the service of the temple – liturgical service. We get the English word “liturgy” from this word. Obviously, this isn’t religion as we normally understand religion, but note Paul’s observation about the rulers who are “devoting themselves to this very thing.” They take tax collection religiously!

What is my point here? Paul himself applies this passage to more than mere justice. He applies it to taxes as well. I suspect that none of the Covid rebels also advocate refusing to pay taxes. After this, Paul renders a summary statement:

Rm 13.7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

This last verse gives imperatives or implied imperatives. These are sober obligations. As I say, to Biblically defy governmental authority one must clear a very high bar Paul set up for us here. If we determine to defy the authorities, we had better be sure we have a strong biblical reason.

Now let’s consider some other passages about divinely appointed civil authority. You may be familiar with the three-part division of Old Testament law: Ceremonial, Moral, and Civil. The Ceremonial division includes all the regulations concerning sacrifice and the liturgy of OT religion. The Moral division includes all those regulations on moral conduct, such as those listed in the Ten Commandments. The Civil division has to do with laws affecting the Israelites as citizens of a nation. ((Some dispute these categories, but there the general idea makes sense in distinguishing one law from another in the OT. Some OT laws, to be sure, are difficult to assign to only one category.)) Let’s look at some of them to see the scope of authority God granted to human government.

In Deuteronomy 15, the Lord gives laws dealing with land ownership, managing debt, and taking care of the poor. The chapter opens with this:

Dt 15.1 ¶ “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts.

In keeping with these laws are those of Leviticus 19.9-10 which instruct landowners to leave the corners of their fields in harvest time for the benefit of the poor.

Lev 19.9-10 ¶ ‘Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 ‘Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.

The Law gave instruction for public safety in house construction.

Dt 22.8 ¶ “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it.

In Leviticus 13 and 14, God gives the laws concerning leprosy. In these chapters he gives authority to the priests to determine when someone has the plague of leprosy and when he is delivered from it. He gives the priests the authority to examine affected clothing and require the destruction of these articles if they find disease in them. He gives authority to the priests to enter houses suspected of leprosy breaking out in the walls (apparently some kind of mold-like growth). Under certain conditions, the priest could order the partial or complete destruction of the affected house. All affected stones, mortar, timber, whatever the house is made of, was torn down and discarded outside the town in an “unclean place.”

Now we fast forward to the twenty first century. Are we saying the God who granted this civil authority to priests in ancient Israel has not granted authority to Public Health Officers today? Do we seriously want to argue that public health is not an interest of civil government? Or that civil government has no authority here, the church, due to its sovereignty over its worship services, can simply ignore public health orders?

This kind of defiance seems a very strange way to follow our Lord Jesus, who, noting the freedom of the sons of the king, nevertheless submitted to the ordinances of his day and paid taxes. (Mt 17.24-27)

Mt 17.27 “However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.”

Jacob Reaume, one of the Covid rebels, recognizes government authority extends beyond merely administering justice. He says in one of his many blogs arguing for defying government restrictions on worship:

“Typically obedience to Federal, Provincial, and Municipal regulations is easily given, such as is the case with fire safety codes, municipal drainage requirements, and other building codes. But a lockdown order to cease meeting as a church body for fellowship and worship would contradict the commandments of God, and in such a case TBC is compelled to listen to God instead of the government.” ((Source: Here We Stand: The Church Must Meet | Trinity Bible Chapel))

It is inconsistent to recognize Federal, Provincial, and Municipal regulation in many such matters, but then defy government lockdown orders in an emergency. He interestingly mentions fire safety codes. Fire safety codes restrict unfettered use of buildings for worship. The codes impose an occupancy limit on worship spaces. We all know that you can fit more people into a building than the code allows. If your church grows to the point that you have more people wanting to attend than the fire safety code allows, what do you do? Do you defy the fire safety code? Or do you accommodate yourself to legitimate government authority that puts a legal restriction on your assembly?

What is the difference — in essence — between a fire safety code and a public health order?

To conclude, I think we all agree that God established governments and that they are ministers of God over us for public affairs. The Covid rebels want to narrow the scope of government authority to imagine that they have no authority over our worship spaces. From the teaching of Romans 13, the Old Testament precedents, and the example of the Lord Jesus, I think we can say they are wrong. Public Health is a legitimate area of government authority. The government has authority to restrict behaviour in keeping with Public Health objectives.

