I think we're so used to a style of politics where "everything we do is totally right and everything they do is completely wrong" that when someone speaks with care and moderation it's like a breath of fresh air. Dickson's books tend to be the first I recommend to non-Christians for that reason: people don't like a sales pitch.
Great article, thanks for the link. It seems to me that the "apologetic mode" is ingrained in (without trying to prove too much I'll stop with what I know:)) modern American Protestant theology. It might be too simple a narrative to suggest that Protestant thought mixed with Enlightenment epistemology to produce modern apologetics, but I think there's some element of truth there.
Playing by the rules of "reason" is futile. "Only love can believe the resurrection". So true.
But seriously, I would agree with John and would posit two further questions:
Firstly, what role does the Reformed doctrine of "perserverence of the saints" or "eternal security" play in Protestant apologetics? I'd suggest that adopting the type of framework where you stress the confidence of your salvation must automatically lead to an apologetic approach which aims to justify this confidence.
Secondly, to what extent is the separation of neo-evangelicalism and fundamentalism a watershed moment? At a time when fundamentalist when falling further and further into obscurantism, it seems to me that neo-evangelicalism sought to demarcate itself from fundamentalism by proving that they were a movement that could be taken clearly as an intellectual force. As a result, the typical apologetic approach became an ambitious endeavour which aimed to close off all avenues of doubt.
As for me, I'm an old fashionished obscurantist fideist in the tradition of Soren Kierkegaard :)
The 'perserverance' line of thought is misguided: the fact is that the more reformed the apologist the LESS likely they are to be an evidentialist apologist. The more strongly Reformed theologians are Presuppositionalists. The opposite is the case: the more Arminian and Pelagian the thinker, the more work apologetics has to do. This is so in the liberal and conservative forms of apologetics, as a matter of fact.
If it's acceptable to talk this way in the SMH --- as indeed it should be --- where has this approach been hiding, all this time? I could have used some of this in the nineties.
May God's richest blessings be yours as you reflect on the extent of His love demonstrated through the death His Son on the cross and the awesomeness of His power exhibited through the resurrection.
A propos of reasonable discussion --- and of not claiming too much --- the London Review of Books has celebrated Easter by publishing a review by Frank Kermode of Geza Vermes' book "The Resurrection". [The link is to my own blog, with a further link to the LRB article ad loc: I quote the Kermode article in brief, but you need a subscription to read all of it.]
The review is somewhat slight by Kermode's standards, but of course worth reading anyway.
Has anyone here read the Vermes book? Apparently it's the third of a group, the others concerning the Nativity and the Passion.
Sorry, a bit late to this one. I really liked John's article, but it raises again for me the question of inerrancy. Most people in the reformed evangelical Anglican scene are default inerrantists right? And yet most would have no problem with John's article, right? This, despite the fact that it leaves the door open to some historical error in scripture (trustworthy, but not inerrant).
Do we need to be one or the other? For example, don't we either have to say "its cool historiographically that the resurrection accounts have knotty problems when compared with each other 'cause that points to multiple sources" OR "there are no contradictions 'cause that's an a priori impossibility for the BIble".
When you say most Reformed Evangelical Anglicans are inerrantists, I am not sure that this is accurate. I think many might me almost by default. But historically, the emphasis on inerrancy that you see in the US has just not been here.
I think one implication of John's article is that inerrancy is untenable. But I think it is vapid doctrine in any case - small loss in my opinion.
Thanks for you reply, though I think your reply describes my question rather than answers it. You agree that most reformed evangelical anglicans are inerrantist by default (same word I used!). And yes, I agree this has not historically been the case (ala Knox, Robbie, TCH etc etc).
My question is rather: "Why is this so?"
That is, why do we have this curious situation where the tribe seem to a) agree with John's approach to the Bible's historical validity AND b) hold a default inerrantist position?
Have I missed something in the theological system that allows both or are they/we holding two things that cannot be held at the same time?
I think it is just inconsistent! I think people are reluctant to jettison inerrancy if asked because it is so important in the US and people will not wnat to be friends with us perhaps. But the question of inerrancy has never been emphasised or prominent.
I agree re inerrrancy, yet does Dickson's article rule it out? Is an inerrantist committed to believing both (a) that every detail is historically accurate AND (b) that every detail can be demonstrated to be historically accurate?
Yeah, fair call. The Chicago Statement, for example, would allow that you could believe a) with also claiming b). Though, I would think Dickson, with his historian's hat on, wouldn't feel compelled to defend a Chicago-style position (I don't know that actually, perhaps he would? Only inferring stuff from the article, not meaning to make claims about John's positions one way or the other.)
There's an interested historical question in here, which Michael alludes to. In Sydney, what happened between Knox-Robbies generation and, for example PFJ? I think I remember PFJ defending inerrancy in first year (2001).
Just to make amply clear--I'm not criticizing anyone's position in this. Just interested in a) the apparent inconsistency and b) the historical development in local theology.
19 comments:
Thanks for pointing it out. I agree - good to be very clear on what is very clear.
Yes, for some reason we still seem to automatically slip into an evidentialist apologetic which claims too much.
I think we're so used to a style of politics where "everything we do is totally right and everything they do is completely wrong" that when someone speaks with care and moderation it's like a breath of fresh air. Dickson's books tend to be the first I recommend to non-Christians for that reason: people don't like a sales pitch.
