Feasts, Festivals, and (Non)fiction

As long as I can remember, I have been a Christian in regular church attendance. Each church I went to over the years celebrated special days differently. This was the case for both hugely important days (like Easter Sunday) and less-important days (like the Commemoration of Mark the Evangelist, which passed just a few days ago). It was an interesting task to relate this topic to reading and writing--check out some of the items below to add to your reading calendar! 

What's a (Theological) Feast?

According to Encyclopedia Britannica: a religious feast is a set period of time for commemoration, celebration, and (usually) eating for a particular annually remembered occurrence. Depending on the source, these days may be referred to as holy days. While the primary purpose of religious festivals is active remembrance, a secondary purpose is rest and refreshment.

From a secular perspective, people may celebrate particular theological feasts in different ways, to the extent that the celebrations are part of the local culture and social imaginary. One example is the putting up of multicolored outdoor lights the day after Halloween, through Christmas and sometimes until the snow melts. I notice that these celebrations are much more closely linked to the four seasons. Britannica notes that "holiday" derives from "holy day" and is often equated with the word "vacation" (literally, "day[s] away").

What's a (Theological) Festival?

The same as a feast, technically. We'll talk about lesser commemorations shortly.

What are some Common Feasts and Festivals Across Christian Traditions?

A United Nations source points out that feasts that all Christians celebrate are built around the church year, which is built around major events in Jesus' life. These days and seasons include Advent (40-day period immediately before Christmas), Christmas Day, Epiphany (the 8th day after Christmas Day), Lent (40-day period immediately before Easter), Holy Week (7-day period immediately before Easter), Easter Sunday, Ascension (40th day after Easter), and Pentecost (50th day after Easter).

Note that some of these feasts are fixed (always on the same day of the month) and some are movable (such as Easter). I can remember precisely one Easter--this year--that did not entail a winter coat and/or protection against precipitation.

Later in this post, I will explore some saints' feast days that differ across Christian traditions. Additional lesser commemorations for individual Christians can include the anniversary of their own baptism, confirmation, wedding anniversary, and funeral of a loved one.

What are Differences between Anglican and Lutheran Feasts and Festivals?

This section is intentionally narrow, because of the narrowness of my experience. My move from the LCMS to the ACNA was not as large as the moves some in our congregation have made; in particular, Baptist and Evangelical traditions are much farther away from Anglicanism. Do you remember the LCMS-ACNA dialogues about 10 years ago? The differences that stalled the dialogues did not entail feasts and festivals! However, it's still worthwhile to note some slight differences in how feast days are organized in the thought of parishioners and pastors in the two traditions.

The ACNA, having split from the Episcopal Church over heretical teaching on human sexuality, still uses the Book of Common Prayer for uniformity in worship. I've linked the Episcopal church year here, and the ACNA liturgical calendar here.. Notably, the website organizes feast days categorically rather than chronologically:

• Major feasts based on Easter
• Major feasts based on Christmas
• Minor feasts
• +Ember Days for fasting and praying for those in holy orders (deacons, priests, and bishops) 4 times per year. Those preparing for holy orders have additional duties on these days.
• +Optional observances (saints from biblical and church-history times)

The LCMS uses the Lutheran Service Book to guide worship, for those churches choosing to follow the Divine Service liturgy (actually, 5 settings are available in that hymnal). There is much more diversity (and disagreement) in worship compared to in the ACNA. In the hymnal and website, organization is chronological. I've noted just a few feasts and commemorations that, in my experience, were given more prominence in the LCMS than the ACNA congregations in which I've worshipped:

• Confession of St. peter
• St. Timothy
• Conversion of St. Paul
• St. Titus
• Nativity of St. John
• Martyrdom of St. John the Baptist
• Occasions including Christian education, supplication and prayer, and national or local tragedy

I've also noticed that the LCMS celebrates the day-before days (eves) for many major feasts, while these may or may not be noted in the ACNA liturgical calendar.

What does this have to do with reading and writing?

I see four connections between feasts, festivals, reading, and writing. Let's explore each of them below!

First, historical practice is the origin of feasts and festivals. Christianity is a faith heavily based on historical events. A historically-framed way of reading older texts is needed to properly understand the connection between the texts and what actually happened. How did authors in the first century AD use narrative and other styles to communicate? Why are there differences in the Gospel accounts? What are the implications of these?

Second, the way in which we write about our feasts and festivals shows a lot about our theology. Let's take as an example Easter, which commemorates the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from death after He was crucified. Alisa Childers has a take on this topic. I've been working through this topic in the larger context of what Christian "hope" means. Alisa's guest, Baptist scholar Jeremiah Johnston, has an accessible (176-page) book advocating historical support for bodily resurrection. Anglican bishop N. T. Wright has a much more thorough exploration of the cultural meaning of the events at the time.

With that background, think about what churches put in their bulletins and what denominational publications communicate to members, nonmembers, believers, and nonbelievers:

• What is the most important holiday of the church year?
• How does Easter connect to other church holidays?
• What does it mean for other doctrines if Jesus rose bodily from the dead, versus some other hypothesis?

Third, the liturgies of the Church year are written down so that we can practice them in unity with others in the tradition (see the first part of this video by Australian Anglican theologian Michael Bird on the relationship between unity, uniformity, and diversity). The Book of Common Prayer, which we read from weekly (Sunday Eucharist service) and hopefully daily (Daily Prayer for Individuals and Families) aligns lectionary readings to major feasts, festivals, and commemorations.

Finally, it's edifying to read extrabiblical historical documents on commemoration days. One that comes to mind is the Commemoration of Polycarp, celebrated on February 23. Polycarp was a bishop in the second century and knew the Apostle John personally. His writings indicate familiarity with Scripture as a whole, and he was responsible for making sure John's writings (the Gospel and 1-3 John) were transmitted accurately.