However, what if the government is wrong in its approach to a public health emergency? What if their orders make no sense, and they require something of us that will not address the emergency they declared? We’ll take that topic up next.

~~~

PostScript:

Richard Baxter (1615-1691), English Puritan pastor wrote on this subject. My source is a book that contains a collection of his writings called, The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter. In Volume 4, on Christian Politics, Baxter answers the question:

May we omit church assemblies on the Lord’s day, if the magistrate forbid them?

1. It is one thing to forbid them for a time, upon some special cause, (as infection by pestilence, fire, war, &c.) and another to forbid them statedly or profanely.

2. It is one thing to omit them for a time, and another to do it ordinarily.

3. It is one thing to omit them in formal obedience to the law; and another thing to omit them in prudence, or for necessity, because we cannot keep them.

4. The assembly and the circumstances of the assembly must be distinguished.

(1.) If the magistrate for a greater good, (as the common safety,) forbid church assemblies in a time of pestilence, assault of enemies, or fire, or the like necessity, it is a duty to obey him.

1. Because positive duties give place to those great natural duties which are their end: so Christ justified himself and his disciples’ violation of the external rest of the sabbath. “For the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.”

2. Because affirmatives bind not ad semper, and out-of-season duties become sins.

3. Because one Lord’s day or assembly is not to be preferred before many, which by the omission of that one are like to be obtained.

(2.) If princes profanely forbid holy assemblies and public worship, either statedly, or as a renunciation of Christ and our religion; it is not lawful formally to obey them.

(3.) But it is lawful prudently to do that secretly for the present necessity, which we cannot do publicly, and to do that with smaller numbers, which we cannot do with greater assemblies, yea, and to omit some assemblies for a time, that we may thereby have opportunity for more: which is not formal but only material obedience. ((Richard Baxter, The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, Kindle Edition, vol. 4, n.d., 456–57.))

Previous Chapters

Putting Hebrews 10 into Perspective

The Bible does command Christians to gather together, doesn’t it? The gathering of the church is socially, psychically, and spiritually valuable, isn’t it? Above all, when the local body of Christ gathers for worship, it is far more than simply the collective worship of individuals, but the union of individuals in a body where their worship becomes something far more than the sum of the parts, right? In other words, when Christians gather together for worship, something greater than one’s daily worship at home occurs, isn’t that right?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

All these things are true.

All Christians should be members of a local church and should faithfully attend every service possible. First, there is the opportunity to serve others, the human reason for church attendance. (The divine, and primary, reason is to worship our God.) There is also the blessing that comes your way, if you attend, as others serve you. But remember, that isn’t so much a reason for attendance as it is an “attendant circumstance,” something extra, something that comes with the territory. The fact is, your biggest blessings come when you attend on purpose to be a blessing.

However, I want to do more with this chapter than simply exhort church attendance. The most well known passage on church attendance is Hebrews 10.24-25.

Heb 10.24-25 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

It happens to be one of the “go to” verses in the Christian Covid rebellion. I’d like to take some time to think through the passage so that we can intelligently and Scripturally disagree with the Covid rebels. I believe they at least misunderstand, if not misuse, this passage of Scripture. [Read more…]

The Rationale of the Christian Covid Rebels

Startling events in Canada brought the long dormant question of the relationship of church and state to the forefront of Christian minds. On Feb 16, 2021, in Edmonton, Alberta, pastor James Coates turned himself in to the police because of repeated violations of orders from the Public Health Officer of the province. Pastor Coates refused comply with an undertaking to obey a court order until his trial date, so he remained in custody for 35 days. Three weeks after his release from custody, on April 7, the police fenced his church property and posted security guards so no one could access the building.

Some Christians applauded Pastor Coates, some other pastors in Alberta and Ontario. Despite this, most Canadian pastors disagree with Pastor Coates’ approach to the government orders. Many of these sympathize with his plight and that of his church, but can’t agree with the direction he took.

[Read more…]

Two Opposing Concepts: The USA vs. Canada

