Theology Central
Theology Central exists as a place of conversation and information for faculty and friends of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Posts include seminary news, information, and opinion pieces about ministry, theology, and scholarship.Toxic Charity?
Americans love charity. They jump to help relieve the latest disaster. But sometimes charity is not what’s needed, at least not exactly as it is being given. So argues James Huenink at the Federalist in an article entitled “How to Make Sure Your Charity Doesn’t Keep People Poor.”
Relief undermines developing nations’ economies. Clothing donations given to charities like Oxfam and the Salvation Army are often shipped overseas, where they destroy local textile markets. Why buy a locally made shirt, when you can get a better quality, cheaper shirt donated from America? For every secondhand shirt we ship to Africa, a local clothing manufacturer or retailer loses a sale. Soon, the textile mill goes out of business.
Their Agenda Is Clear (How the Left Thinks)
Somehow I’ve ended up on the email list for Soulforce, probably the leading professedly Christian LGBTQ advocacy organization. This is from their latest appeal:
With Election Day just over a week away, the Religious Right is attempting to mobilize voters who will advance an anti-LGBTQ, anti-choice, anti-immigrant political agenda.
To do this, the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) has initiated a “#ChristiansVote” media campaign to encourage Christians across America to cast their votes in the upcoming election.
We know this is significant because this is a Right-Wing strategy that has been mobilized since the 1970s to organize Christians to engage in politics that harm LGBTQI people, People of Color, Women, the Poor, and other marginalized groups through voting or direct civic engagement.
This election also determines the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice – determining the kinds of laws and regulations that affect our bodies, livelihoods, and spirits for an entire generation.
Nicholas Woltersdorff on Same Sex Marriage
Speaking at Neland Avenue Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, philosopher Nicholas Woltersdorff recently argued that biblical justice requires permission for and recognition of same-sex marriage.
Woltersdorff is one of the most widely-recognized evangelical philosophers in the world. He taught for years at Calvin College before accepting a post at Yale University.
Here is the Youtube video of his address. Be warned: it’s over an hour long.
Here is a report of the event.
Here is a response from Wesley Hill. Among other things, Hill states,
What is so disappointing about this is its profound shallowness. Hearing Wolterstorff’s quip, one would never guess that great figures from the Christian past like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, who affirmed openness to procreation as one of the essential goods of marriage, were well aware of the crude technologies of contraception of their day and the lamentable fact of infertile marriages. One would never guess, listening to Wolterstorff, that these old saints wrestled with whether those facts invalidated their arguments about procreation, nor that they eventually arrived at accordingly nuanced, qualified views. One would never guess, furthermore, from Wolterstorff’s presentation that contemporary advocates of marriage as irreducibly procreative have also thought deeply about the reality of marriage past childbearing age, about infertility and contraception, and offered sophisticated responses that make laugh lines like Wolterstorff’s seem entirely facile.
The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart
According to Rolland McCune,
There are nineteen biblical references to the hardening of Pharaoh, only four of which put Pharaoh himself as the active agent; the rest refer to God. This hardening, while divinely caused was simply divine withholding of the Spirit’s restraint, a withholding that results in the depraved heart taking its inevitable course since sin and depravity are inherently degenerative. In other words, God does not need to positively inflict some kind of moral cement to harden anyone’s heart; it is endemically in a state of being hardened, and its inherently deteriorating process is hastened when the non-redemptive, restraining grace of God is lifted.
–Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Vol. 3, p. 26-27.
Black Church Leaders Rebuke Hillary Clinton
Central Seminary avoids taking political positions on this blog. We discuss theological developments. Sometimes, however, the two overlap.
That’s the case with a recent open letter sent by Black church leaders to Hillary Clinton. It’s a hard-hitting expression of concern that Clinton’s policies, if she becomes president, would be bad for Blacks and bad for Christians. Here is an excerpt:
D. G. Hart on Christianity Today
The Presbyterian professor comes down pretty hard on evangelicals who condemn “locker room talk” in a presidential candidate while failing to challenge the degradation of popular cultural icons. And he’s right: it’s hypocrisy.
You don’t lose anything in condemning Trump. When it comes to the GOP’s nominee, fundamentalism is winning. But if you come down against a hit-show on HBO, you risk looking like a rube.
The War Against Conservatives
Stanley Kurtz at National Review wonders about the ethics of some conservative tactics against liberals, but he also notes how the liberal war against conservatives easily becomes one of personal destruction. His closing quotation from liberal Robert Creamer reveals exactly the approach that the Left has taken.
Apostates: Reprobation or Preterition?
Here is what Rolland McCune says:
Preterition is supported by the following texts. First, Jude warns his readers that “certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). The apostates are “marked out” for their condemnation. The best way to take prographo here is simply, to write beforehand, undoubtedly referring to previous prophecies and not to a divine decree of reprobation/damnation.
Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Vol. 3, p. 25.
FBFI Position Statement on Gender
The board of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International adopted the following position statement on March 11, 2016.