How do you participate in church feasts and festivals?

Of Fruits in Feuds, or: Discernment in Discourse

In this post, I attempt several distinct and, perhaps, disparate, things, all to encourage you, dear Christian reader, to read history and theology and philosophy, and to recognize the bounds of orthodoxy when engaging with other people. Here are two situations I found myself in the middle of, in two separate comment threads on a recent short video on miracles that Alisa Childers posted. In the video, Alisa is interviewing Shane Rosenthal on the question of why we don't see as many miracles these days as occurred recorded in Acts. Rosenthal is a Jewish convert to (Reformed) Christianity. All comments quoted here are unedited.

Situation #1: Literally Confused

The original comment thread attempted a reply to the question posed in the video title:

"Because it’s not literal! It’s spiritual! To raise the dead is to raise the consciousness of someone ! To heal the blind is to help people see truth! Heal their perception! To heal the sick is to help the weak minded, who don’t walk in truth, who are sick in their minds! It’s all thought that manifests."

Several people had already taken this person to task by questioning the truthfulness of the assertion. Despite the New Age-type alarm bells going off, I decided to elicit this person's viewpoints in a more obvious fashion by asking what they thought of the resurrection of Jesus, the central miracle of the Christian faith. My question did the trick:

"have you heard of anyone else raising from the dead literally? Because Gods salvation raises from the dead spiritually ( us). Pick up your cross does not mean carry a literal cross! Follow him does not literally mean go and physically die! 😂 wake up from religion the spirit isn’t there! It’s organised to deceive the masses"

At this point, I followed the unwritten rule of not engaging further because (1) online interaction has little to no nuance and (2) the likelihood of actually dismantling this person's intellectual objections to the faith was about as probable as the amount of nuance. If I had kept going long enough, I could eventually have won the argument, but that is not the central goal of apologetics.

While this person is not incorrect in that God's act of salvation does indeed raise us spiritually from the death in which we walked in our sins (Ephesians 2:1ff), the global application involved the incorrect assumption that spiritual-salvation implies spiritual-every-happening-in-the-Christian-life. I'm reading through N. T. Wright's Surprised by Hope, and he describes this confusion which is shockingly common to many Christians--over-spiritualizing our interpretation of Scripture leads to Gnosticism.

Husband also noted that this commenter's thought comes across as British (spelling), strongly influenced by German biblical scholarship. Wright, being a past bishop in the Church of England, argues against this type of thinking in many of his (80+) books, by going straight to what the text means by considering the cultural thought and behavior systems at the time of authorship, and presenting a cogent argument for that case.

Update 10/13/23: John Walton put words to the attitude I was detecting from the commenter (p. 16 of The Lost World of the Torah):

"Scholars have a role in the body of Christ just like everyone else does. One cannot object that it is somehow elitist for scholars to think they have a contribution to make that not just anyone can make. Not everyone is an eye, an ear, or a hand. Everyone else is gifted to do what they do, and academics are no exception--and no one should begrudge that. No person alone is the whole body of Christ; we all depend on the gifts of others. If the Bible needs to be translated--an important emphasis of the Reformation still acknowledged today--then somebody needs to translate it. Cultural brokerage, like lexical semantics, is part of the translation process and is a necessary function of a competent translator."

It's also worth noting that denial of the regenerative efficacy of Holy Baptism entails thinking that enables a very short jump to denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus and, later, all believers. In our household, baptismal regeneration, and the thought processes of those who deny it, has been a hot topic lately (i.e., the last 2 years). I know that plenty have written for and against it online, so there's no need to link a bunch of posts or articles on either side. Here's our take on it, briefly (based on key sources including Joachim Jeremias):

• In Judaism around the time of Jesus, it was common to baptize proselytes of all ages, and infants. Circumcision (noted in Paul's letters as what was replaced by baptism) was done for infants born to Jewish parents on the 8th day of life. Importantly, baptism/circumcision marked the person as part of the community of faith.
• Paul and others who baptized converts to Christianity baptized households. Infants were not excluded. Sometimes baptism followed extensive instruction and belief (normal for adults); sometimes baptism preceded it (infants/young children who were then brought up as members of the Christian family of faith. Think of adoption as a very biblical--and still applicable--analogy.)
• In the writings of Scripture as well as the church fathers (first generations of Christians who had a chain of personal acquaintance linking them back to the apostles of Jesus), issues that were generally agreed upon were not discussed in depth. Similar to today, one doesn't rehash the agreed-upon things every time one writes a letter to someone else. Baptism fell into this category, hence few references in Scripture and slightly more in the church fathers.
• Taking these things together, this indicates that baptism of infants (spoken of as regenerating, providing new spiritual birth, raising us to spiritual life with Christ while living our lives in this present creation as in Romans 6) was the norm for centuries.
• Saving faith, as I've mentioned elsewhere, doesn't require verbal expression, but trust. Babies have the ability to trust their parents in this way from birth.
• The supposition that "baptism is an individual decision and requires verbal expression of trust, babies aren't rational or verbal so they can't verbally express trust, therefore we shouldn't baptize babies" is not biblical and not early Christian. It came about centuries later.

Now that I've reopened that can of worms, let's see what else happened in the comments section . . .

Situation #2: Bart Ehrman's Doppelganger

The original comment probably came from a Christian and exemplified a thought that's been around at least since the time of C. S. Lewis: 

"Because people back then didn’t know a lot about how things work and called things they couldn’t explain “miracles”. We still do it today, but less so because we know more about how things work."

I replied:

"C. S. Lewis answered this assumption in his book "Miracles," actually. New Testament scholar N. T. Wright seems to have read a lot of Lewis. I'm reading through his book "Surprised by Hope" which addresses the meaning of the resurrection for Christians, and one point he made was that the Jews in the first century A. D. understood very well that individual resurrection went against the "laws of nature" and was, frankly, something they did not expect God to do for the Messiah."

