What Roles do Worldviews play in Science? (pt 3)

Ian Barbour in two of his works, When Science meets Religion, and Religion and Science, has outlined four models of interaction between science and religion. I bring up Barbour’s contribution to the discussion between worldview and science (and Christianity and science in specific) between today we have proponents of atheism such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins that loudly protest that religion and science are utterly irreconcilable. Barbour, by no means an evangelical Christian (or even a Christian at all, he seems to have more affinities to process philosophy), has practically exploded this notion of being that only position a “serious” scientist can hold. In fact, it’s not even the view of the majority of scientists since the rise of modern science.

In a manner that closely parallels Richard Niebuhr’s work, Christ and Culture, Barbour speak of fours models of interaction between science and religion, 1) the Conflict model, 2) the Independence model, 3) the Dialogue model, and 4) the Integration model.

In a nutshell, the first view (Conflict) seeing the relationship between religion and science as an antagonistic one. This would be the view taken by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (on the ‘Science’ side…if we can call it that), and religious fundamentalists who view science as “out to get” them on the other.

The Independence model holds to a fundamental ”separation of powers” between science and religion. Science has it’s domain, and religion it’s own (and separate) domain. There need never be a contradiction between the 2 fields because they cover different subject matter. This is the view that has established what has become known as the fact/value split (science is “hard” and speak s of facts, while religion is “soft” can imbues and imputes value). From a Christian perspective, these perspective, though popular, isn’t really an option.  Why is that? Because a Christian commitment to the holistic Lordship of Christ demands that we recognize that He is Lord of both the spiritual reality, as well as the material world (the realm that is handled by the natural sciences). Whatever the Bible speaks regarding the physical world, it speaks with the same level of authority.

The Dialogue model recognizes that both religion (and in this case, specifically Christianity) and science speak about the same world, and may disagree with their respective assessments of the landscape. The dialogue model encourages believers and scientists to open up the lines of communication between the two. 

Lastly, the Integration model proposes that both Christianity and trends in modern science need to be, for lack of a better term, blended. That is to say the goal should be, so it is said, to aim for a scientific theology, or a theological science. Unfortunately, nearly all projects that I’m familiar with that strive toward the goal of integration usually place modern scientific consensus in a privileged position. Process theology is a good example of this.

In conclusion, what this summary is presented here to say is this: Many contemporary science popularizers (such as Richard Dawkins) present the conflict model as the only model of interaction between science and theology. But, this isn’t good history. In fact, the majority of scientists have held either the independence, dialogue, or integration model. Though the integration model is the least common. To privilege the conflict model and use that to throw out any discussion of science and faith is to bias the discussion in advance towards your own side. It’s what we call “stacking the deck.”

Review: Postmodernism 101

I’m now reading through Heath White’s Postmodernism 101: A First Course for Curious Christians. Many books over the last decade put out in response to postmodernism, have, in my humble opinion, have been fairly reactionary. They usually have pointed all things perceived as wrong in the movement (if we call call postmodernism a movement), while acknowledging the “benefits” in an almost pat-on-the-head manner. in this work, White sets out to trace 7 themes in postmodern thought, while contrasting them with premodern and modern thought.

One of the benefits of White’s book is his charitable explanation of views he doesn’t hold. In laying out the postmodern position on a number of topics, White is careful to try to show his reader at least why people who hold these positions find them appealing. There is none of the flippant dismissals I’ve seen in other works.

Another helpful aspects of this book is it’s language. As can be gathered by the title, Postmodernism 101 is an entry -level book, and probably the most helpful one on the market today for laying out, in fairly popular language, what postmodern theorists are saying. So, with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions, in the entire book you rarely read White say, “According to Derrida,” or “According to Foucault, Lyotard, Rorty,” etc. He’ll just explain the themes that are most common amongst postmodern writers. This makes for clearer, and faster, reading.

I have about 2 chapters to go, and no major complaints. At one point, White seems to advocate an allegorical interpretation of some parts of Scriptural. I can understand how he may want to move away from so much of the literalism that pervades works like the Left Behind series. I would advocate a typological method to many of the parts White may apply allegory to, but that’s another issue for another day.