In this post, I’d like to explain the essential difference between the USA and Canada in the conception of their founding which affects their approach to law and to authority.

First of all, the American Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” From this conception come the rights enshrined in the American Bill of Rights by way of the first ten amendments to the USA constitution. The first amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting a free exercise thereof …” Included in this amendment is the right of the people to “peaceably assemble.” The basic concept on which America rests is the notion of unalienable rights held by each citizen. The Bill of Rights limits government action. Recent cases in the Supreme Court ruled in favor of churches and against the attempts at state governors at closing them down during the Covid-19 crisis. This is one example of many that show the freedom and liberty individual Americans have in consequence of their conception of government. As an outsider, I have to say the American Constitution is one of the noblest documents created in the history of civilization. Its ideas have empowered the American nation like no other nation in the history of the world.

On the other hand, Canada’s foundation rests on an entirely different principle. The provinces of Canada joined in a federal union under the Crown (at the time of Canada’s founding, the Crown was that of Queen Victoria). By a royal decree, Queen Victoria brought into being the nation of Canada. The constitution states, “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.” Now, although the Queen’s authority is more symbolic than real, the important point to note is the difference between the two nations. In the USA, the nation’s foundation is its citizens with unalienable rights consenting to a government that administers the nation. In Canada, the nation’s foundation is the authority of the Queen who subsequently grants rights and freedoms to her citizens.

Canada added its Charter of Rights and freedoms to the Canadian Constitution in 1982. The Charter illustrates what I mean by rights and freedoms granted to the citizens by the Crown. The second clause of the Charter contains these words: “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion … (c) freedom of peaceful assembly …”

So far, so good. We are grateful for this document. But hold on! Don’t forget the first clause of the Charter: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” [Emphasis added.] The freedoms in the Canadian Charter are not absolute, nor do they derive from the unalienable rights of citizens. The Crown guarantees them, but can limit them by law when, in the judgement of the Crown (i.e. the government), they “can be demonstrably justified”.

What this means is that if the government decides to limit a freedom in the Charter, the only way citizens can overturn the decision is by forcing the government to justify its position in the courts. This is much harder to do in a country where freedoms are granted, and rights are not unalienable. “Demonstrably justified” is a relative term, not a clear-cut and absolute term.

In the Covid-19 crisis, the Canadian governments (federal as well as provincial) are limiting our freedoms in various ways, due to the state of emergency presented by the pandemic. Hardly anyone denies that the pandemic presents a justification for some modification of our freedoms. The only hope churches have on the legal front in Canada is to show that the restrictions on religion are unreasonable in the circumstances, or compared to the way other freedoms are restricted (like the freedom to peacefully shop at Costco or the local marijuana shop!).

On the outside, looking at how the responses to the pandemic are playing out in various US states and Canadian provinces, the varied rules, shut downs, masks/no masks, etc. look the same in application. The authority of the governments, however rest on entirely different foundations, which affects how successful appeals to the courts might be in different jurisdictions.

Canada is a “top-down” country: the authority is at the top, the freedoms trickle down (if we are in the good graces of the Crown). The USA is a “bottom-up” country: the authority is at the bottom [citizens] who grant to their governments limited authority.

Comparing the Scandinavian Countries

Sweden is going it alone in attacking the coronavirus situation, keeping most of life going, encouraging social distancing, isolating the sick and seniors homes. They now have restricted public gatherings to no more than 50. They expect their economy will not emerge unscathed, but they are not shutting everything down either.

I’ve shared several articles on Facebook on this topic and a friend shared another one just tonight. I thought I’d do a little comparison on the worldometer charts, and see where some relatively close countries are faring, adding in the UK as a more severely hit comparison.

Here is the article that got me started on this tonight:

No lockdown here: Sweden defends its more relaxed coronavirus strategy

Here are a few earlier articles I shared:

Explaining the science behind Sweden’s relaxed coronavirus approach

As the rest of Europe lives under lockdown, Sweden keeps calm and carries on