Here's where things got more interesting. An atheist (likely a deconverted Christian, as we shall see) hopped on to my reply:

"Yes, they knew most people did not come back from the dead. But why no more miracles today? Could it be it was a story all along and you have been deceived? Do you want to see what you belief causes to your behavior?"

I repeated what I had said earlier, in spite of plenty of experience indicating that people don't listen, and frequently they don't trust anyone besides themselves:

" to your comment…Lewis and Wright (and [Craig] Keener, for that matter) answer your questions as well.️"

Now the true mindset was revealed.

"I notice you did not and I highly doubt they would. What they would say would lead to more questions and trust me, you ALL run and avoid my questions. I have a set of questions 97% of you just wont even answer. I have some new ones I have been using lately. Atheists and agnostics are almost 100%, they have no problems. Christians are less then 40% right now and muslims are at 0%. God is not part of these questions at all, these are simple moral questions. Now these questions have implications that might tie to god, and that often leads to non answers as the person starts to make a straw man to beat on. Try and avoid this and just answer the questions that are asked directly and honestly. 

#1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that person moral?

#2 You ask them why they are not doing anything and they tell you they heard the reasoning is beyond human comprehension, but this will bring about a greater good, do you accept his claim and sit and watch or do you reject it and save the child?

#3 Is it just to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?

#4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape [sic] a child would you stop it?

#5 Would you consider someone who laid a minefield knowing people were going to stop on the mines and how much damage would be done and who would die, and then forced their children to go an play in it a good parent?"

At this point, Husband and I discussed the argument being presented here. This person exhibits the mindset of many former Christians whose intellectual questions were not answered by people from their congregation or larger faith community, despite scholars and philosophers having answered these questions already. Nobody pointed them to the sources, so they assumed that Christianity was not intellectually robust enough to handle serious questions . . . leading to a deconstructed faith, atheism, or agnosticism. I refer you back to the recent 90-minute video featuring apologetics and philosophy greats (one of whom I know personally) on styles of apologetics in today's world, for your education and edification, because apologetics must precede or accompany evangelism for this person.

Specifically, this individual assumes a "cosmic nanny" view of God. He(?) grants that there is a moral imperative outside of naturalistic consciousness, but doesn't want to grant the ontological (nature of being/reality) consequences of that. An atheist who knew his scholarship might respond to these questions that "there's no such thing as moral evil--i.e., nihilism is true."

The best Christian response to that would be along the lines of: "So, there's nothing wrong with an axe murderer killing 50 children for fun, because nothing is wrong?" To be logically consistent, the atheist must grant that. That's where the Christian should ask, "So, why would that be a problem for Christianity?" One cannot critique Christianity from the standpoint of moral evil unless one grants the premises in reality rather than hypothetically--and almost all atheists will try to only grant them hypothetically.

If you've followed the last few paragraphs, you probably realize that the atheist commenter does not have a true logical problem with God and the problem of evil. Rather, the commenter has an emotional problem with the conundrum. Philosopher Alvin Plantiga shows, via a book-length argument, that this is the case, in God, Freedom, and Evil. N. T. Wright addresses the emotional inconsistency in Evil and the Justice of God.

Boiled down to a very short form that does not do it justice, Plantiga's starting point is

1. There is a God.
2. Therefore (#1), there is moral good.
3. We observe moral evil.
4. We suppose that this (#3) is inconsistent with moral good (#2) from a moral God.
5. Therefore (#4), a moral God cannot exist.

Through the rest of the book, Plantiga shows that this is not a true contradiction, although it certainly feels like one! Many atheists who read his book don't understand where he's going, so they will turn to probabilistic or emotion-based arguments. However, the problem with probabilistic arguments is that one's chosen probabilistic factors don't reflect the spectrum of all real data available (actuarial science?), but rather reflect one's personal feelings and biases. God either exists or He does not.

My Bible Study Journey

This month is unofficially Major Doctrines month, this year, over here at The Renaissance Biologist! Since in the context of the Bible, "doctrine" commonly means (and can be translated) "teaching," how does one access the teachings of the Bible? The most common answer I see is Bible study. Come along for a somewhat organized summary of the journey I've taken in the last year or two, regarding my own Bible study.

What are the major viewpoints on Bible study?

Historically, there have been--and still are (though with changed proportions)--several views on the believer-Bible-study relationship:

1. Individual Bible study is best reserved for leaders of congregations or parishes (pastors/priests) using extensive study aids based on previous scholarship, and laypersons should learn Biblical doctrine primarily through preaching.
2. Individual Bible study is most important for pastors/priests, and laypersons should learn Biblical doctrine through preaching and through group Bible study under pastoral supervision. In both cases, use study aids appropriate to the level of knowledge.
3. Individual and group Bible study are equally appropriate for pastors/priests and laypersons, with or without study aids based on previous scholarship, and with or without (usually without) pastoral supervision of the layperson.

View #1 - Priests-Only

This stance was dominant in the Roman Catholic church around the time of the Lutheran Reformation. Because Luther wanted to reform a group of interrelated teachings and practices, and ended up forming the Lutheran church instead (which later fragmented), this view on Bible study was changed along with other doctrines about the sacraments, liturgy and worship, and justification before God.

There were several factors playing into this view (Roman Catholic source). Because Bible reading is technically distinct from but often conflated with Bible interpretation (exegesis), the church saw danger in allowing unsupervised lay readings of (= study of) different interpretations of Scripture that verged on heresy. In historical context, the intellectual preparation of priests and laypersons was vastly different. And it does take a baseline level of knowledge (which few laypersons had at the time) to recognize correct interpretations of Scripture.

