CT on Polyamory

As if signs of apostasy in the American Evangelical church were not clear enough, Christianity Astray Today decided that an article about polyamory (what used to be called fornication and adultery) is acceptable to be published by them. While the article does assert that polyamory is sin, it also says this:

Another important pastoral step is to distinguish elements of polyamory that are in violation of God’s will from elements that are simply culturally unfamiliar to us. When we want to lovingly call people to repentance, we should be precise about what needs repentance and what relationships or elements can and should be sanctified in Christ. For example, the notion of kinship in polyamory is a secular echo of the way Scripture calls the church to function as a new family. In cultures that idolize individualism (but actually isolate individuals), polyamory’s focus on relationship, care, and affection can have a powerful pull. And in churches that idolize marriage and the nuclear family, polyamory’s focus on hospitality and community can be an attractive alternative. We can acknowledge that many of the elements that draw people to polyamory—deep relationships, care for others, hospitality, and community—are good things.

Whereas Scripture says:

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. (1 Cor. 6:18)

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. (Eph. 5:11-12)

The problem with this article is less about the issue of trying to "redeem" elements from something that is so obviously sinful, but rather that this article has to be even written at all! As Jesus revealed in Ephesians 5:11-12, some evil are just too depraved that it is even shameful to be speaking about them, and the immediate context of Ephesians 5 is about sexual sin. The world has slowly desensitized even believers such that something so depraved can be treated as a legitimate topic of discussion, as if we are talking about ways to "redeem" food.

The sad thing is that this type of article was used to desensitize Christians on the issue of LGBTQ+, and now in certain circles of professing "Presbyterian" circles, calling LGBTQ according to its biblical category ("abomination") is grounds for rebuke by the pastor! Substitute polyamory with LGBT in any of the arguments that have been used by many liberal Christians (inclusive of "Side B" proponents aka Revoice), and the form of the arguments are identical in every way. When will Christians wake up and realize that we are being manipulated into tolerating sin?

It is grievous that Christians by and large have lost the vision of the holiness of God. We fail to recognize that what God says is the truth, period. We fail to recognize that what God says about sin is what sin is, and "abomination" is indeed "abomination." We are not given the liberty to alter God's Word and make God "kinder" than He really is. If God says something is an abomination, then the only right response is detestation and a holy hatred of that sin, and woe to the pastor who thinks himself smarter and kinder than God! Exactly who does he thinks he is, to go against the words of the Almighty God?

Back into history: An Evangelicalism that at least looks biblical

At the heart, then, of the eighteenth-century awakening was the question of what a Christian is. The evangelicals ('Methodists') believed that the clergy at large fell under the same condemnation as the false prophets of whom God said, 'You have strengthened the hands of the wicked, so that he does not turn from his wicked way to save his life' (Ezek. 13:22). Their opponents replied: 'Their doctrine is too strict; they make the way to heaven too narrow.' On which words, [John] Wesley made the all-important observation: 'And this is in truth the original objection (as it was almost the only one for some time), and is secretly at the bottom of a thousand more, which appear in various forms.'

It was certainly 'at the bottom' of the charge that the evangelicals were no true 'churchmen' They were said to be 'undermining, if not openly destroying the Church.' They were 'dividing the Church.' Their duty, they were told, was 'to have a greater regard to the rules and orders of the Church.' Such complaints were commonplace and to them all the evangelicals replied by asserting that an understanding of the church was not possible without first understanding what a Christian is. The real problem of their accusers was that they were wrong on that fundamental question. The Bishop of London, [George] Whitefield warned, was treating nominal Christians as being in 'a very imperfect state,' whereas the truth was that they were 'in no state of Christianity at all.' 'Church or no Church,' said Wesley, 'we must attend to the work of saving souls.' And when challenged about his allowance of lay-preachers, he replied: 'Soul-damning clergymen lay me under more difficulties than soul-saving laymen.' [Iain H Murray, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 164]

In a denomination [Church of England] which, by [J.I.] Packer's admission was in 'doctrinal disarray,' the question which non-evangelical and ecumenical churchmen wanted evangelicals to answer [in the 1960s] was whether or not they stood by their old exclusiveness. To that question [the National Evangelical Anglican Congress at] Keele had given an emphatic answer in 1967, and if it had not done so it would have never have satisfied the non-evangelicals as it did. But what Keele left unexplained was how evangelicals could hold to the uniqueness of their gospel message and yet profess brotherhood with those whose teachings subvert that Gospel. As I have said, the new policy had to mean that evangelicals would be forced to deny in practice what they taught in theory. ... (Ibid., 117-8)

