More quotes from Hauerwas

First, a couple to ponder:

“Disputes between those who believe in God and those who do not often turn on the assumption by both parties that they know what they mean when they say ‘God.’ This seems unlikely, since Christians believe that we learn to use the word ‘God’ only through worship and prayer to the One we address as Father, Son, and Spirit. Such a God is identified by a story that takes time, often a lifetime, to learn.”

“As theologians, we must say more than we can be in the hope that others will make us more than we are. What is crucial is that we not write to justify the limits of our lives.”

And, a funny one:

“I do not believe in California”

- All from his memoir, Hannah’s Child.

My faculty page

I finally updated my faculty page (long overdue!!!). Check it out: http://www.providenceseminary.ca/seminary/faculty/patrick_franklin/

 

a new society

“We who valued above all things the acquisition of wealth and possessions, now bring what we have into a common stock, and communicate to everyone in need; we who hated and destroyed one another, on account of their different manners would nto live with men of a different tribe, now . . . live familiarly with them, and pray for our enemies, and endeavor to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live in conformity to the good precepts of Christ, to the end that they may become partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from God the ruler of all.”

- Justin Martyr (100 – 165 CE), First Apology

Can we say the same for our churches today?

 

Lesslie Newbigin’s Legacy to missional ecclesiology

For anyone who might be interested, I recently posted a paper on Lesslie Newbigin’s concept of the missionary congregation as a precursor to the missional church.

The paper is basically a revised (and slightly shortened) version of the first chapter of my ThM thesis (on Bonhoeffer and the missional church, Regent College, 2004).

Here’s the link (enjoy!): http://patrickfranklin.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/franklin_missionaries-in-our-own-back-yard.pdf

A Non-Calvinist, Relational View of God’s Sovereignty (by Roger Olson)

Last week I attended the inaugural meeting of the Missio Alliance, a group of pastors, scholars, and practitioners that see themselves as post-Christendom Christians (many – but not all – with Anabaptist leanings, esp. regarding its counter-cultural aspects) and
committed to a missional vision of the church.

One of the talks I attended was “A Non-Calvinist, Relational View of God’s Sovereignty” by Roger Olson. Olson is currently one of my favourite historical theologians, one doing both careful historical work (e.g., his books on Arminianism, Calvinism, Evangelicalism, etc.) and fruitful constructive work concerning how to do theology from a post-foundationalist perspective (e.g., see his book Reformed and Always Reforming). It was an honour to hear him give this interesting and provocative talk – I even asked a question and pushed back a bit on one of his points. (I also met him after and found him to be very gracious and approachable).

The paper raises the question: “What does it mean that God is sovereign?” Both classical Arminians and Calvinists affirm God’s sovereignty, but they mean something very different by it. Olson argues that God is sovereign in such a way that he chooses not to predetermine exhaustively all that occurs. God is sovereign even over his own sovereignty.

Here’s the article: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/04/a-non-calivinist-relational-view-of-gods-sovereignty/

What do you think?

 

Doing scholarship as a Christian: some good advice from Alvin Plantinga

I came across an article today written by Alvin Plantinga (the eminent Christian philosopher), in which he offers advise for Christians who want to study philsophy. I found his exortation to be refreshly freeing (and challenging too!).

I want to commend this piece to young theologians. Consider carefully what Plantinga has to say and reflect on how his words apply to the discipline of theology. Bottom line: It’s OK (i.e., philosohpically warranted) for one to be unreservedly Christian in one’s approach to scholarship (including theological scholarship!). And, by extension, it’s OK to proceed from deeply held theological commitments as one engages contemporary questions and issues in ethics, politics, faith-science dialogue, and so forth. One cannot but proceed from basic beliefs, and the constant attempt to justify those basic beliefs (in a defensive posture) too often leads us into compromise or paralysis. This does not mean that we should dispense with careful apologetics, but it does lead us to consider the nature, purpose, and limits of genuinely helpful apologetics.

A great example of someone who exemplifies what Plantinga  promotes in the social sciences is Christian Smith (the Harvard-trained, Christian sociologist at Notre Dame). His book What is a Person? is outstanding in this regard: rigorous in its research and argumentation, serious in its engagement with its academic field, and deeply Christian in its basic beliefs. For other examples of Christians in various fields thinking through these issues, see my review article Teaching, Scholarship, and Christian Worldview.

Here is the link to Plantinga’s article: http://www.faithandphilosophy.com/article_advice.php

So, what do you think?  What are the implications of this piece for being a Christian and a Scholar in your field?

Eden Rahim on capital, philosophy and Kierkegaard

My friend David Peck interviews Eden Rahim, Portfolio Manager, & Options & Derivatives Strategist (and also a friend). Eden is a capitalist and a Kierkegaardian. Makes for some interesting conversation!