This quote from the link above summarizes the conundrum, speaking of the 20th century Roman Catholic practice of not encouraging, but not forbidding, individual layperson reading and study of Scripture: 

"It was never forbidden to read the Bible. But some priests were worried that congregations would come up with dozens of conflicting interpretations of Scripture. These priests knew of over 300 Protestant denominations who had distinct beliefs about the interpretation of Scripture. Many of these interpretations conflicted with each other yet every one of them claimed divine inspiration. As a whole, neither Catholics nor Evangelicals are into relativism (which says there are many truths)."

View #2 - Priest-Supervised

This stance has become more dominant in at least the LCMS. It is what I grew up with, and a very close variant is where I am now. The concept of small groups (as opposed to pastor-plus-group-in-church) grew out of the Pietist movement. Congregations whose pastors were opposed to Pietism in any form (not just its excesses) do not allow small Bible study groups unless they are led by a pastor or other called, ordained minister.

I think that the ACNA, at least the parish in which I am currently a member, has a variation on this view. One unique feature of Anglicanism, which has been quite different from my past experience within the LCMS, is due to the combination of episcopal (vs. congregational) structure and the difference in scope and rigidity of confessional documents (39 Articles versus 600+ page Book of Concord). The priests at our parish do supervise Sunday morning and weeknight groups, but have said that nothing in the bylaws requires their presence at each study group. Stay tuned!

View #3 - Un-Supervised

I'm going to spend the most time here because it's fairly common, and I see a large number of problems with it. Denominations tending to take this view run in the non-Roman-Catholic and sometimes non-Reformed streams. For background information on differences in major and less-major beliefs between denominations, please check out Ready to Harvest. Let's take a look at two doctrines related to this view, specifically particular views on each doctrine.

Doctrine #1 - Perspicuity of Scripture

A basic formulation (Roman Catholic source) of the "perspicuity" (clarity) of Scripture is that it assumes that anyone who reads the Bible with a basic understanding of the English language will find its message clear. A narrower formulation (LCMS source) is what I grew up with, and still hold to: that the parts of the Bible speaking about salvation are clear to the layperson. With the caveat that some understanding of translation principles and how salvation was talked about in first-century Jewish and older terms is required to determine which parts of the Bible are speaking about salvation, this is a fairly decent formulation.

However, the broader formulation has major implications and is, I believe, an incorrect and untenable view. Here's a short list off the top of my head:

• Let's say two laypersons disagree on what is literal and what is figurative language in a biblical text. How can they determine who's right?
• How do verses that directly state that some Scriptures are confusing fit in?
• Why do Christians (block quote above) therefore disagree so strongly on what verses and longer texts mean?
• Where in the Bible does it specifically say that each layman should engage in personal, daily Bible study by him- or herself, apart from indirect or direct pastoral guidance?
• Is Scripture so clear that it's less necessary to learn about what the text actually says than to jump to applying it to one's own life (see methods section below)?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, one's views on perspicuity relate very closely to doctrine #2 . . .

Doctrine #2 - Priesthood of All Believers

The most basic formulation of this doctrine, based on 1 Peter 2:8-10, is that each Christian has access to Christ and does not need to go through a priest or pastor to relate to Jesus. Simple enough, yes? Husband thinks otherwise (emphases mine):

"I don’t know how to put it concisely, but there’s also the Charismatic tendency to believe that the Holy Spirit will guide private reading of scripture to right understanding independent of historically and culturally nuanced exegesis; Craig Keener’s book Miracles Today comes to mind here as relates that miracles happen among just about every group that believes that the Holy Spirit has promised to work miracles through them, regardless of their doctrinal minutia (e.g., cases among Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, and Pentecostals, suggesting that while the Holy Spirit will in fact work through people today, He probably won’t interpret people through the Bible as though working a Ouija board. Also the tendency to ignore how much the way people think is shaped by cultural surroundings—lack of hermeneutics, causing folks not to try to learn how the humans involved in writing of the books of the bible thought as well as their original audiences, as well as how we might be misreading it today for similar reasons."

In the chat and comments sections of several live videos I've recently watched by such diverse Christians as Alisa Childers (Reformed apologist), Faith Womack (Presbyterian pastor's wife), and Melissa Dougherty (ex-New-Age, Reformed apologist), plus many channels that Husband frequents, there is a very unfortunate tendency for people to say flat out that they don't need (and don't trust) anyone else's work of doing the difficult task of figuring out and writing down what Scripture really means.

If a believer is refusing to use even a searchable Bible software (or a concordance, for that matter) because it's "man's word" and therefore "inherently untrustworthy," what is the real issue?

Could it be expressive individualism masked as piety?

What are the major methods of doing Bible study?

If you've read to this point in the post, you may be wondering why I'm bothering to include this section. Because I am in the middle position, and have an ever-increasing respect and appreciation for the decades of diligent scholarship done around the Scriptures, fleshing out and freshening the understanding of the Christian community as a whole on what the divinely inspired human authors of the various books meant to say to their immediate audiences, and how we can apply that knowledge to the message for us (not "to" us) today.

Individual

Bear in mind that study is more than devotional reading. In a cursory search, I found over 27 different techniques or approaches to individual and group Bible study. Individual methods are very briefly described here (sources: The Faith Space, Bible Gateway, Bible Study Tools, Desiring God, and When You Need God):

• Inductive. This method assumes that the Bible will explain (interpret) itself throughout, and has core steps of observation (studying the text in one or several translations, usually without anything but a concordance), interpretation (using cross-references and the dictionary to figure out what the text means), and application (to one's own life). This method has at least 17 acronym-variants such as SOAP, IDEA, and REST, which convey the same ideas but in more or less devotional fashions.
• Study of a passage of specified length (verse, chapter, book). The overall goal is to see how each length of text fits into the global message of the Bible.
• Topical, thematic, or character study. These methods assume an exhaustive concordance because one is tracing a specific subject through the arc of Scripture.
• Verse mapping. In this method, one writes out a single verse in several translations, defines the key words with a current dictionary, uses cross references, and writes a summary.
• Reuben A. Torrey's method (1856-1928, a Congregationalist in the revivalist tradition) is gratifyingly detailed. He encouraged daily, serious, diligent study of a ranked list of biblical topics.