If you’re a Christian who’s ever wondered what exactly is thing phenomenon that is called postmodernism, pick up Postmodernism 101.

The Prodigal God

Westminster Bookstore has finally made available Tim Keller’s new book,The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith. After reading his The Reason for God, I’m very much looking forward to this book to be a model of clarity, charity, and grace.

When you click on the picture of the book to the left, it will take you directly to the WTS bookstore. If you scroll down you’ll see that they’ve made available for free the sermon by Edmund Clowney that inspired much of Keller’s thought on the parable.

A Wider Vision of Eschatology

Just yesterday, I finished teaching a 7 week, intensive course on Christian theology. Yesterday’s topic was on the doctrine of “last things,” otherwise known as Christian eschatology. Elsewhere, i’ve shared how in the past I’ve been extremely reluctant to “get into the mix” on these issues. What helped me to get through the fog is the very thing that I suggest to my students, and that is to expand the definition of eschatology.

Protology is the study of “first thing,” and explores what I call seedbed for a multiplicity of themes that are developed and expanded throughout the rest of the story told in the Bible. Just a few of these these would include the seed of the woman, the people of God, human dominion over the earth, sin, judgment, and the word of God, to name a few. Eschatology, in the expanded definition, is the study of where these developing themes “end up.” What’s the final goal of these themes? That’s what eschatology studies. It’s more than merely about the debates over the timing of the return of Christ (though, of course, it’s not less than these debates).

Eschatology, when properly understood, also helps to develop a biblically-informed philosophy of history and is a huge worldview shaper. Where is history going? What are the forces working behind the curtain unfolding of God’s drama? Want to know? Study the “doctrine of the last things”!

Here are some wonderful places to being:

Tim Keller on the New Atheism

Doniger on Abortion, Palin, and Roe v. Wade

Several weeks ago, Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago’s Divinity School, wrote an article titled, “All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others.” In this article (which can be found here in its entirety) Doniger makes statements such as these about Gov. Sarah Palin:

Belief in god, like getting pregnant, is a private matter between consenting adults (or one consenting adult and one or more deities) and is no one else’s business. …But I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public, to inflict those private religious (or sexual) views on other people. In both sex and religion (which combine in the debates about abortion), Sarah Palin’s views make me fear that the Republican party has finally lost its mind…Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party’s cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women. (Emphasis mine)

And the article goes on in much the same tone for its length (though it’s not terribly long, so read it if you can).

When I read it, I feel compelled to offer what I take to be a reasoned response to some of Dr. Donigers claims. Most of what I say below in more on the faith and reason, and abortion issue than on her attacks against Gov. Palin’s character. Here is my response in full:

This is a very interesting piece, and for a number of reasons. First, I find it is ironic (and a bit amusing) that Dr. Doniger chastises Mrs. Palin for supposedly attempting to speak on behalf of all women (not to mention that Doniger appears to be able to read the intentions of Palin’s heart, “she has no sympathy for the problems of other women”), yet herself “speaks for all women” when she expounds her views on ethics of the life-abortion debate.

Does she not see the inherent contradiction of her position? She would refuse others the ability to do the very things she herself does in this article!

Also, contra Biden (and those that follow suit), the issue of when life begins is not a matter of faith. And it has essentially been a platform for pro-abortion advocates to state the conflict in terms that say that pro-lifers believe what they do became of religious convinctions. This simply is not the case, the pro-life position is firmly rooted in the scientific claim that human life begins at conception, or as Dr. Jerome LeJeune, (“the Father of Modern Genetics,” University of Descartes, Paris) says, “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”

Likewise, Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic) states, “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” Palin’s position is not whether or not the abortion issue boils down to the ‘right to choose”, but on whether or not the fetus is a human being. If it is (and it is, according to Dr. Alfred Bongioanni [University of Pennsylvania] who said, “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”) then we do not have the legal right to choose to kill it any more than we have the legal right to kill our teenage children if their lifestyle becomes an emotional, cultural, or financial burden to us. 

