On the Greatest of Vices and Virtues: Thanksgiving

When one thinks of the more egregious sins in our world today (a dubious exercise to be sure) we tend to think of sins like murder, sexual sins, idolatry, and the like. Very few, I think, would place the sin of ingratitude very high on this list. The Apostle Paul, however, does not share our tendency to regard thanklessness as only mildly objectionable: in fact, ingratitude figures prominently among Paul’s many concerns. Not only does it appear on one of Paul’s sin lists (2 Tim 3:2), but it is paired with idolatry as one of the capital sins of mankind (Rom 1:21).

We should not be surprised by this. If the greatest commandment is to love God supremely (and it is: Matt 22:37–38), then the greatest sin is loving supremely gods of our own choosing (so Rom 1:21–32). And standing at the head Paul’s sad appraisal of humanity in Romans 1 is the sin of ingratitude: “They did not give thanks to him.” Paul realizes that before a man can construct alternative gods, he must first deconstruct the God that is unavoidably plain to him—the God who is there. And how does man do this? Well, Paul says, man refuses to be thankful. He does not acknowledge that God is that perfect and infinite Spirit in whom all things have their source, support and end; the God that gives to all men life and breath and everything. And thus ingratitude takes its ignoble place in Scripture as the dark vestibule to idolatry and all that is evil. How awful it is to linger in that vestibule!

In God’s common grace we Americans observe tomorrow the holiday of Thanksgiving. And we will all dutifully and rightly thank God for his provision. But there is so much more for which to thank him. Do not settle for mere token thanks for a bit of turkey and stuffing. Thank him lavishly for all he is and does on this most reflective of occasions.

MAS

A Few Thoughts About ETS

I had the privilege last week of attending the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta--my first time. In all it was a positive experience, seeing a great number of old acquaintances, networking with colleagues about possible publishing ventures, book shopping, and of course the sessions themselves (in that order). The following are a few random thoughts I had while there:

1. While some parameters are non-negotiable, there is a definite need for forums where believers with differences that fall short of heresy can come together to talk with one another instead of at and about one another. I don't think that this forum can be the local church, and yet the church profits immensely from such discussion forums. ETS is one oustanding such forum. Academic institutions are another. While my commitment to separation remains strong, I am convinced that we need to make room for such forums.
2. People are not often in person what they seem to be in blogs and books. This works two ways. Sometimes I am disappointed when a favorite author or blogger turns out to be arrogant, unkempt, or otherwise unpleasant. But I also find that people who are a bit acerbic when they write are actually very pleasant in person. Happily, there are more in the latter category.
3. Not everyone who disagrees with me is out to subvert Christianity or undermine the faith. Most seminarians and pastors eventually discover this, but some don't, so I think it's worth observing. Note that this does not mean that sincerity cancels out error. But it does mean that not everyone who disagrees with me is my enemy.
4. Having a robust biblical theology does not necessarily translate into having a robust systematic theology. N. T. Wright is representative here. Wright has a mastery of the storyline of the Bible that is most impressive. And yet I am troubled that the exegesis that leads to his "new perspective" on Paul is glaringly neglectful of key theological themes like, say, total depravity and perseverance. I was also disappointed that no one seemed to take note of this deficiency in the discussions.
5. Those who are most elusive and evasive when they speak seem to be the first to get bent out of shape when people make inferences about what they really mean. Two cases in point:

--N.T. Wright, who affirms that final justification is "in accordance with works" and "on the basis of a whole life lived," was nonetheless quite put out that he has been accused of holding to justification based on works. Is anybody else scratching their heads over this one?

--Bruce Waltke, when asked point blank whether he believes in a literal Adam, replied that he was obliged by his covenant theology to hold to at least a representative Adam...and then is aghast when people doubt his commitment to inerrancy. Hmmm.

I could say much more, but these random thoughts will have to suffice for the present. I look forward to interacting on them.

MAS

Totally Unrelated...Well, Mostly

Meet Luke, our new Puggle (a deliberately crossbred pug with a beagle). We've been looking for a dog for several weeks (more accurately, our youngest son has been looking for one for several years now--we simply joined his quest). The process has been frustrating at times, mostly because of the seeming failure of most breeders and animal shelter reps to distinguish between creatures made in God's image and creatures not made in God's image.

Note that we did not adopt Luke, we bought him and now own him. He is not afforded the status of child, but rather that of an animal. As a subject of my divinely instituted domain, his continuance in our home is provisional on my good pleasure alone (the shelter people really don't like that one). And when he dies, he will not "pass into eternity" or "go to a better place" but will simply cease to exist. Glad to finally get that off my chest.

Of course, having said all that, I truly do plan to have regard for the life of my beast in accordance with biblical expectation. Because, really, isn't he kinda cute?

MAS

“Don’t Sweat the Dispensational Stuff—Eschatology Doesn’t Matter Anyway”

…or so the argument goes. More formally, the argument can be expressed as a proper syllogism:

Major Premise: Dispensationalism is primarily concerned with eschatology.
Minor Premise: Eschatology is an insignificant issue in the life of a church.

Conclusion: Dispensationalism an insignificant issue in the life of a church.

Of course, the conclusion of a syllogism is only as strong as its premises. And in this case, the major premise, I believe is in serious doubt (we could quibble about the minor premise, too, but that’s not my primary concern in this post).

American dispensationalism did not emerge, as it is sometimes assumed, from the semi-cultic recesses of irregular sectarianism. James Hall Brookes, the acknowledged father of American dispensationalism was a recognized Presbyterian pastor in St. Louis, a border city during and after the American Civil War. The denominational debacles of that period are well-documented, with Northern and Southern expressions of the major denominations emerging. Presbyterianism was no exception. The tension was particularly acute in border communities, where churches were populated by people on both sides of debates over slavery, states rights, reconstruction, congressional representation, etc. And churches, which Brookes understood to be strictly spiritual communions, were shattered time and again over political and cultural concerns extraneous to the church’s mission.

The issues at hand were not, so be sure, biblically neutral issues. Issues of ethics and morality were at stake. But as Brookes was keen to observe, the lines of demarcation were not drawn primarily along ethical/moral lines, but on geographical, political, socioeconomic, and cultural lines. Brookes was convinced that such lines of demarcation were inappropriate in the church. There was once a day, Brookes reasoned, in which civil and cultic concerns were amalgamated, but such a theocratic arrangement, such as marked Israel under the Mosaic economy, no longer existed. Rather, the church had been established by God as a strictly spiritual institution with no political mandate, no social mandate, and no cultural mandate.

As a result of Brookes’s disillusionment with what he thus perceived to be a faulty ecclesiology in the partisan denominationalism of his day, he stepped back from the denominational norm and organized his church around a mission that was sharply distinct from the mission of Israel. In short, Brookes adopted dispensationalism because of a distinction between Israel and the church, and specifically, a distinction between the respective missions of Israel and the Church.

That eschatology became a major feature of American dispensationalism cannot, of course, be denied. But to suggest that dispensationalism exists merely to defend pretribulational premillennialism is neither historically nor theologically true. And so, to rewrite the syllogism from Brookes’s point of view, one might well argue that

Major Premise: Dispensationalism is primarily concerned with ecclesiology, esp. the mission of the church.
Minor Premise: The mission of the church is a significant issue in the life of a church.

Conclusion: Dispensationalism is a significant issue in the life of the church.

MAS