Group

I test as an introvert on every personality assessment I take. However, I also glean more from group Bible study than from my own, lately, because I am aware of the narrowness of my own perspective compared to the wealth of work that scholars have already done, and that others have absorbed through their reading. (The last source listed above says the opposite, not really giving a logical justification - it is important to be aware of group dynamics and their pros and cons.) Of making many books . . .

Here are some methods uniquely suited to group-based Bible study:

• Discovery. This resource uses only the Bible in groups of 4-8 new Christians. Use of different versions is encouraged, with the goal of discovering basic God- and people-related truths about the passage in order to apply it to one's own life.
• A specific inductive study method, abbreviated COMA. This looks at the historical, literary, and thematic context of the passage; observes for key details and repeated themes; extracts the meaning of the biggest ideas; and applies it to group members' lives.
• Rick Warren developed 12 methods of study, essentially variants on each other. He does encourage Scripture memorization.
• Sword. This uses a picture of a sword to cue participants to ask what the passage says about God, about humanity, and application possibilities.
• Swedish method. This uses metaphors including a light bulb, question mark, and arrow to cue participants to ask 5 basic questions about each passage studied.

What resources are actually useful for Bible study?

For the "ordinary" Christian (layperson), you may have noticed above that shockingly few of the available tools are routinely recommended for personal study. I think this is related to over-credence given to the idea of Scriptural perspicuity, and the anti-intellectualism I've spoken about before. Channels such as How to Faith a Life, and Coffee and Bible Time, have done an admirable job in encouraging use of additional resources that capture and respect the scholarship related to the Scriptural text. However, some people prefer to read over watching or listening, so here is my list of what is useful for studying the Bible:

• Attitude that you do not in fact know everything 😉 and a willingness to delay making a firm opinion on something until you have truly looked at it from all reasonable angles.
• Translation on the word-for-word (literal versus paraphrase). Here's a neat graphic showing where translations fall on that spectrum. Please note that the textual basis (manuscript groups) differs - for example, some use the Textus Receptus for the New Testament, while others use Nestle-Aland.
• Concordance. Strong's Exhaustive is commonly cited.
• Commentary. Be very aware of the theological bent of the author(s) you choose. Some Christian traditions are less or more objective than others, and everyone has presuppositions that they may or may not admit, and may or may not be aware of. Philosophy matters!
• Scholarly or popular-level work specific to the text, expanding on a commentary. Let's say you are studying the Pauline epistles. The foremost New Testament scholar today is N. T. Wright. Or, if you're studying Genesis, don't omit the work of Old Testament scholar John Walton.

I hope you found something helpful to you in this post--happy studying!

Theological Triage: What, How, and Why (Not)?

People disagree on anything it's possible to disagree on, especially theology. How do we resolve these disagreements? Answers throughout church history have included church councils, systematic and dogmatic theology texts, and more recently, theological triage. Come along as I take a layman's look at this most recent phenomenon from an Anglican/Lutheran standpoint!

How did I get interested in theological triage?

My theological journey started in the LCMS and is now in the ACNA. These church bodies are very similar in many doctrines and practices, and the key differences between them help to explain my more recent interest in how doctrines are ranked in importance, but the differences between them have mainly been matters of practice. Specifically, there is a tendency on the one denomination's part to settle everything that is not adiaphora into the "right" or "best" view; and a tendency on the other denomination's part to leave some ambiguous questions open and up to the individual congregation or diocese.

This difference in tendency exemplifies the differing value placed on the intellectual life, indeed, on the Christian mind, between the two denominations. In my experience and reading, to have a Christian mind includes (1) some de-compartmentalization of left- and right-hand kingdom topics, (2) high value placed on reason as a servant to the Scriptures, and (3) a nuanced, historically-minded view that seeks to interpret written and oral records in the context of when and where they were produced (authorial intent) rather than imposing a later/current philosophical viewpoint on them (reader-response).

Although I am not on board with the ecumenical movement as a whole, I am a strong proponent of orthodoxy and think that there are "best" ways of thinking about the various doctrines. Husband is doing a lot more work on this topic than this post will go into, so hopefully I can convince him to supplement the post at some point. 

(To somewhat explain the photo above, that was the bottom book in a 14" stack of history of philosophy, history of theology, and other topic books necessary to perform triage well--because, after all, doctrine is not something to be messed with. You have to know doctrine, especially not your own, in order to triage it!) 

I hadn't heard of the term "theological triage" until I read Gavin Ortlund's Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage (2020). We'll get to talking about that book shortly.

Who has been talking about triage?

Short answer: Baptists! Read on to see why. (I am looking at this conversation as an outsider, because there are no Baptists in my family. Please bear that in mind if you see where I may have made an error.)

What should a non-Baptist know about Baptists before reading on?

I didn't know very much about Baptist distinctives before working on this post, save that they will only baptize persons who have made a profession of faith (credobaptism - versus paedobaptism, or the baptism of infants). Diving a little deeper into the "why" behind the (to me) simplified assertion that infants cannot have faith, I found two lesser-known doctrinal stances in which credobaptism makes sense.