And if the fetus is a human being there likewise should be a law protecting that life, outlawing the ability to take it’s life in the same way that there are laws forbidding parents from taking the lives of their teenage children, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. It is simply being consistent in our “anti-murder” laws. And lest the issues of rape, incest, etc. are presented, I note that the pro-life position is and always has been primarily on the topic of abortion on demand, not the 1%-2% of abortions that fall under the “hard cases” (we should also recall the truism, “Hard cases make for bad laws”). This is not about “forcing” or “inflicting” privately held, but scientifically unverified, beliefs upon others. To state the case this way either a) demonstrates ignorance of the issues involved, or b) is an intentional attempt to erect a smokescreen and obscure the true pro-life position. The pro-life case is built upon the facts regarding the status of the fetus, and until those facts are refuted, the case stands.

And, to make this a religion v. science issue is to misrepresent the nature of the debate. 

ESVSB-Mania!

Just released at the Westminster Bookstore is new ESV Study Bible! I can’t tell you how badly I’ve wanted this Bible to be released and for how long. The contributors are excellent, the articles are unique, and the illustrations and diagrams are in color, and done in painstaking detail.

According to the Westminster Bookstore: “We are offering all of the faux-leather and actual leather Study Bibles at 40% off, and the hardcover edition at 43% off. With our new $3 economy shipping for the hardcover, that makes the total price of any of these editions with shipping the best of any reputable seller on the web.“

Normally I’m not incredibly big on study Bibles, and the only one that I enjoy and consider the best on the market is the NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible. I became intimately familiar with this study Bible while in seminary, when for one class, we were required to read much of the study notes. Being this close to the text caused me to develop a great admiration for SRSB. After looking through the contributor list for the ESVSB and the sample notes and diagrams posted online, I reluctantly admit that this may be the new standard!

This treasure comes in a number of different editions:

Click on any edition for more information: Hardcover, TruTone Natural Brown, TruTone Classic Black, Black Bonded Leather, Burgundy Bonded Leather, Black Genuine Leather, Burgundy Bonded Leather, Premium Calfskin Leather

Lastly, here’s just a sample of the free articles from the ESVSB that Crossway’s posted online.

• Overview of the Bible: A Survey of the History of Salvation, by Vern Poythress
• Reading the Bible
  • Reading the Bible Theologically, by J.I. Packer
  • Reading the Bible as Literature, by Leland Ryken
  • Reading the Bible in Prayer and Communion with God, by John Piper
  • Reading the Bible for Personal Application, by David Powlison
  • Reading the Bible for Preaching and Public Worship, by R. Kent Hughes
• The Bible and World Religions
  • Contemporary Judaism, by Marvin Wilson
  • World Religions, by Harold Netland
  • Islam, by Timothy Tennent

City Plan of Rome

The Introduction to the Book of Romans contains a city plan of ancient Rome, which we have posted online, along with an excerpt of some of the information on Rome found in that introduction. Other city plans that you’ll find in the ESVSB include the cities of Ur, Nineveh (see p. 9 of the Jonah PDF), Babylon, Jericho, Corinth, Ephesus, and Philippi.

(HT: Barry Wallace)

Holistic Depravity…Illustrated

A couple of weeks ago in class, I was teaching on the doctrine of sin. More specifically, I taught on the doctrine of holistic depravity. As emphasized several times on this blog, man is created in the image of God, and this means that we were designed to reflect God in righteousness, representation and rule over the earth.

In the Fall, sin “infected”  the image of God, so that not merely a “part” of us is corrupted, but all that we are designed to image God with…and that’s every aspect of our being. So, our desires are affected, but so is our intellect, emotions, and our will. Thus, we are totally, or, more clearly, holistically corrupted by sin.  And that’s the Reader’s Digest version of it.