Ok, now for the comparison charts (from worldometer, linked above):

sweden

finland

Norway

britain

All three of the comparison nations are using more stringent shutdowns. The key number to compare, I think is Cases/1M pop and Deaths/1M pop.

So far, Sweden seems not much worse off than any of these countries.

Compared to the whole world (the numbers in the bottom row in each picture), all of these countries seem high, but that is probably misleading. I am guessing that more urban nations with a more mobile population will have higher rates than nations like those in Africa, perhaps.

Anyway, it is interesting to watch. My opinion is that the total shutdown is unnecessary and will hurt us way more than the Swedish approach would do in the long run. Only time will tell, but I think we are not well served by our government and especially the media at this time.

The real deal in Italy

I am following a blog on the Wuhan virus situation. Here is the author’s bio:

Chris Centeno, MD is a specialist in regenerative medicine and the new field of Interventional Orthopedics. Centeno pioneered orthopedic stem cell procedures in 2005 and is responsible for a large amount of the published research on stem cell use for orthopedic applications.

Today, I’m sharing his post from yesterday, entitled, "What’s Really Going On in Italy?"

This one sparked some interest for me because as soon as you start talking to someone about the virus, the more concerned will say something like, "Yeah, well look at Italy." So let’s look at Italy. This piece has a video from JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) which is an interview by Howard Bauchner, MD, of JAMA with Maurizio Cecconi, MD, of Italy, a man on the front in the battle againat the Wuhan virus in Italy. He describes the Italy situation clearly, without the spin the news media inevitably adds to their reports. The value of this report is you are getting an expert assessment straight from an expert. News reporters are no more experts at this than you or I, though they talk as if they are.

Having said that, I’d like to point out that I am not one to simply rely on "experts." The notion that only experts may speak on the topic is irrational. We all have the ability to absorb information and make judgements about the information we receive. We should take care ourselves not to "rush to judgement" one way or another. We hear an alarming report and we can respond too soon, driven by our natural fear, without careful analysis or considering alternate points of view. Even in the community of experts, there are widely varying points of view, so we should be careful about any conclusions we come to. Conclusions driven by fear can hardly be trusted or considered authoritative.

Back to the question of Italy, what really is going on in Italy? Near the end of his piece, Chris Centrino says:

If covering this crisis as a blogger has taught me one thing, it’s cemented my belief that the primary purpose of our media is to sell eyeballs for advertisers. Yes, they can serve a critical role in helping to expose wrongs, but on balance, it’s their job to sensationalize what’s happening. This crisis and threat is VERY real and this virus will overwhelm our health system if we don’t shut it all down to flatten the curve and then smartly manage the situation. However, listening to this leading Italian ICU physician speak does one thing clearly, it shows how the media has taken some truths about Italy and blown them up into something that is not recognizable.

The upshot? I was floored by this interview. PLEASE TAKE 10 MINUTES AND WATCH IT NOW FOR YOURSELF. Also, we need to maintain our current shutdown and begin to call out states that are not getting with the program. Why? Like Italy, we need to have our own cases peak and come down the other side. We also need to prepare our ICUs and restructure how we care for the sick while we continue to ramp up testing. However, we also need to recognize that it’s the media’s job to sell us stuff and we all need to take everything reported with a BIG grain of salt.

What should we do? Well, be careful in public contacts. People are afraid, and maybe there is good reason to be afraid. Yet one would think that good health habits and taking care in our public contacts should be enough from each one of us. Don’t get bent out of shape at others who don’t do things exactly the way you would do. Don’t report your fellow-citizens to the police! (Good grief, what are we, a police state?) Just take precautions and do what you need to do. And stay home more. There’s nothing to do out there anyway!

Representative Evangelical Theologians: Clark Pinnock

In an earlier piece, “The Evangelical Coalition,” I outlined the formation of the new evangelical movement (or, as Roger Olson calls it, postfundamentalist evangelicalism). As that piece closed, I noted that Olson surveys five theologians as representatives of evangelical theology.

I’ve held my peace on this for a couple of weeks now, so it is time to get back at it.

Roger Olson begins his chapter on Clark Pinnock with two incredible paragraphs giving his take on the current state of affairs in evangelicalism (as of 2007, that is, the date of the book). These paragraphs are so significant I reproduce them here: [Read more…]