The first of these is soul sufficiency (also termed soul competency). What is generally meant by this is that the individual human soul, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, is enough to correctly interpret all parts of the Bible, and that the church serves more of a community function and less of an interpretive-authority function. This teaching stems from a very particular interpretation of "priesthood of all believers" that I doubt is consistent with the rest of Scripture and church history.

The second is a differing emphasis on the definition of saving faith. In the LCMS and other paedobaptists' view, faith is primarily leaning or depending on the person and work of Jesus Christ (LCMS website, definitions 2 and 3). In credobaptists' view, there is much more emphasis on intellectually assenting to (and expressing) the narrative and teachings of the gospel (good news in toto) (Baptist view). The main implication of this, were it accurate, would be that infants cannot have saving faith. However, what about other persons who cannot intellectually assent or verbalize--including those with advanced dementia, or anyone while they are sleeping?

A third factor connecting the logic of soul sufficiency/competency and what one means by saving faith is the philosophical distinction between voluntarism and intellectualism. Voluntarism focuses on the concept of the will (from the Latin verb volere) first trusting in something before fully understanding, and ultimately leads to the LCMS view, while intellectualism focuses on the conscious, intellectual grasping of something (without doubt) and then believing or trusting in it.

A fourth factor--not doctrinal, but cultural--is the United States environment of rugged individualism in which the majority of the Baptist church has grown up. The concept of doctrinal triage (below) seems to be more a response to the cultural context in which it is important to establish majority agreement and perhaps less important to preserve orthodoxy no matter how few people hold to it. (While I suspect nobody in denominational leadership consciously thinks this to be the case, it's a very human thing to assume that we are in the right on whatever we think, and others who don't agree with us are simply mistaken.)

Who originated the phrase "theological triage" or "doctrinal triage"?

Al Mohler, past president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, coined the phrase around 2004 (article reprinted in 2010). He noted that the concept of triage involves sorting items into priority categories, to optimize resource utilization. He also recognized that all of Christian doctrine fits together within Christianity--one cannot take different pieces from different places and expect them to be a logically coherent whole. His suggestion for doctrinal triage involved 3 levels:

1. Central or essential doctrines, often seen in the ecumenical creeds specifically the Apostles' Creed, which cemented orthodoxy by excluding heresy. He places justification by faith and the two natures of Christ in this category. Essential doctrines delineate what it means to be a Christian versus a non-Christian.
2. Boundary-setting doctrines, which divide Christians into denominations and congregations. He places Baptism here . . . more on that later.
3. Doctrines which may divide individuals within a congregation but do not result in broken fellowship. He places eschatology (the study of last things) here.

Who else has written about triage after him?

I found several thoughtful takes on Mohler's idea written over the last few years. The first is by Baptist pastor Marc Minter in 2018. He emphasizes that all doctrines are important, but that not all doctrines are as important as each other. Simplifying and rephrasing Mohler's 3-level system, he stratifies and adds a 4th level:

1. Dividing Christians from non-Christians
2. Dividing one local church from another
3. Varying among Christians without dividing them
4. Matters of conscience because Scripture is unclear. These would be true adiaphora, or "indifferent things."

A top commenter on Minter's article linked to his M. Div. thesis as a contrarian view, and several other comments likewise assert that "enough" submission to the Holy Spirit will cause all disagreeing Christians, no matter what the issue, to agree with each other on every point. Ortlund is aware of this line of thought but spells out the problems with it in his book.

A second post is by Baptist pastor Michael Lawrence in 2019. He focused the original 3-category system on the subject of complementarianism vs egalitarianism, writing shortly after teacher and speaker Beth Moore moved from the Southern Baptist Convention to the ACNA. She moved in part because of different stances on complementarianism, and naturally there was some opinionated discussion about this. (Maybe more on that in another post.) Lawrence placed complementarianism in the second-tier category by process of elimination, which I agree with--noting that the same doctrine can be a 3rd-tier priority for the individual but 2nd-tier for a congregation or denomination as a whole.

A third post is by writer Trevin Wax (TGC) in 2020, affiliated with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He wisely notes that not all "heresy" is truly heresy, but can cause needless division. The doctrinal context of his post is Calvinism versus Arminianism, which he places as a 3rd-rank doctrine--my two comments are that (1) everyone forgets about Lutheranism in the middle, and (2) one of our pastors falls into each camp, so I agree on the 3rd-tier classification! 

To reach both the layperson and the pastorally educated, Wax reviewed both Ortlund's book and one by evangelical Rhyne Putnam. Ortlund writes for the college-educated layperson, while Putnam expands on and situates theological triage in a larger concept of doctrinal taxonomies throughout church history. A helpful point this book seems to acknowledge is the role of emotions in biblical interpretation. Both books emphasize humility (intellectual and general), reading and talking with others outside of one's own narrow echo chamber, and seeking deep understanding of things one is tempted to discard.

Writing about his own book, Baptist pastor Gavin Ortlund himself wrote in 2021. Somewhat anomalously within his own tradition, he has had significant exposure to and respect for the writings of the church fathers. He co-wrote this particular article, essentially a summary of his book, with Brian Arnold, president of Phoenix Seminary. Arnold has a similar interest in the church fathers as shown by his books on Cyprian and on second-century views of justification.

The Gospel Coalition (TGC) reviewed Ortlund's book with key points being these:

• To "speak the truth in love" is not just to tell the truth, nor just to be loving (permissive . . .)
• Logical fallacies abound in theological and related discourse--but straw men and ad hominem fallacies are neither true nor loving
• It is possible to walk a middle line between doctrinal sectarianism (dividing over everything) and doctrinal minimalism (dividing over nothing)
• Regardless of whether you choose the original 3-tier or Ortlund's 4-tier system, the system is useful and you don't need to agree with his classifications

The last post I found about doctrinal triage is by Baptist pastor Dwayne Cline (TGC) in 2023. With the caveat that contemporary culture/moral discussion is likely no longer predominantly relativistic, I appreciated his point that a great opportunity for triage is in dialogue with friends and family who deconstruct (apostasize) their faith on non-central issues. I also deeply appreciate his emphasis on the importance of using the philosophical and cultural context of the time in which books and texts were written to interpret them, rather than assuming our own cultural ideas have always applied and will always apply.