But, as I thought of what would be a good example or illustration of this doctrine the first thing was quite starling…because I think it makes the point so well, and so vividly. In both Ephesians 2:1, and in Col. 2, Paul categorizes these effects of sin as being “dead in sin.” Paul says that sin has taken away our vitality, our spiritual life. But he is also careful to correct the possible misunderstanding that being dead in sin means that we are spiritual passive. That may be true in regard to regeneration (we don’t assist or help God is His sovereign work of making us born again), but not in regard to our ethical hostile toward God. Hear his words afresh:

Eph. 2:1-3: And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Paul defines spiritual death as following after the ways of Satan! That’s hardly passive! In Rom. 8:7 he states that man or woman without the Spirit (i.e. the spiritually dead) are hostile to God.

So, think about this for a minute. Dead, yet hostile. Have you ever seen the film 28 Days Later (or it’s sequel, 28 Weeks Later)? If you have, you know where I’m going with this. In the film, the “infected” (modern-day zombies, if you will) are dead, they die when infected by the “rage” virus. But these zombies are not the average, run-of-the-mill slow walking, arms in front of them zombies. No, they scream, they’re angry, they chase you! They are not passive, they are hostile.

Let us thank God for His mercy. We our infected infected with the spiritual “rage” virus. We were hostile to God and His law, and to anything and everything that got in the way of goal of being our own God (of course, this manifests itself differently depending on the temperament, personalities, and upbringing of the individual. But the point is true nonetheless). 

But, in the words of the Apostle: 

God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Eph. 2:5-7)

The Gagging of God

Currently, I’m working through D. A. Carson’s The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Here Carson interacts the various forms of pluralism in the western world. In the first chapter he introduces 3 types of pluralism.

1) Empirical or Factual Pluralism: This is a simple observation of the reality in which we live. As a fact, we live in a world that increasingly presents us with multiple visions of life, ethics, religion, politics, as they can packaged via different genders, cultures, nationalities, ages, etc.

2) Pluralism as a cherished reality: Here people see pluralism not only as a reality in which we all live, but a good, a thing to be sought after. It has turned pluralism the empirical fact into pluralism the cherished goal.

3) Philosophical Pluralism: Philosophical pluralism acknowledges the fact of pluralism (above) and, as a result, calls into question all and any positions that in the face of this fact dare to assert that it is the only true way of seeing something. For example, in the case of religion, pluralism in this form is the enemy of Christianity because it rejects the exclusivity of the claims of Christ (John 14:6, Acts 4:12) and teaches that all religions are either a) equally right in leading to salvation (however they define it), or b) equally wrong in that no religion is a true (!) representation of whoever or whatever God is.

According to Carson, it’s philosophical pluralism, the commitment to the equality of viewpoints, that leads to the various strands of relativism that we find in our day. he then spends time explaining the challenges of relativistic pluralism in the realms of hermeneutics, philosophy, and religion.

Carson has always been known for his literary candor, not pull punching and willing to say, “oh, please,” when necessary. 

One area in which I hope Carson would have pushed a little more (and I haven’t finished the book, so I hope he’ll surprise me) is the positive contributions of deconstructionism for Christian apologetics. Of course, I say this because I’m deeply interesting in the deconstruction of Jacques Derrida, and i’m big into Christian apologetics. I’m also convinced that while Derrida is seriously wrong on a number of points in his philosophy (if we could call it that), that nevertheless their is much good in Derrida’s thought on how systems of thought and institutions collapse under their own ideological weight and internal inconsistencies. Hopefully, one day in the not too distant future I hope to publish something on the topic.

Carson focuses on a number of critiques of Derrida and his project (most everything I agree with), but hasn’t yet (in my reading thus far) “plundered the Egyptians” and explored the ways in which Derrida has helpfully pointed out (or, more modestly, highlighted) the interpretative nature of all human understanding and the failure of modernism.

Books I’m (really!) Looking Forward To

Within the next few weeks, a number of titles are going to be released that look great. The chief release that I’m salivating over is the release of the ESV  Study Bible. But, as you’ll see below, my interest are all over the place:

1) English Standard Version Study Bible (ESVSB)

 2) The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith- By Tim Keller

3) The Erosion of Biblical Inerrancy in Evangelicalism- G. K. Beale

4) We Become what we Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry- G. K. Beale

5) 3 Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament- Kaiser, Bock, and Enns

This is the Type of Personal Study I Want!

