I went to the USA for a few years of my life and I have to say it has been the biggest challenge for my faith in my life. Consider that I am a Christian in science saying that! Of course seeing evangelicals have a gospel that is bad news for the poor isn't just an evidential attack on Christianity, it is an attack on the passion on that part of you that prays for revival and for everyone to find the joy and wonder of Jesus. Because if my prayers are answered it will look like this!
After deconstructing my faith, the answer I've landed on is that the problem isn't orthodoxy (I'm still orthodox after deconstruction) but systems. This is how we have solved so many issues in a sinful world. We never solved the issue of corrupt government leaders, we just replaced the system of hereditary rule with democracy where it is in leaders self interest to serve the people. We didn't make corporations less greedy but introduced a system of minimum wage and unions that makes them less likely to exploit their workers. Markets make people less lazy, beurocracy makes business less dishonest, I could go on and on.
Looking at history, Christians have never behaved well when they have power. So I think designing church systems to avoid some of the pitfalls we have fallen in could mitigate this. Of the top of my head some plausible systems could include some old and new ideas. For example
1) liturgical churches are less likely to become authoritarian and culty than a church where 2/3rds of the service is the pastor preaching. Having 45 minutes of liturgy where the audience participates and a 15 minute homily makes it harder (not impossible mind you) to control a congregation
2) Having a board that the pastor is accountable helps (not fool proof)
3) Making it so that you are excommunicated if you ever let someone know that you give or how much to the church. Seems extreme, but so is acts 5. The amount of times I heard a pastor in the usa preach against racism or systems that hurt the poor only to get a phone call from wealthy people threatening to withdraw donations. Harder to do if there are restrictions that make it impossible to know who is giving what. Acts 5 is extreme about preventing donaters from corrupting the movement, and we should follow.
4) Making the budget public - makes it harder for the pastor to be paid millions and financially motivated if it is in the light
5) Have a system for deciding the budget including that pastors wage. Whether a denomination, or a church democracy system.
Whether the above is the right set of systems or not is totally debatable. But I think history tells us that churches look nothing like churches when Christians have power, and I can't think of any other way to prevent that but through systems
Thank you. It is essespecially delightful to hear a man notice and be distressed by abuse in the Church. It is hard to notice an ugly reality, "wolves in wool", ( Ps Sam Powell ) when we are programmed, and prefer to be niave, and thus easily manipulated. To "speak the truth in love" which includes getting evil out of the Church, when they are in positions of power is especially difficult. Maybe it starts with our hearts? A daily challeng I find.
Well done Michael. The other obvious fallacy in Leeman's point is Harnack, Ritschl, and Bultmann all did exegesis as well. The assumption that only 'biblical exegesis' will lead to TRUTH is laughable. The entire history of the 20th-century academic enterprise wasn't about Exegesis, but hermeneutics. Leeman seems to be claiming a 'pure exegesis from nowhere' that simply doesn't exst.
I think most of American evangelicalism (myself included) were not cynical political actors. I think we thought we were influencing politics and when it was influencing us. I think those arguing for evangelical approaches to the Bible on the whole were and are sincere. I think they are naive to the ways that bad actors hide behind and manipulate their sincerity.
Perhaps we became willing participants in our manipulation at some point. 2015 was when I became aware. Regardless the cure is as you suggest. Root out the rot. Remain committed to that which is Christian and cast all else off to hell.
May God bless you in combatting the ugly American ‘Christians’ espousing their hateful beliefs and their misappropriation of God’s word to suit their own evil purposes.
Their delusional support of the golden calf with the orange face in his race for the presidency is inexplicable and terrifying.
White supremacist, male Christians. I wonder what colour skin they think Jesus and his apostles had, and what they think about his first appearance after his resurrection - to Mary - a woman.
May the Lord bless you with wisdom, discernment and the weapons you need in the fight against these heresies and for the hearts and souks of American Christians.