Here’s the link: http://www.davidpecklive.com/episode-6-eden-rahim/

Here’s a fuller bio on Eden:

Eden is a Portfolio Manager, & Options & Derivatives Strategist for almost 2 decades, though his undergrad is in Molecular Genetics at UofT. Currently, he is a Vice President with Horizons Exchange Traded Funds where he manages 13 Covered-Call Option ETFs on over $600 million in assets. Eden is an avid Indie cinephile, and struggling scriptwriter who has not yet completely surrendered his hopes. For the past 3 decades Eden has also ardently studied and collected the works of Danish existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, whom he attributes to be a major influence on his life. Eden can be reached via Twitter @EdenRahim

Myths about Bible translations

I just read a post on the Jesus Creed blog (Scot McKnight), followed the trail to its original source (Daniel B. Wallace) and thought I’d pass along the key points. Here are the 15 myths, according to Wallace:

1. A word-for-word translation is best.
2. A literal translation is best.
3. The King James Version (KJV) is a literal translation.
4. The KJV is perfect.
5. The KJV was hard to understand when it was published originally.
6. The has never been an authorized version of the KJV.
7. The Apocrypha is found only in Roman Catholic Bibles.
8. Homosexuals influenced the translation of the NIV.
9. No translation is properly the word of God except the KJV.
10. Modern translations have removed words and verses from the original Bible.
11. Essential doctrines are in jeopardy in modern translations.
12. “Young woman” in the Revised Standard Version’s translation of Isaiah 7:14 reflects liberal bias.
13. Gender inclusive translations are driven by a social (feminist) agenda.
14. Red-letter editions of the NT highlight the exact words of Jesus.
15. Chapter and verse numbers are inspired.

So, what do you think? Do any of these particularly resonate with you? Do you disagree with any? Any other myths you would include on the list?

Why young people leave the church

I just posted a link on facebook (reposted here, for those who follow my blog but may not be on facebook). It’s a blog post from marc5solas on why young people are leaving the church in droves today. I found it really provocative and insightful. It certainly resonated with me (or much of it anyway). What do you think? Does it resonate with you? What in particular resonates? Any push back? I think this piece invites some good discussion.

Here’s the link: http://marc5solas.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/top-10-reasons-our-kids-leave-church/

Explaining Spirit baptism, the charismatic, the miraculous, and the mystical

My friend Andrew Gabriel recently published an excellent article on Spirit Baptism in the Journal Pneuma. He explains the experience with the metaphor of intensification. Spirit Baptism is a particular experience of the intensification of the presence and power of the Spirit of God, which already pervades and upholds all of reality and animates all life.

In the Old Testament, God’s Spirit (ruach) is said to animate not just human life, but all of life. The Spirit’s animating presence intensifies amongst human beings in a unique way, and further intensifies with respect to particular human beings for special purposes (fills, comes to rest upon, empowers, brings visions, prophetic utterances and acts, etc.). So, already within the OT, we see sequential, subsequent fillings – or better, intensifications - of the Spirit’s presence and power.

In the New Testament, we see, in fulfillment of OT prophecies proclaiming the Spirit’s future coming in power (e.g., Joel 2; cf. Acts 2), further intensifications. We see it: in the ministry of Jesus himself (where the Spirit effects his incarnation, comes upon him at his Baptism, empowers his ministry and miracles, and finally raises him from the dead); in the conversion of Christians, which is enabled by the Spirit according to verses like 1 Cor. 12:3; John 3:5-6 (indicating a particular indwelling of the Spirit, which is an intensification of the life-breath of God that already animated their pre-Christian life); in the life and ministry of the church and individual Christians, whom Paul exhorts to be continually filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18); and finally in the experience of Spirit baptism, which is an experience of intensification of the Spirit’s power and presence in the life of a believer, which leads to transformation, and filling and equipping for ministry, mission, action for justice, etc.

I find Dr. Gabriel’s argument very helpful and that it resonates with my own recent reflections on the Spirit’s activity. In fact, I too had been pondering the metaphor of intensification to illuminate the way the Spirit acts in creation. However, my thoughts on this were not in relation to Spirit Baptism . . . I was thinking of intensification more along the lines of explaining the miraculous, the charismatic, and the ‘mystical’ without appeal to or assuming a kind of ‘god of the gaps’ that disrupts natural processes and violates natural laws (i.e., a metaphysical dualism between natural and supernatural). In the intensification view, the Spirit is the one who undergirds and supports all life and reality (including the physical laws of nature). Thus, the ‘miraculous’ does not introduce a radical disruption into nature, upon the special arrival of a God who is usually elsewhere (the ‘beyond’) and inactive (such that natural laws are ‘broken’ and the structure of the physical realm violated by God ‘breaking in’). Rather, the miraculous, the charismatic, and the mystical are instances of the intensification of the presence and power of the Spirit, which already pervades and upholds the universe. The universe is an ‘open system’ pervaded by Spirit, not a closed system that God must violate or intrude upon in order to perform special, occasional acts. We do experience special acts of God, but these are intensifications of the presence and power of God that already pervades and sustains all things. As the Creed states it, “we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life.”

If you want to read Dr. Gabriel’s article, the full text is posted here.