Great article, thanks for the link. It seems to me that the "apologetic mode" is ingrained in (without trying to prove too much I'll stop with what I know:)) modern American Protestant theology. It might be too simple a narrative to suggest that Protestant thought mixed with Enlightenment epistemology to produce modern apologetics, but I think there's some element of truth there.
Playing by the rules of "reason" is futile. "Only love can believe the resurrection". So true.
I'm blaming Thomas Aquinas - it's all his fault.
But seriously, I would agree with John and would posit two further questions:
Firstly, what role does the Reformed doctrine of "perserverence of the saints" or "eternal security" play in Protestant apologetics? I'd suggest that adopting the type of framework where you stress the confidence of your salvation must automatically lead to an apologetic approach which aims to justify this confidence.
Secondly, to what extent is the separation of neo-evangelicalism and fundamentalism a watershed moment? At a time when fundamentalist when falling further and further into obscurantism, it seems to me that neo-evangelicalism sought to demarcate itself from fundamentalism by proving that they were a movement that could be taken clearly as an intellectual force. As a result, the typical apologetic approach became an ambitious endeavour which aimed to close off all avenues of doubt.
As for me, I'm an old fashionished obscurantist fideist in the tradition of Soren Kierkegaard :)
The 'perserverance' line of thought is misguided: the fact is that the more reformed the apologist the LESS likely they are to be an evidentialist apologist. The more strongly Reformed theologians are Presuppositionalists. The opposite is the case: the more Arminian and Pelagian the thinker, the more work apologetics has to do. This is so in the liberal and conservative forms of apologetics, as a matter of fact.
Good article. Very good article.
If it's acceptable to talk this way in the SMH --- as indeed it should be --- where has this approach been hiding, all this time? I could have used some of this in the nineties.
May God's richest blessings be yours as you reflect on the extent of His love demonstrated through the death His Son on the cross and the awesomeness of His power exhibited through the resurrection.
To God be the glory!
-bill
a spiritual oasis
[Jeremy Halcrow said]
Why is this getting a run now (and such a high profile run?)
Its worth looking at this from the secularists side...
Part of the answer is that the neo-athiests have so over-reached themselves with claiming Jesus never existed.
Perhaps there were no such clear 'foils' in the 1990s (Barbara Theiring's stuff was so wacky it was hard to get a handle on it)
Dickson does get Onfray and Dawkins a beauty in the article.
Any editor worth his salt is going to love those 'gotcha' moments...
A propos of reasonable discussion --- and of not claiming too much --- the London Review of Books has celebrated Easter by publishing a review by Frank Kermode of Geza Vermes' book "The Resurrection". [The link is to my own blog, with a further link to the LRB article ad loc: I quote the Kermode article in brief, but you need a subscription to read all of it.]
The review is somewhat slight by Kermode's standards, but of course worth reading anyway.
Has anyone here read the Vermes book? Apparently it's the third of a group, the others concerning the Nativity and the Passion.
Hi Michael,
Sorry, a bit late to this one. I really liked John's article, but it raises again for me the question of inerrancy. Most people in the reformed evangelical Anglican scene are default inerrantists right? And yet most would have no problem with John's article, right? This, despite the fact that it leaves the door open to some historical error in scripture (trustworthy, but not inerrant).
Do we need to be one or the other? For example, don't we either have to say "its cool historiographically that the resurrection accounts have knotty problems when compared with each other 'cause that points to multiple sources" OR "there are no contradictions 'cause that's an a priori impossibility for the BIble".
Can't be both, right? Thoughts?
hi rory:
When you say most Reformed Evangelical Anglicans are inerrantists, I am not sure that this is accurate. I think many might me almost by default. But historically, the emphasis on inerrancy that you see in the US has just not been here.
I think one implication of John's article is that inerrancy is untenable. But I think it is vapid doctrine in any case - small loss in my opinion.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for you reply, though I think your reply describes my question rather than answers it. You agree that most reformed evangelical anglicans are inerrantist by default (same word I used!). And yes, I agree this has not historically been the case (ala Knox, Robbie, TCH etc etc).
My question is rather: "Why is this so?"
That is, why do we have this curious situation where the tribe seem to a) agree with John's approach to the Bible's historical validity AND b) hold a default inerrantist position?
Have I missed something in the theological system that allows both or are they/we holding two things that cannot be held at the same time?
I think it is just inconsistent! I think people are reluctant to jettison inerrancy if asked because it is so important in the US and people will not wnat to be friends with us perhaps. But the question of inerrancy has never been emphasised or prominent.
...which is what I said already. My answer to the question: can you hold both? is, well, no, I don't think so.
I agree re inerrrancy, yet does Dickson's article rule it out? Is an inerrantist committed to believing both (a) that every detail is historically accurate AND (b) that every detail can be demonstrated to be historically accurate?
Hi Byron,
Yeah, fair call. The Chicago Statement, for example, would allow that you could believe a) with also claiming b). Though, I would think Dickson, with his historian's hat on, wouldn't feel compelled to defend a Chicago-style position (I don't know that actually, perhaps he would? Only inferring stuff from the article, not meaning to make claims about John's positions one way or the other.)
There's an interested historical question in here, which Michael alludes to. In Sydney, what happened between Knox-Robbies generation and, for example PFJ? I think I remember PFJ defending inerrancy in first year (2001).
Just to make amply clear--I'm not criticizing anyone's position in this. Just interested in a) the apparent inconsistency and b) the historical development in local theology.
Rory
Sorry, that should be 'without also claiming b)'
Yep - interesting question. "How did Sydney become inerrant?" ;-)
Post a Comment