I think that the Biblical dialogues have been going on since the 70's and 80's and little headway has been made around the egalitarian views. I think its unfair to make the charge that no one has been doing the exegesis around this. Its been going on for many years. What Beth Alison Barr ad Kirsten Du Mez did was examine this issue within the historical and social context. This too is valid. And story matters too.
I think you need to add a NOT: "and tell me that this book is based on unbiased and coherent exegesis and does NOT derive from Grudem’s own privilege..."
As the great Lesslie Newbigin offered, “. . .every communication of the gospel is already culturally conditioned." And I would personally offer that no one can read the Bible without contextual lenses over our eyes. Absolutely no one. We just can't. We are creatures of our context. And I don't think that is a terrible thing. We need to be aware and interact with humility. As Chris Wright says in his The Mission of God:
“So these approaches to the Bible and theology came to be called “contextual theologies” within the Western academy. This term in itself betrayed the arrogant ethnocentricity of the West, for the assumption was that other places are contexts and they do their theology for those contexts; we, of course, have the real thing, the objective, contextless theology. This assumption is being rightly challenged, and the West is seen for what it is—a particular context of human culture, not necessarily any better or any worse than any other context for reading the Bible and doing theology.”
Of course, this is looking cross-culturally in the sense of Westerners traveling into other nations. But we can see this at work within our own context. Biblical scholars have the "real thing, the objective, contextless theology." I say, "Rubbish!"
"How do you argue with someone about the Bible when their Bible is a mirror?"
An excellent observation. It's a temptation for everyone, regardless of religious affiliation or philosophical perspective or "identity," to find that the Bible, conveniently, is like a mirror that makes me look good to myself.
"Grudem and others claim with the passion of a televangelist that this is what “The Bible says!” How do you argue with someone about the Bible when their Bible is a mirror?"
According to Denny Burk, Grudem stated this at the recent ETS: "Wayne talked about the legacy of the Chicago Statement and placed its importance right alongside Nicea and Chalcedon." Since he helped draft the Statement, he apparently this he has that type authority.
I very much agree that the church should not be a tool of oppression and certain doctrines on the roles of men and women contribute to this.
On the issue of Grudem’s book specifically, I just want to make a specific comment about his views on the free market. You don’t mention that topic, but in the manner by which you set aside his book it can sound like you are setting aside everything in it. Specifically, it would not be fair to characterize his affirmation of the free market as white and western. If you read Confucius’ Analects from 2,500 years ago (and from the East), as one example, you see some key ideas that sync with free market thinking. Those portions are not an attempt at a full blown theory, of course, but key ideas are there. Free market thinking, at least, is not exclusively western and is not white either. Also, as someone who was not born wealthy or rich, I’m very grateful for the opportunities afforded me by the free market to make my own choices, and most economic difficulties I’ve encountered can be traced to unthinking government action. If the church can abuse power, how much more the government. Yet many who critique the church’s abuse of power at the same time want to increase the government’s power. A truly odd thing.
Not that you are saying this, but I think we should be alert to not painting with too broad a brush and seemingly discounting ideas, like the free market and limited government, that actually greatly help the poor—and have been shown to do so through history and detailed analysis of data using formal techniques.
Hello Michael. I'm new around here, and am just getting to some of your older posts. White, male, American, evangelical, politically conservative, from a "Red state," neurosurgeon, author...
This article is so important. I need to read it again. I think many of us do. I've read several of the books you mentioned; McCauley's is the best and most important book I've read on the subject, although Dr. Derwin Gray's new one ("How to Heal Our Racial Divide") is also strong.
I'm going to read more. Not deconstructing, but am doing some surgery to eradicate the parts that need to go. Pray we all are willing to do so.
I went to the USA for a few years of my life and I have to say it has been the biggest challenge for my faith in my life. Consider that I am a Christian in science saying that! Of course seeing evangelicals have a gospel that is bad news for the poor isn't just an evidential attack on Christianity, it is an attack on the passion on that part of you that prays for revival and for everyone to find the joy and wonder of Jesus. Because if my prayers are answered it will look like this!