A guy can dream…..(well, maybe I’d clean it up a little bit

Prophet, Priest, and King in Biblical History (Part 4, conclusion)

Now we conclude this series on the 3-fold office of prophet, priest, and King. Last time we looked at how the office find their ulimate fulfillment in Christ. Now we look at how the church continues these offices as those “in Christ.”  The church, as the purified and renewed people of God continues the purpose that was originally given to Adam and recommisioned to Israel.

Prophet- We, as those united to Christ through faith, are given the privilege of continuing the prophetic task. We are to speak forth the word of God without compromise, as well as a love for love to which we speak. We also are called to speak true words about God, and that will include both the comforting message of forgiveness and reconciliation. 

Interestingly enough, the very commissioning words to the prophets, “Go”, and “I will be with you,” are the words Christ uses to send out His body into the world to preach the gospel and teach the world all things that Christ has commanded us. (cf. Jer. 1:7-8 with Matt. 28:20)

Priest- As a kingdom of priest, the Church is to minister the blessing of God to the world. We are to aid the widows and the orphans, to care for those who suffer justice, to cloth the naked, and to show love to our cities, especially those of the household of faith (i.e. fellow brother and sisters in Christ, Gal 6:10). 

Also, the Church of Christ is the beacon of light in this lost world, pointing the way to the ultimate light of the world, the ultimate blessing of God, Christ Himself.

King-As redeemed images of God, renewed in the image of Christ, the Church is still to serve as a vice-regent with God. We are to commit ourselves to spiritual warfare, not warring on flesh and blood, but on everything that sets itself up against the knowledge of God (2 cor. 10:4-6, Eph. 6:12). We are to have dominion over the earth, not to use it as a resource for our own sinful pleasure, but to be godly stewards, using it’s resources in ways that help mankind and thus bring glory to God.

Prophet, Priest, and King in Biblical History (Part 3 of 4)

In the first post of this series, we looked at how what we’ve been calling the “threefold office” of prophet, priest, and king, looking especially at how these offices were originally patterned (in Eden). In the second post, we looked at how the offices played out in the history of Old Testament Israel. Now we turn to take a look at how these offices find their ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

The most interesting aspect of unpacking how Christ fulfills these offices is realizing that Christ is actually the very one whom the offices are patterned after. To state that another way, the offices, say, of the Kingship, wasn’t something that Christ looked at and asked Himself how he would fulfill it. Instead, ever since Adam, Kings were to image God, and Christ is the fulness of the godhead in bodily form.

Prophet- Christ is the ultimate word from the Father (John 1:1). In fact, He is God’s final word of revelation (Heb. 1:1). Christ proclaimed the truth of God’s word to the people to whom He ministered, and that considered of words of consolation as well as words of judgment (cf. Matt. 23). Christ spoken with an authority that no other religious leader spoke with. Others taught, “Such-and-such said..,” but Christ proclaimed, “You have heard it said…but I say unto you…” (see the Sermon on the Mount)

Priest- John chapter 17 is a great place to see Christ, the great High Priest, at work, interceding for those “whom that Father gave” Him. Likewise, in an extended section on His priesthood, the epistle to the Hebrews explains that not only is Christ the great and final High Priest for the people of God, but, paradoxically, He is also the final sacrifice for sin! The work of Jesus on our behalf atones for the various and myriad ways in which we have failed to be faithful images of God. And finally, as Priest, Christ in the final one through whom God’s blessing is ministered to the world. As in the promise to Abraham, all the nations of the world will be blessed through Christ Jesus.

King- Jesus is indeed both the Son of David, and the Son of Man, the one in Daniel 7 given dominion over all the earth. As the faithful image of God, King Jesus righteously represented the rule of God (“If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.”) Also, as King, Jesus defeated His enemies through His work on the cross (Col. 2:15, 1 Jn. 3:8, Heb. 2:14, Rev. 20:1-3). During is ministry this was demonstrated by His numerous exorcisms, essentially showing Satan and his minions “who’s boss.” Now, and forever more, Christ Jesus is the “King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.”