[David] Edwards, in due course Provost of Southwark and himself a liberal, was to demonstrate the existence of evangelical change in a book he co-authored with John Stott in 1988 entitled, Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. Edwards rejected most of the essentials of the Christian faith, including the fall of man, the need for atonement by a divine redeemer and Christ's physical resurrection. Yet in this dialogue Dr. Stott held to the new inclusivenes. Those who deny the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ, he affirmed, do not 'forfeit the right to be called Christians.' This he underlined by a gratuitous reference to David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham, who had made headlines with his denial of the physical resurrection of Christ. ... Yet there was room, John Stott supposed, for evangelicals to agree even with Jenkins:

A year or two ago Bishop David Jenkins kindly spent a couple of hours with five of us Evangelicals who wanted to engage in questioning and discussion with him.... He was willing to concede that the bodily resurrection of Christ, although in his view 'historically unverifiable' (because the story of the empty tomb was probably not written until twenty years or more after the event), could nevertheless be termed 'theologically appropriate.' There I think, was a man speaking out of his catholic tradition, but we Evangelicals endorsed it.

(Ibid., 119-20)

Evangelicalism as a movement began with the Wesleys, George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards in the First Great Awakening. This old Evangelicalism however was actually decent despite its pietistic and revivalistic background. The whole premise behind preaching for conversions in a supposedly "Christian" country in the 18th century is that being a church member or even a church leader does not save you. It means that, even if someone claims to be a Christian, one does not necessarily treat him or her as one, but inquire whether the person has put their trust in Christ alone.

Fast forward to the 1960s, as the situation had developed in both America and England. In America, Fuller Seminary was busy leading the way towards compromise, the turning of the guard towards "inclusivity" coming with the appointment of Daniel Fuller as Chief Academic Officer and David Hubbard as president in 1962-3. In England, that happened when the evangelical party of the Church of England voted themselves out of existence in the 1967 National Evangelical Anglican Congress (NEAC) at Keele, by "repenting" of sins against Christian unity. Soon, "Evangelicals" became just one more sect among many in the multitudes of groups that calls itself Christianity. The tragedy of the "evangelicals" left over is illustrated by John Stott's comment on counting liberals who are evidently non-Christians fellow brethren. I for one do not wish to be in Stott's shoes when he faces the accusatory gazes of liberals like David Edwards and David Jenkins on the Last Day, along with many others.

The saddest thing is not that evangelicals have capitulated. The saddest thing is that evangelicals think that to be evangelical means that one must affirm anyone who claims to be a believer, and the line of division is now ethics and not doctrine. To question the profession of someone who denies the doctrine of justification by faith alone is being uncharitable, but to question the profession of someone who endorses homosexuality is perfectly alright. That is the default setting among evangelicals in many places around the world. Case in point: The current bleeding of the PCUSA churches into EPC and ECO denominations. When Liberalism infected the PCUSA, many conservatives refused to join Machen in forming a true church. But when the PCUSA started to endorse homosexuality, howls of betrayal from the conservatives break loose. So denying orthodoxy is ok, but affirming homosexuality is not?

Closer to the Singapore context, there was the recent co-belligerency campaign among Muslims and Christians to wear white as a protest against the homosexual activist event "Pink Dot." Now, there is nothing wrong with participating in social clauses in one's personal capacity, but when it is supported by a Christian group, a psuedo-denoination called "Love Singapore," then we have a major problem. The president of Love Singapore is "Apostle" Lawrence Khong, who promotes the G12 shepherding error and is at least supportive of the heretical New Apostolic Reformation. What then does this say about "evangelicalism"? Those who promote false teaching are lauded as good Christian leaders, while any hint of homosexuality is condemned. Now, I am not for homosexuality, but can we have some balance here? Is homosexuality a worse sin than heresy? If anything, it is the other way round! There is more hope for a homosexual who repents than a straight heretic who doesn't! That's why I don't have a high regard for the "Love Singapore" movement, a movement that is leavened throughout with all manner of false teachings that are heterodox at best.

Before the advent of the New Evangelicalism, the Old Evangelicalism, while certainly flawed, at least does not have the problem of confusing the essentials of the faith. Now, anything goes, and one wonders why Christianity is not making an impact on the world. The Wesleys and Whitefield transformed much of Britain because they actually denied the profession of others who claim to be Christians. In a deconfessional era, the second best to a functional confessional Reformed church is better than nothing.