After deconstructing my faith, the answer I've landed on is that the problem isn't orthodoxy (I'm still orthodox after deconstruction) but systems. This is how we have solved so many issues in a sinful world. We never solved the issue of corrupt government leaders, we just replaced the system of hereditary rule with democracy where it is in leaders self interest to serve the people. We didn't make corporations less greedy but introduced a system of minimum wage and unions that makes them less likely to exploit their workers. Markets make people less lazy, beurocracy makes business less dishonest, I could go on and on.
Looking at history, Christians have never behaved well when they have power. So I think designing church systems to avoid some of the pitfalls we have fallen in could mitigate this. Of the top of my head some plausible systems could include some old and new ideas. For example
1) liturgical churches are less likely to become authoritarian and culty than a church where 2/3rds of the service is the pastor preaching. Having 45 minutes of liturgy where the audience participates and a 15 minute homily makes it harder (not impossible mind you) to control a congregation
2) Having a board that the pastor is accountable helps (not fool proof)
3) Making it so that you are excommunicated if you ever let someone know that you give or how much to the church. Seems extreme, but so is acts 5. The amount of times I heard a pastor in the usa preach against racism or systems that hurt the poor only to get a phone call from wealthy people threatening to withdraw donations. Harder to do if there are restrictions that make it impossible to know who is giving what. Acts 5 is extreme about preventing donaters from corrupting the movement, and we should follow.
4) Making the budget public - makes it harder for the pastor to be paid millions and financially motivated if it is in the light
5) Have a system for deciding the budget including that pastors wage. Whether a denomination, or a church democracy system.
Whether the above is the right set of systems or not is totally debatable. But I think history tells us that churches look nothing like churches when Christians have power, and I can't think of any other way to prevent that but through systems
Thank you. It is essespecially delightful to hear a man notice and be distressed by abuse in the Church. It is hard to notice an ugly reality, "wolves in wool", ( Ps Sam Powell ) when we are programmed, and prefer to be niave, and thus easily manipulated. To "speak the truth in love" which includes getting evil out of the Church, when they are in positions of power is especially difficult. Maybe it starts with our hearts? A daily challeng I find.
Please keep up the good work Dr Bird.
Well done Michael. The other obvious fallacy in Leeman's point is Harnack, Ritschl, and Bultmann all did exegesis as well. The assumption that only 'biblical exegesis' will lead to TRUTH is laughable. The entire history of the 20th-century academic enterprise wasn't about Exegesis, but hermeneutics. Leeman seems to be claiming a 'pure exegesis from nowhere' that simply doesn't exst.
I think most of American evangelicalism (myself included) were not cynical political actors. I think we thought we were influencing politics and when it was influencing us. I think those arguing for evangelical approaches to the Bible on the whole were and are sincere. I think they are naive to the ways that bad actors hide behind and manipulate their sincerity.
Perhaps we became willing participants in our manipulation at some point. 2015 was when I became aware. Regardless the cure is as you suggest. Root out the rot. Remain committed to that which is Christian and cast all else off to hell.
Thank you for this article.
May God bless you in combatting the ugly American ‘Christians’ espousing their hateful beliefs and their misappropriation of God’s word to suit their own evil purposes.
Their delusional support of the golden calf with the orange face in his race for the presidency is inexplicable and terrifying.
White supremacist, male Christians. I wonder what colour skin they think Jesus and his apostles had, and what they think about his first appearance after his resurrection - to Mary - a woman.
May the Lord bless you with wisdom, discernment and the weapons you need in the fight against these heresies and for the hearts and souks of American Christians.
Jane Carrigg
Victoria, Australia.