On Gender
- In the beginning God created Adam and Eve, male and female respectively, as taught by Genesis 1 and 2 and as affirmed by Jesus Christ (Matt. 19:4–5) and by the apostle Paul (1 Tim. 2:13). As with the rest of the created order, the nature of mankind as male and female is by the will of God and for the purpose of glorifying Him (Rev. 4:11).
~~~
- The creation of mankind in two genders is especially important because it is a central aspect of the image of God in Man (Gen. 1:27–28; 5:1–2). As image-bearers, men and women are of equal worth and dignity (Exod. 21:28; 35:29; Prov. 31:30; Matt. 26:13), of equal moral responsibility before God (Lev. 20:27; Num. 5:6–7; Mark 10:11–12), and equally heirs of salvation and spiritual blessing in Christ Jesus (Luke 7:47–50; 2 Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:28; 1 Pet. 3:7). However, God also made them different in strength, disposition, and function (1 Pet. 3:7; Isa. 49:15; 1 Cor. 11:7–12), and He intends that they interact harmoniously in a complementary fashion to glorify Him (Gen. 1:28; 2:18; Prov. 31:10–12; Eph. 5:22–33; Col. 3:18–19).
~~~
- Gender distinctions are not a temporary expedient made necessary by the Fall but are the product of the creation of man and woman from the beginning (1 Cor. 11:8–9; Eph. 5:25–33; 1 Tim. 2:12–13). Therefore, these distinctions remain and are no less valid today than they were at the moment of Creation (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5–6; Mark 10:7–9). The Fall did not eliminate or change gender distinctions but rather provided the corrupt vehicle for the perversion of those distinctions (Rom. 1:18–32).
~~~
- Gender is not an individual self-identification or a social construct; it is a divinely ordained reality. The Scriptures nowhere regard social gender as different from biological gender. Because gender distinction is integral to God’s creation, this distinction is naturally reflected in human societies (1 Cor. 11:14). It is a sin against God and His created order for individuals or societies to try to erase or reverse gender distinctions (1 Cor. 11:3–12). Therefore, gender neutralism and transgenderism in any form and expression are contrary to God’s will and are incompatible with a God-honoring Christian life.
Must Pastors Be Married? Have Children?
Jeff Hagan offers a useful survey of the issue. He follows with some reflections on divorce and remarriage for ministers–employing a non sequitur or two. Here is his main conclusion:
If a man has to be married to hold a position in the church, then Paul would have disqualified himself which is ludicrous (cf. 1 Cor. 7:8). Some will still argue. They will say that Paul was a married man before he was widowed. Although this is true, a widower is still NOT a married man. Paul had no living wife. In fact, Paul actually considered being single better.
Movember is here.
Bro, grow a mo!
If you’re a man, you know you can.
Make a splash: let’s see your stash.
Why Does Reformation Day Fall on Halloween?
It’s not just a coincidence, says Stephen Nichols. And he’s basically right, though he seems to have confused All Saints Day (Hallowmass) with All Souls Day. All Saints falls on November 1; All Souls usually falls on November 2. Halloween is simply All Hallow’s Eve, or the evening before All Saints (Hallows) Day.
But why did Luther post his 95 theses on Halloween? Here’s the nub of Nichols’ answer, but you’ll want to read the rest.
On November 1, 1517, a massive exhibit of newly acquired relics would be on display at Wittenberg, Luther’s home city. Pilgrims would come from all over, genuflect before the relics, and take hundreds, if not thousands, of years off time in purgatory. Luther’s soul grew even more vexed. None of this seemed right.
Why Did God Elect?
Rolland McCune is a former professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.
The most primitive basis of divine election must be in God Himself and not man. It is in His sovereign good pleasure as understood in light of His grace and love. There is nothing meritorious in man, in what he is, does or would/could do that induces God to act savingly in his behalf. Without His sovereign, unilateral electing love no one could be saved.
–Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Vol. 3, p. 24
What Does College Cost?
The Chronicle of Higher Education has an interactive tool that allows you to find out what a college or university charges for room, board, and tuition. It will also display the data for past years back to 1998. By the way, some of the better fundamentalist schools approximate the costs of their state university systems. You can get a good biblical education for not much more than the cost of a secular education, and maybe for less if you qualify for some kind of a scholarship. Here’s what it costs for a year at the following schools:
Evangelical and Fundamentalist Schools
$20,630 — Baptist Bible College, Missouri
$20,980 — Maranatha Baptist University
$22,020 — Bob Jones University
$23,566 — Faith Baptist Bible College
$28,480 — Clarks Summit University
$32,326 — Liberty University
$34,050 — Nyack College
$34,990 — Cedarville University
$35,945 — Cornerstone University
$36,696 — Biola University
$40,306 — Corban University
$42,420 — The Master’s University
$43,610 — Wheaton College
Non-Evangelical Schools
$18,433 — University of Iowa (Resident)
$20,934 — University of Wisconsin, Madison (Resident)
$23,519 — University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (Resident)
$25,274 — University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (Resident)
$45,056 — Drake University
$49,354 — University of St. Thomas, St. Paul
$59,306 — Mount Holyoke College
$61,677 — California Institute of Technology (Resident)
$62,514 — Stanford University
$62,662 — Massachusetts Institute of Technology
$64,043 — University of Notre Dame
$64,650 — Yale University
$66,344 — Northwestern University
$68,405 — Columbia University
$69,717 — Harvey Mudd College
FBFI Position Statement on Creation
The board of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International adopted the following position statement on March 11, 2016.
