To Prove My Point

I could not have asked for a better example to illustrate the point of my last two posts. The Southern Baptist Seminary in KY recently dropped its program in pastoral counseling, which included behavioral sciences and psychotherapy, in favor of a "biblical counseling" curriculum. Read the article here.

The dean criticized pastoral counseling for being "naive" about the presuppositions of secular sciences and their application in pastoral care. He claims that there are too many "contradictory and incoherent" theories involved in psychotherapy. Many psychotherapists have vastly different opinions on both the methods and the data involved. Therefore, the Bible alone is the best foundation for pastoral care.

The problem is that the Bible is subject to just as many interpretations as psychotherapy. Worse yet, basing pastoral counseling on a text alone opens up the possibility for terrible abuses. Consider the example of counseling an adulterer. Are you going to choose Leviticus 20:10 and recommend death, or are you going to choose John 8 and excuse it entirely? Odds are that you are going to have to do more than just read the text. You will need to know about what mental and emotional states were involved. You may also consider whether or not true repentance has been found. Then you must begin the task of reconciliation by offering advice on interpresonal relationships. The Bible does indeed offer wonderful categories for understanding how to deal with the issue (indeed, for a Christian it offers the only categories). But pastorally speaking, you are going to rely on an operative understanding of the human psyche anyways and not just the biblical text alone. It may as well be a thoroughly examined psychotherapeutic method than one that is presumed and never identified.

When we make Scripture a magical answer book, we are ignoring both its true purpose and our own limitations. Our theological doctrine of inspiration has run amuck and is ravaging also our theological anthropology. Pastors trained to give counsel solely from knowledge of the Bible will only be able to project their own natural misundersandings of human nature onto all of their clients. There will only be a discussion about facts and data culled from the Bible to fit the agenda of the counselor. Serious psychological disorders do not arise from biblical misunderstandings or lack of faith. These issues lay deep within the human psyche and not within biblical ignorance.

To an Old Friend and an Alma Mater, Pt. 2

Lately theology has been given a bad name. Theologians are those stuffy, old, smart jerks who sit around and write boring treatises on things that do not matter in the least. Their work seems to be the very definition of irrelevant for two reasons.

First, many view education as vocational in nature. Theology will not teach you how to make money. In fact, it may teach you to give it all away at times. In an era of "practical" education for the ministry, church leaders are not even trained in theology. Instead the emphasis is placed upon the pastoral. Ministers are trained to counsel, evangelize, preach, and baptize well enough, and for good reason. But ask these ministers why or how it was that Christ was both God and man, and you will only be told to read your Bible again. Which brings me to my next point...

Second, for the last century one single topic has so dominated theological discourse that it has subordinated all else to it. The inspiration of Scripture has been the source of heated controversy since Darwin and historical-critical methodology challenged "traditional" ideas about the Bible. Christianity has spent the last century trying to rescue its sacred text from "relativism". In doing so, it has misidentified the Bible and relativized its own tradition.

In John Stott's book Evangelical Truth, this misidentification comes clear. On p. 50, Stott draws an analogy between Christ and the Bible in order to explain inspiration. Just as Christ is both divine and human, the Bible shares a divine and human author. While I can agree with Stott, it must be made much more clear that this is merely an analogy. One is "like" the other. The relationship between Jesus' divinity and humanity was such that it is intelligible to say both that "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is man". With Scripture, we can only say that it is both "the word of God" and "the word of man". The difference is subtle but outrageously important. The Bible has no intrinsic divinity (which Stott does point out). The Bible has no place in the Trinity. The Bible is not the subject of theology! The subject of theology is God, who is revealed in Jesus. Scripture provides theologians with a set of data to work with, indeed the most important set imagineable. But from there, much work must be done.

Scripture is no substitute for sound, rational, theological exploration. Our yearning for a simple piety based on an infallible text is naive, dangerous, and hopeless once we begin the task of educating Christians. If we base our entire religion solely upon a text, rather than upon our God, we are preparing ourselves for idolatry.

To all Christians seeking to become educated, look and see that many men and women throughout history have applied their various skills and talents towards making God known. These theologians loved Scripture, meditated upon it, and never departed from it. We will disagree with many who came before us, but to do so is an invitation to continue the discourse of faith to the next generation.