I think that the Biblical dialogues have been going on since the 70's and 80's and little headway has been made around the egalitarian views. I think its unfair to make the charge that no one has been doing the exegesis around this. Its been going on for many years. What Beth Alison Barr ad Kirsten Du Mez did was examine this issue within the historical and social context. This too is valid. And story matters too.
I think you need to add a NOT: "and tell me that this book is based on unbiased and coherent exegesis and does NOT derive from Grudem’s own privilege..."
As the great Lesslie Newbigin offered, “. . .every communication of the gospel is already culturally conditioned." And I would personally offer that no one can read the Bible without contextual lenses over our eyes. Absolutely no one. We just can't. We are creatures of our context. And I don't think that is a terrible thing. We need to be aware and interact with humility. As Chris Wright says in his The Mission of God:
“So these approaches to the Bible and theology came to be called “contextual theologies” within the Western academy. This term in itself betrayed the arrogant ethnocentricity of the West, for the assumption was that other places are contexts and they do their theology for those contexts; we, of course, have the real thing, the objective, contextless theology. This assumption is being rightly challenged, and the West is seen for what it is—a particular context of human culture, not necessarily any better or any worse than any other context for reading the Bible and doing theology.”
Of course, this is looking cross-culturally in the sense of Westerners traveling into other nations. But we can see this at work within our own context. Biblical scholars have the "real thing, the objective, contextless theology." I say, "Rubbish!"
Amen and Amen from a tired old american evangelical who still thinks the gospel requires the telling of the Evangel (the gospel story).
Thank you for the clarity on this. And Esau’s book was so rich and helpful.
"How do you argue with someone about the Bible when their Bible is a mirror?"
An excellent observation. It's a temptation for everyone, regardless of religious affiliation or philosophical perspective or "identity," to find that the Bible, conveniently, is like a mirror that makes me look good to myself.
"Grudem and others claim with the passion of a televangelist that this is what “The Bible says!” How do you argue with someone about the Bible when their Bible is a mirror?"
According to Denny Burk, Grudem stated this at the recent ETS: "Wayne talked about the legacy of the Chicago Statement and placed its importance right alongside Nicea and Chalcedon." Since he helped draft the Statement, he apparently this he has that type authority.
This was amazing, Dr. Bird! 👏👏👏👏
I very much agree that the church should not be a tool of oppression and certain doctrines on the roles of men and women contribute to this.
On the issue of Grudem’s book specifically, I just want to make a specific comment about his views on the free market. You don’t mention that topic, but in the manner by which you set aside his book it can sound like you are setting aside everything in it. Specifically, it would not be fair to characterize his affirmation of the free market as white and western. If you read Confucius’ Analects from 2,500 years ago (and from the East), as one example, you see some key ideas that sync with free market thinking. Those portions are not an attempt at a full blown theory, of course, but key ideas are there. Free market thinking, at least, is not exclusively western and is not white either. Also, as someone who was not born wealthy or rich, I’m very grateful for the opportunities afforded me by the free market to make my own choices, and most economic difficulties I’ve encountered can be traced to unthinking government action. If the church can abuse power, how much more the government. Yet many who critique the church’s abuse of power at the same time want to increase the government’s power. A truly odd thing.
Not that you are saying this, but I think we should be alert to not painting with too broad a brush and seemingly discounting ideas, like the free market and limited government, that actually greatly help the poor—and have been shown to do so through history and detailed analysis of data using formal techniques.
Hello Michael. I'm new around here, and am just getting to some of your older posts. White, male, American, evangelical, politically conservative, from a "Red state," neurosurgeon, author...
This article is so important. I need to read it again. I think many of us do. I've read several of the books you mentioned; McCauley's is the best and most important book I've read on the subject, although Dr. Derwin Gray's new one ("How to Heal Our Racial Divide") is also strong.
I'm going to read more. Not deconstructing, but am doing some surgery to eradicate the parts that need to go. Pray we all are willing to do so.
Great stuff. Thank you for your boldness!