Representative Evangelical Theologians: Donald Bloesch

In an earlier piece, “The Evangelical Coalition,” I outlined the formation of the new evangelical movement (or, as Roger Olson calls it, postfundamentalist evangelicalism). As that piece closed, I noted that Olson surveys five theologians as representatives of evangelical theology.

  • Carl F. H. Henry: Dean of Evangelical Theology
  • E. J. Carnell: Apologist for Evangelical Theology
  • Bernard Ramm: Moderate Evangelical Theologian
  • Donald Bloesch: Progressive Evangelical Theologian
  • Clark Pinnock: Postconservative Evangelical Theology

With Donald Bloesch, Olson moves almost to the outer fringes of evangelicalism, far removed from fundamentalism. Bloesch differs from the other theologians already discussed. As Olson explains,

Bloesch represents something of an anomaly, as he has never taught at a college, university, or seminary that is part of the evangelical coalition, nor was any of his theological education completed in an evangelical institution. In other words, unlike the other theologians under consideration here, Bloesch has never operated within the evangelical subculture except by publishing book reviews and articles in Christianity Today and Eternity. Some of his books have been published by evangelical publishers. Bloesch was raised in and has always remained a part of the Protestant mainstream; he was untouched by the fundamentalist movement and its militancy and separatism. (p. 120)

Olson sees Bloesch as representing evangelicalism because much of his voluminous writings are closely identified with postfundamentalist evangelicalism. He stands on the boundary between evangelicalism and mainline Protestantism with a strong influence among evangelicals.

Bloesch’s primary contribution to evangelical thought has been to call it out of its captivity to the old liberal-fundamentalist controversy and out of narrow sectarianism and into a greater appreciation for the historic Reformation tradition with an emphasis on spirituality. (p. 122)

The foundation of Bloesch’s theology includes Calvin, Pietists Spener and Zinzendorf, Wesley, Edwards, and notably, an assortment of more contemporary figures including Kierkegaard, Englishmen P. T. Forsyth and John Stott, and also the neoorthodox leaders, Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. In this stance, he ignores fundamentalists, very conservative postfundamentalist evangelicals, as well as liberals. (p. 122). His view of Carl Henry and others is that they were too rationalistic. He would describe himself as a “progressive evangelical” or a “catholic evangelical theologian.” (p. 122) His aim was identity with the Reformers while at the same time progressing in consequence of new knowledge and new insights into God’s word. (p. 122-123).

Bloesch would reject identity with neoorthodoxy himself, but his views seem remarkably close to it.

Against liberal Protestant theology Bloesch argues for a close relationship between the Bible and supernatural divine revelation; against Fundamentalism he argues for a distinction between them. “The Bible is not in and of itself the revelation of God but the divinely appointed means and channel of this revelation … The Word of God transcends the human witness, and yet it comes to us only in the servant form of the human words.” (p. 126 [quote from Bloesch, Holy Scripture, p.57])

One might say that the Bible is the Word of God in a formal sense — as a light bulb is related to light. The light bulb is not itself the light but its medium. The light of God’s truth is ordinarily shining in the Bible, but it is discerned only by the eyes of faith. Even Christians, however do not see the light in its full splendor. It is refracted and obscured by the form of the Bible, but it nonetheless reaches us if we have faith. (Bloesch, Holy Scripture, p. 59, cited in Olson p. 126)

One more: “Bloesch drives the nail in the coffin of a fundamentalist view of Scripture (so far as he is concerned) when he affirms that ‘our final authority [for Christian faith and practice] is not what the Bible says but what God says in the Bible.” (Bloesch, Holy Scripture, p. 60, cited in Olson p. 127)

Again, we have to note that even though further removed from fundamentalism than the theologians already discussed, Bloesch desires to distinguish himself especially from fundamentalism. Evangelicals seem obsessed with making that distinction clear.

Olson’s concluding assessment is remarkable in itself.

What Bloesch brings to Evangelicalism is a balanced perspective that is free from the distorting effects of fundamentalism and the internecine battles that have racked Evangelicalism because of its fundamentalist roots. (p. 129)

Olson considers Bloesch “relatively conservative” yet standing “outside the evangelical subculture” so he can speak to it with a needed “moderating, balanced message.” (p. 129). Olson’s assessment is remarkable, but perhaps it reveals his own views more than clearly seeing Bloesch’s position.

Next up is Clark Pinnock. Even Olson is unable to call Pinnock a postfundamentalist evangelical. Stay tuned for that one!