To an Old Friend and an Alma Mater

Reason and revelation: revelation and reason. It is the great bane of all Christian education to have to endlessly participate in academic gymnastics in order to properly define the two in relation to each other. Issues of precedence and exclusivity are extremely important to clearly delineate. Many approaches to the proper arrangement of reason and revelation can be seen. Some end up emphasizing one at the expense of the other. A few emphasize one to the benefit of the other. Still more choose one and leave the other out completely. But that is not what interests me today. What interests me is the content of each.

Reason seems clear enough. It is generally being smart about stuff. Knowing the causes of hurricanes and the flu, the proper taxonomy of flora and fauna, and the differences between the id and the superego fit quite nicely under Reason. Many liberal arts also fit here, like Spanish and philosophy, art and drama. In my experience, Christian education either ignores this side entirely (see bible colleges) or excels at it. Those that excel at it often do so to their own detriment. Academic discipline makes traditional Biblical piety seem empty. "Meaning" in the text is no simple thing any longer. Evidence, proof, suspicion, epistemology, metaphysics, history, and language come into play. The text is no longer "ours" but "theirs", and we are left to guess and question each other without the possibility of real answers.

So by the time we arrive at revelation, our faith is often wounded. The only source of revelation we have ever known has been challenged. The Bible may not be what it has always seemed (nor what the church has always taught it to be). Even if we say that we still hold revelation to be truthful and accurate, we are left holding a book that seems far from perfect. Our reason has overcome our conception of revelation. Why did this happen? How did this happen?

I can only answer that question by way of personal testimony. Christian education did indeed radically alter my faith. I have never read the Bible in the same manner as I once did. But I still count myself as a faithful Christian, for I have been fortunate enough to become immersed in a world that my Christian education dared not tread. Theology. I have discovered the joys of Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Karl Barth, John H. Yoder, and Stanley Hauerwas. These wonderful theologians have taught me more about the faith than 1,000 sermons ever did. But this was not part of my "Christian" education. It seems that there is no room for the Christian tradition in Christian education. The only revelation most Christian educations include is a brief survey of all our extremely complicated texts in the form of Old & New Testament survey courses. It seems to me that what should be just as important is the centuries of reasonable scholarship devoted to making sense of the text. Theology has been my guide in understanding how to apply rational principles to matters of faith. Training in theology enables students to apply their new skills to their faith.

Tomorrow (or the next day) I will continue this monologue. I will discuss why theology has been left out, what the results of its exclusion have been, and make a recommendation for Christian education.

Happy (?!) Lent

I know, I am a day late on this one.

It seems that Lent is for the "in" crowd this year. Flipping through some TV channels yesterday, I noticed the mark of the cross in ash on the foreheads of several people. One of the guys on Crossfire had one, and then somebody else on ESPN's Around the Horn. OK, so maybe those two examples do not necessarily make Ash Wednesday an "in" thing. Did anybody see Paris Hilton yesterday? Snoop? American Idol? Report your own ash sighting here.

As a symbol of repentance, I am not sure that an ashy forehead will ever become too popular. And since most people associate it with Catholicism, there are two big strikes against it (see: John Kerry). Most Protestants look at the ashes as a mark of the beast. And that is too bad, because Lent has more to offer than an end to Mardi Gras.

This year I am going to be reading Henri Nouwen's Show Me the Way during Lent. I think I am going to take this whole "40 days of repentance and meditation" seriously for once and see where it takes me on Easter. There is just something about the concept of a church calendar that appeals to me. Giving our time to the church should mean much more than showing up on Sunday morning or getting involved in various projects. It could also mean ordering our lives in such a way that the full reality of Easter can capture our hearts and minds. Instead of merely living day to day until Easter, we can participate in the season of redemption as it grows closer.

I am only preaching a little bit. I am really planning on using this blog to keep myself accountable to the season. So, here it is. In writing. For all to see. I invite you all to join me, publicly or privately.

Faithful God, trusting in you,
we begin
the forty days of conversion and penance.
Give us the strength for Christian discipline,
that we may renounce evil
and be decisive in doing good.
We ask this through Jesus Christ.

Maybe It Was the Rapture?

This story is just one terrific reason to keep close tabs on my news links. If you never check them out, you miss out on great stuff. Check out the front page of my "hometown rag" soon before they remove the picture. It is priceless.

PS> Rumor has it that the cat has hired an attorney.