Modern Debate

I spent last evening at an exceptionally interesting Intervarsity Christian Fellowship event as a guest panelist. The event turned out to be an open forum for students to ask essentially any questions they wished regarding the Christian faith. I was one of four panelists; the others being a colleague in an administration position on our campus, a student, and a female preacher from a local church.

The questions were mostly of the expected variety. What about evolution; How do we know God exists; Why should we pray; Who wrote the Bible and how do we know that it's true. There were a few tricky ones: What about predestination, how do I combat doubt, how should I live my life and what about "dating"?

The question that brokered the most interesting controversy involved the role of women in the church. As a man of the reformed faith my position is that scripture clearly teaches the perfect equality of men and women in terms of identity (both are made in the image of God) and scripture also clearly teaches that men and women do not have identical functions in the context of the church. When Paul writes in I Timothy 2:12 that

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

This injunction clearly prohibits women from taking on the role of Pastor or Elder within the church structure. I find it quite odd that someone can read this text and argue that women should be Pastor's when that is what the text clearly forbids. The reasoning goes something like 'in the culture of his time there were women who were mis-using their positions of teaching and authority within the church and Paul was telling them to stop that mis-use'. They thus seek to relativize the equation.

But none of that logic is to be found anywhere in the text of scriptures. In fact, we are not left to guess as to what Paul's actual reason for giving this injunction was since he clearly states it: 'For Adam was formed first, then Eve'. It is a reason rooted in the historical fact of creation and the fall. Since this historical fact is equally true in all cultures at all times, there is no room to make this a culturally relative statement on womens roles within the church. The female panelist, herself a minister, strongly objected of course, but did not mount a serious biblical case for her position.

We also, very predictably, disagreed on the position of predestination; she taking the Arminian position and myself take the orthodox reformed position that God is sovereign in electing his children and giving them 'new birth'. Putting these two (important and relevant) issues asside, however, the panel was largely united in thought and heart and I hope that people were truly encouraged and edified.

Book Review : Exegetical Falacies

I've nearly completed reading an exceptionally well written text by D. A. Carson entitled "Exegetical Fallacies". It is a brief compendium (about 140 pages of narrative) of the most common logical and rhetorical errors made by preachers through the ages. As a part-time pulpiteer I understand the ease with which false arguments can be made and incoherent appeals constructed and was hence drawn to the text hoping to avoid such mistakes in the future.

This text catalogs and explains fallacies involving word studies (overgeneralizing and equating semantics with etymology for example), logical errors, improper presuppositions and a wide array of others. While Carson is himself a conservative scholar, he includes examples of errors made by a representative sampling of scholars from fundamentalists to moderates to liberals.

My interest was drawn particularly to the longest chapter; that on 'word study fallacies'. The author speaks at length and with great attention to detail on issues of grammar, syntax, etymology and literary genre. Of particular personal interest was his discussion of how often the notions of synonym and equivalence are conflated. If two words are equivalent, for example, they can be legitimately interchanged in any context without the smallest nuanced change of semantics or connotation or external referent. A confusion between similarity and equivalence can lead to a host of errors which are carefully described throughout the central portion of the text.

It is rare to find a book that is simulatneously modern, rigorous and linguistically rich. This is must reading for anyone who aspires to "rightly divide the word of truth". It gives clear instruction on how to identify likely sources of error and gives, by way of example, a vision of the well trained and renewed mind; an example that in today's postmodern academic environ, is all but extinct.

Doubting Doubt

The question of "doubt" in the mind and experience of the Christian has recently arisen since I've been asked to participate on a panel discussion centering on the topic of "doubt". The discussion is sponsored by our local Intervarsity Christian Fellowship and while I'm not certain of the composition or size of the panel I expect that they will all be speaking from within a Christian mindset.

In considering this issue the I quickly realized a need to define terms so as to bring clarity to the table. Doubt, when used as a verb, is "to be uncertain about; to consider questionable or unlikely; to hesitate to believe; or to distrust". Synonyms include mistrust, disbelief, question and antonyms include belief, faith, and trust.

It should be immediately apparent that it is foolish to be certain about something that is, by nature, uncertain. It is foolish to be absolutely certain about tomorrows weather or tomorrows stock market performance or even to place your complete trust in the the word of an unreliable man. It is equally foolish, however, to be uncertain about things which are intrinsically reliable. It is foolish to doubt the historicity of the holocaust or the law of gravity or, more to the point, to be uncertain, mistrusting and disbelieving of God and his Word.

Doubt is, of course, a universal human experience but we must carefully distinguish the source and object of our mistrust. Scripturally speaking, doubt in God and his Word is never tolerated or encouraged but is to be cast off. James 1:5-7 says it well when it says that "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord.." If God is the object of our mistrust then we are in error, indulging our sin and must actively seek to believe. In doubting God and his Word we implicitly treat Him as unreliable and not worthy of our trust - we do not give him the glory that is due to his name.

Jesus never said that it was OK to doubt the things of God. When Peter saw Jesus walking on water and asks to come to him Jesus replies "Come". The text then relates that "Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!" Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?" When Jesus speaks, in this case "Come", the only proper response is belief and complete faith without doubt or mistrust.

Perhaps one reason the so many believers entertain doubts is that they are simply not sure what God has actually said and so are unsure of what to believe. Belief must have an object; there must be external cognitive content; and hence the elimination of doubt must begin with the study of scripture and a corresponding submission to it's teaching. Apart from true knowledge doubt is inevitable and, according to both scripture and logic, a severe weakening of faith.