[PS: In Reformed circles, we do not question the profession of those who make a credible confession of faith, but we do of those who don't. The problem with Whitefield, and of pietism in general, is that a credible confession of faith to them must include a conversion experience. In the Reformed churches, it is verbal confession of faith, a desire to be baptized and attending to the other means of grace, and trusting Christ for salvation which is expressed as fruits of godliness. A conversion experience is not necessary in the Reformed churches.]

Alvin Plantinga on Science and Religion (Part 1)

May 20th 2012 saw Dr. Alvin Plantinga give a talk on the relation between Science and Religion in San Diego. Being reasonably close by, I drove down to hear his talk.

Plantinga's presentation

Plantinga's presentation basically deals with the perceived conflict between Science and Religion, especially on the topic of Evolution. His thesis is that there is no conflict between evolution as a science eviscerated from its materialistic philosophy, and "mere Christianity." Plantinga defines "mere Christianity" along the lines of C.S. Lewis and locates it in the Apostles' Creed, probably having some version of the Vincentian Canon in mind (ubique, semper, omnibus).

The first section of his talk was aimed to prove that contemporary evolutionary theory is compatible with theistic belief. He argues against the idea of evolution necessarily being a blind and unguided process. Using the writings of evolutionist atheists like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, Plantinga posits that the form of their main argument is as follows:

1) We know of no irrefutable objections to its being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.

Therefore,

2) All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes

Plantinga then states that such an argument is logically absurd. Therefore, making arguments based upon perceived blindness and unguidedness of the evolutionary process, and the randomness of mutations, to conclude that there is no God is "not part of or a consequence of the scientific theory of evolution as such, but a metaphysical or theological add-on."

In the accompanying notes, Plantinga has a second section which deals with broader antitheistic arguments from evolution, of which an interesting one which he skirted is the one on theodicy. He also gave an argument using Occam's Razor where he claims that there is "no additional Ockhamistic cost" for a theist "in the hypothesis of guided evolution."

After his first section, Plantinga decided to skip to his third section in his talk due to time constraint. The third section is entitled "Naturalism vs. Evolution," in which Plantinga through a logical syllogism proves that the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable cannot be accepted if Naturalism and Evolution are both taken to be true. Plantinga's conclusion is that holding on to naturalism with evolution is illogical and wrong; it cannot be rationally accepted.

Through his entire presentation, Plantinga desires to establish that there is no conflict between "science" and "religion," or rather evolution and "mere Christianity." Therefore embracing evolution does not make atheism and naturalism certain. A Christian therefore can embrace evolution without giving up his faith, and a scientist does not have to give up his "science" in order to be a Christian.

Main Analysis

After Plantinga's talk, there was a Q&A section in which I went up and asked him two questions, on two weaknesses I perceive in his argument. I will reproduce and expound on them further.

Plantinga is certainly right in his third point. Many people have correctly pointed out that naturalistic materialism cannot account for the reliability of cognitive faculties of any sort. The problem for Plantinga's argument however comes from other points of view than philosophical materialism, a worldview which is waning.

The first problem with Plantinga's argument is stated by other forms of theisms. Plantinga's argument is defensive in form in stating how evolution is compatible with "mere Christianity." But such an argument presupposes that the only two options are "mere Christianity" and naturalism. One however soon realizes that his argument is impotent in dealing with pantheism, panentheism and Process Theology. In pantheism for example, something which Richard Dawkins is not against by the way, evolution can be guided and our rational faculties can be reliable since nature equals "god," and yet in this system Christian theism is not only not accepted but actively rejected. In Process Theology, the evolutionary process towards the Omega state is certainly guided and has a telos in mind!

Plantinga rightfully disavows pantheism, panentheism and Process Theology. The question however is upon what basis can he do so? One can argue from the Scriptures of course, but that undercuts the entire argument made by Plantinga. After all, Plantinga' argument is for the superiority of Christian theism over naturalist atheism in its compatibility with "science" (evolution). If however it can be argued that Christian theism is no more superior than pantheism, panentheism and Process Theology in its compatibility with "science" (evolution), then Plantinga's argument collapses entirely. If anyone comes to the issue relatively unbiased, why should he think on the basis of Plantinga's argument that Christian theism is better than the other theisms available?