Uniquely, he uses Scriptural phrasing for a 4-tier framework, with associated actions to take:

1. Sound doctrine (the standard for all other doctrine). When discussing this, use precise language that everyone agrees on at the start.
2. Disputable matters (where Scripture is silent or ambiguous). Here, emphasize unity, which is not the same as perfect agreement.
3. Unsound doctrine (outside of orthodoxy but not quite heresy). An example is slave trading in 1 Timothy 1. Here, rebuke, correct, and refute the doctrine.
4. Heresy (contrary to the gospel). Cline cites Anglican priest-philosopher Alister McGrath to define heresy. If those holding to heresy do not repent, one needs to break fellowship with them.

What do I now think about triaging doctrines?

By now, you have seen hints of my view on doctrinal triage, at this point in what I've learned about it. On the whole, I do like Ortlund's system and was intrigued by Cline's variation on it. From a Lutheran-Anglican perspective, I have several differences in where I think doctrines should be triaged, based on (1) Biblical clarity, (2) integrality of the doctrine to the gospel/salvation, (3) church fathers' clarity, and (4) the effects of the doctrine on the universal church today (Ortlund's system).

Specifically, Ortlund and other sources put Baptism into the second tier. I disagree, and think it should be in the first tier (defining what it means to be a Christian) because there is very clear historical and biblical precedent for infant baptism, if one does not impose contemporary viewpoints or superficial interpretations on historical data. This precedent was well-documented by Joachim Jeremias, a liberal (!) theologian. Baptism is also the normal mode of entry into the family of Christ. Like adoption, it doesn't depend on the feelings or statement of the person being adopted, nor is it to be repeated.

Two doctrines I place in the third tier are the mode of creation and the appropriate use of alcohol by individuals in a social or private setting. These do not define what it means to be a Christian, and individual congregational members can have different convictions on these, based on ambiguity of both Scripture and historical precedent. Some might lump the mode of creation into a second-tier doctrine, but I don't think it needs to be that high. (Again, a topic for later post[s].)

Are there any alternatives to triage?

Let's say that, after reading and thinking through all this, you don't buy in to the concept of theological or doctrinal triage. Is there an alternative for the thinking Christian?

Yes. I don't have anywhere near a fully fleshed out view on this, but two guidelines graciously supplied by Husband during our conversations on the topic are the following:

1. Establish a historical timeline of doctrinal development--e.g., the Trinity was not solidified as a doctrine until after several other doctrines (like the two natures of Christ and the Incarnation) had been established.
2. Acknowledge that while nearly all doctrines have some associated differing voices, in many cases those differing voices are a minority and not consistent with the entire historical thread of how the universal Christian church grew out of first-century Judaism.

Happy thinking!

Jesus' Resurrection and its Meaning

Every year around this time, tabloids tend to recycle the same old stories about "new" archaeological findings or historical reasoning bringing into question the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. As I write this post, it is Holy Week (check out my 2009 post for reflections on the readings and sermons/homilies), and naturally I am convinced of (1) the historicity and (2) the logical implications of such an improbable historical event. Let's dive in to a book-related layperson's view of the Resurrection, with a small guided tour of the household library.

What do Christians think happened?

In orthodox Christian doctrine, Jesus (titled Christ), the God-Man, died by means of crucifixion, was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, and was resurrected bodily thereafter. "On the third day" in Jewish thought at the time referred to any portion of a day (i.e., part of Good Friday, all of Holy Saturday, and part of Easter Sunday).

Although the Crucifixion is not the central sole topic of this post per se, it is important to establish the fact that crucifixion did indeed kill Jesus. Historians (e.g., Martin Hengel) established that crucifixion was a widespread way around the time of Christ for Romans and others to kill slaves, enemies of the state, and miscellaneous criminals. There is a fair amount of medical literature (see, for example, Retief & Cilliers 2016; Maslen & Mitchell 2006; and Habermas, Kopel & Shaw 2021) indicating that death could have occurred by asphyxiation, cardiovascular trauma (spear through the pericardium and the cardiac muscle), shock, other factors, or a combination.

Why do we think this way?

Christians' primary source for doctrines including the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus is the text of Scripture, as contained in the Old and New Testaments with canons established by the time of the earliest church councils. Whether or not a particular Christian denomination views apostolic tradition as having a role in the interpretation of Scripture ("sola Scriptura") depends on the branch--Roman Catholic, Reformed, or other.

As scholars including Old Testament professor John Walton have often said, the Scriptures were "written for us, but not to us." That means that we can and should benefit from reading and meditating upon the Scriptures in the present day . . . but our cultural context is very far afield from the cultural and historical contexts in which God inspired the biblical writers. That being said, I lean strongly toward the need to select and acknowledge the best source(s) of tradition and methods of analysis that help us gain the most cohesive knowledge and conclusions about what the Scriptural text is actually saying.

I frequently refer you to apologist Alisa Childers' videos. She did an interview with New Testament scholar Gary Habermas last year about the earliest Christian creeds. Gary talks about what the early statements of belief meant for the Resurrection starting around 34 minutes.

What are the implications of Jesus' resurrection?

St. Paul said it best (verses 12-20): "12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope[b] in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."

The bottom line: if Christ existed and was in fact raised bodily from bodily death, it behooves one to believe in Him and seek to know Him better.

What do Christ's two natures have to do with this?