ON CREATION
The Bible teaches six solar days of creation, as indicated by a plain reading of Genesis 1, Exodus 20:8–11, and other passages that refer to the creation week. The Bible also affirms that God created by His miraculous, spoken word, not by any natural process. This precludes the change from one “kind” to another, although it allows for subsequent modifications within a “kind.”
1
The genre of Genesis 1–11 is the same as that of Genesis 12–50. Since Genesis 12–50 is taken as genuine history, then so should Genesis 1–11 be.
2
Humanity descends from a single pair of original humans, Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 2:7, 21–23; Gen. 3:20; Luke 3:38; 1 Tim. 2:13). A literal, historical, grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures leads one to reject the concept that there were multiple evolutionary paths which led to multiple human ancestors.
3
The sin nature of all humanity is the result of the fall of Adam (Gen. 3:6–11; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22). If humanity today were merely the result of evolutionary processes and Adam and Eve were only symbols of early humanity, then what we call sin would only be the natural outworking of the evolutionary process. If God used evolution as His tool for creation, then sin would be a natural part of His work, not an aberration and affront to Him.
4
Death is the result of sin (Gen. 2:17; Gen. 3:19; Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:21–22). Death is not part of God’s creative design; neither is it a tool or a step on the way to a higher evolutionary plane. Rather it is the final enemy which God will destroy (1 Cor. 15:26).
Christian Writers and the Public Square
Why do we have fewer Christian (taken broadly) thinkers and writers influencing the public square? The answer to this question is being debates in a series of articles at Image. The essays are by Morgan Meis; the responses by Gregory Wolfe can be found in the comments. Here are links to the essays.
The New Critics and the Barbarians
T. S. Eliot, Agent of His Own Demise
This exchange is well worth following. It is also a good illustration of how friends may disagree in public.
Donne’s Hymn to God the Father
A HYMN TO GOD THE FATHER.
by John Donne
WILT Thou forgive that sin where I begun,
Which is my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin, through which I run,
And do run still, though still I do deplore?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.
Wilt Thou forgive that sin by which I’ve won
Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallowed in a score?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.
I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore;
But swear by Thyself, that at my death Thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore;
And having done that, Thou hast done;
I fear no more.
Questions:
- What sins does Donne confess in the first stanza? The second? The third?
- Do these sins grow less or more serious as Donne progresses? Which is most serious of all? Why?
- How does Donne pun on his name? What other puns does he employ?
- What images does Donne use, and to what effect?
- In view of the foregoing, what is the overall message of the poem?
C. S. Lewis Forgery Warning
There’s a fake C. S. Lewis quote about politics making the rounds on the Internet (where else?). Be warned. And be enlightened by what he actually did say. Read about it at The Wardrobe Door.
Encouraging Words from Douglas Wilson
Somebody said it about Mae West, but it fits Douglas Wilson. When he’s good, he’s very good. And when he’s bad, he’s better.
Wilson’s really good with his “7 Encouraging Words in Case 2016 Has Got You Down.” Thanks, Doug. We needed this.
The Dilemma of the Conservative Thinker
Conservatism is an idea. The articulation and defense of that idea requires a core of competent thinkers and writers. Modern American conservatism was built largely on the intellectual labors of three men: Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and Frederick Hayek. These men’s ideas were translated for ordinary people by William F. Buckley, primarily in the pages of the National Review. Buckley really deserves the credit for the conservative juggernaut that eventually brought Ronald Reagan into the presidency.
To do that, however, Buckley faced two significant problems. One was the quirky libertarianism of Ayn Rand. The other was the even quirkier conspiricism of the John Birch Society. Before Buckley could build a positive conservatism, he first had to erect barriers against these two faux-conservative alternative. Erect those barriers he did. He effectively read both Rand and the Birchers out of the American Conservative Movement.
Still, much of conservatism was build on populist impulses. Buckley lived to see a day when these impulses were again unleashed, first by talk radio and then by internet journalism. The effect is that many conservatives today have scant acquaintance with conservative ideas. Theirs is not a conservatism of thoughtful commitments, but of resentments and vendettas.
That is the situation that Ross Douthat has in mind. He believes that the thinkers have no one to blame but themselves. He recently editorialized on “What the Right’s Intellectuals Did Wrong.” He opined,
What the intellectuals did not see clearly enough was that Fox News and talk radio and the internet had made right-wing populism more powerful, relative to conservatism’s small elite, than it had been during the Nixon or Reagan eras, without necessarily making it more serious or sober than its Bircher-era antecedents.
After what we’ve seen this year, it’s hard to argue with him.
APPLICATION & AID