Lutheran (NALC) theologian, pastor, and professor Jordan Cooper, of the Just and Sinner Podcast, has a great 1-hour video on orthodox and heterodox views of Christology, i.e., the two natures (human and divine) of Christ. In the Incarnation, the eternal Christ took on a human nature and continues to possess both natures. In the Crucifixion, Christ's human nature died; it was raised to life again at the Resurrection. Dr. Cooper outlines some of the major views (heresies) on how the two natures are related. The first three are from his video; these views originated within the New Testament timeline. The rest originated later and are described at TheologyImpact.

• Docetism = Jesus was somehow divine and not really human. He appeared to be human.
• Adoptionism = Jesus was born just human but became divine at His baptism.
• Ebionism = Jesus was never really divine, but was given messianic status at His baptism.
• Arianism = Jesus was not fully divine and did not eternally exist, but was created out of similar material as God the Father.
• Apollinarianism = similar to docetism, but saying that only the divine mind/will existed.
• Nestorianism = Jesus is fully human and fully divine, but there is no communication of attributes between the two natures (a common analogy is two pieces of plywood glued together).
• Eutycheanism = Jesus' divine and human natures were mixed (fully communicating) into a third nature in which neither previous nature was distinguishable.

Is Easter more important than Christmas?

Easter is more important - but required the Incarnation for Jesus to be able to die. Both events are critical, but Easter is more critical for the Christian faith.

What should I read to get more depth on this topic?

Don't just take my recommendations . . . take Husband's, because he has read a lot more than I have! See the picture at the top of this post for relative lengths of each of his recommendations.

What I've read

In chronological order, I've recently (2021-present) read five books dealing with the Resurrection as a central or peripheral theme. The first one I am not too sure I would reread, mostly because N. T. Wright's devotional writing style is, shall we say, not a primary strength of his. He is possibly the world's foremost New Testament scholar and has an extensive biography to that effect. However, Advent for Everyone: [devotions on] Luke is decidedly not a scholarly work. As I said above, the Incarnation is a central Christian doctrine and event in the life of Jesus Christ; without taking on a human nature, He could not have died at the Crucifixion. Therefore, learning about how He came into the world as a human infant is quite important.

On this blog, you don't see me reporting on too many novels. I certainly go through seasons of life where novels are all I want to read, but this season is not one of those. Earlier this year and late last year, I started reading through Husband's box of Reader's Digest editions of classic novels, and one of them was Lloyd C. Douglas' The Robe. While containing (as novels do) a number of historical inaccuracies, this was nevertheless an enjoyable read of a centurion's perspective as to who this Man was whom he had participated in crucifying.

This year, I decided to give N. T. Wright another go, since Husband is one of his biggest fans. I was feeling up to a short book at most, and entering a period (which I am still in) of learning what I can about Christ's human nature, not having been taught a whole lot about it previously. So, at his recommendation, I read The Challenge of Jesus and wrote about it here.

Thereafter, the next recommendation was How God Became Jesus in response to agnostic Bart Ehrman's book of similar title that came out around the same time; a good summary is over at The Gospel Coalition. Five major authors, including and coordinated by Michael F. Bird, collaborated on a point-by-point examination of Ehrman's assertions and arguments about the development of christology (doctrine of Christ). The authors agree on an "early high Christology," i.e., a theological position asserting that at or before the time of when the Gospels were composed, Jesus was already regarded by Christians as God incarnate. Chapters heartily acknowledge Ehrman's strong points and his correct, helpful statements, while making extremely clear that Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, along with His self-view as Messiah, were unique among Jewish and Greco-Roman views of messiah-figures.

A book I am still working through is Martin Hengel's The Crucifixion and the Son of God. This three-part book is an exhaustive historical study of what crucifixion was, what it meant, and how widespread it was in the time and world of the incarnate Jesus; also, what "Son of God" and "Son of Man" meant. I highly recommend you work through at least the first part of this volume if you want more detail than what your study Bible can provide about these critical terms in their original historical context.

What Husband recommends I read

I was somewhat surprised at the smallness of the height of the stack of books he recommended when I asked him about this topic, given that for a specific committee I've been serving on he gave me 6 or 7 titles. However, look again at the image at the top of this post--the books are few, but they are mighty. Let's check out summaries of each (with the caveat that Wright has said that he's right about 75% of what he talks about--he doesn't know which 75%) . . .

• Craig Evans and N. T. Wright. Jesus: The Final Days. At 128 pages, this pipsqueak of a book examines the myths and facts of history and archaeology surrounding Holy Week and Easter.
• N. T. Wright. The New Testament and the People of God. This is book 1 in his "short" series, clocking in at 535 pages. Roughly the first 200 pages are used to describe his research and interpretive methods. Concepts he explores here include first-century Judaism and Christianity, and what "god" meant within the cultures of the time.
• N. T. Wright. Jesus and the Victory of God. Volume 2, at 770 pages, is a portrait of the historical Jesus, the Messiah (anointed one) of Israel.
• N. T. Wright. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Volume 3, at 848 pages, looks at what happened at Easter, what it meant (how it was interpreted at the time), and how to connect those beliefs to today, given the cultural setting of when and where He actually rose.
• N. T. Wright. The Day the Revolution Began. This one is only 448 pages. Tom explores the meaning of the crucifixion of Jesus, seeking to further the Reformation understanding of this critical event in history, the pivot point.
• N. T. Wright. Surprised by Hope. This one is the shortest at 352 pages. I've seen bits of the core argument in some of his other books that I've read so far--that the after-death "heaven" specifically refers to the new creation ("new heavens and new earth"). 

On a broader note, I know that differences in the Gospel accounts of various parts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection have been a source of consternation for some. Mike Licona has written a great book about this, that I also want to read at some point.

What's on your reading and meditation list this Holy Week?