On a side note, Process Theology is a movement which can be slotted into "Mere Christianity" since it has never been condemned by any general council of the Church, indeed it is impossible for it to be condemned as such since it is hundreds of years late for the councils. Since Plantinga wants to stake Christianity on the ideal of "mere Christianity," upon what basis can he reject a belief in Process Theology as being part of "mere Christianity"? If one wants to go back to C.S. Lewis, perhaps one should consider whether Lewis or the Bible holds the definition for what Christianity is and is not.

The second problem with Plantinga's argument is to what extent his version of "mere Christianity," which is compatible with evolution, accepts or rejects the historical Adam and Eve and a historical Genesis. Does Plantinga holds Peter Enns' view of Genesis being a poetic myth recapitulating the experience of Israel?^[1] It seems that Plantinga holds a view rather similar to what C. John Collins holds to, what is called a "mere-Adam-and-Eve-ism."^[2] Plantinga states that he believes in a historical Adam and Even, but such is probably a couple from a founding population of hominids to whom God breathed their souls into them. (Presumably, they and other hominids were souless animals before that).

The problem with Plantinga's argument here however is that the compatibility question can only be answered in the affirmative only if one takes a certain view of "mere-Adam-and-Eve-ism," namely a view that presupposes an old earth, and standard evolutionary time frame etc. In other words, the compatibility question is in the ultimate sense vacuous. It is basically asking whether a theism that has modified its views to line up with evolution is compatible with evolution. Of course it is! I would be surprised if it isn't! If "mere Christianity" is enlarged to fit in evolutionary theories, then that "mere Christianity" is compatible with evolution is a foregone conclusion.

The problem with "mere Christianity" is that it is ultimately vacuous. If one can redefine the foundation of the Gospel and yet remain part of "mere Christianity," then we should know that "mere Christianity" is a mere front for any shenanigans to be done to the Christian faith. Confessing the death of Christ on the Cross for our sins means nothing if we can't agree on what "sin" is, what "death" is and so on. Since our salvation is based upon the fact that Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Works on our behalf, fulfilling what Adam should have done, denial of Adam being the first man is a denial of the Adam-Christ typology and thus of the Gospel itself.

Collins' proposal on the founding population, while ingenious, does not work. Adam has to be created out of the dust for the typology to be valid (cf 1 Cor. 15: 47), not from a pre-existing hominid. The typology of Christ who gives life, to Adam who became alive, in 1 Cor. 15:45 is destroyed by the hypothesis that Adam was a souless hominid (which of course has horrific consequences since these "souless hominids" behave very much like humans in terms of religions etc.).

Plantinga's argument so far fails in two ways. It fails to prove that Christian theism is superior in compatibility with the world in light of evolution. More fundamentally, it fails to prove that "mere Christianity" is even a legitimate actor in the question since including views modified in light of evolution is to argue in a circle.

References:

[1] Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say About Human Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, Brazos Press, 2012), 56

[2] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist: Who They Were and Why You Should Care (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), 13

[to be continued]

Tim Keller and the problem with "Mere Christianity"

In a video interview, Tim Keller made the issue of orthodoxy and heresy a matter of affiliation to the Apostles' Creed, and vaguely implies acceptance of the Nicene Creed as well in the allusion to acceptance of the Ecumenical Councils (which for at least the Reformed mean the 4 councils of Nicea, Constantinople -1st, Ephesus and Chalcedon). This sort of "mere Christianity" comprise the essentials of the faith, and therefore Keller believes that Christianity should be a broad enough tent to accept theistic evolutionists of all sorts.

The problem of course is that nobody actually practices that kind of "mere Christianity." Even Tim Keller does not. The whole idea of having a "Gospel Coalition" implies that they are making something i.e. the Gospel, a matter of orthodoxy. Where exactly is the Gospel explicated in any of the ecumenical councils? The Gospel was assumed by the church fathers and kept to the basics of belief in Christ, but beyond that there was not much development on what the Gospel actually is and what belief in Christ means.

The doctrine of Justification by Faith alone is not mentioned by any of the ecumenical councils. In point of fact, the Late Medieval Franciscan Pactum of Gabriel Biel (Facientibus quod in se est Deus non denegat gratium) is a denial of Justification by Faith alone. If Keller was truly aiming for "mere Christianity," he should say that the entire idea of the Gospel Coalition is a charade and embrace not only the rest of professing Evangelicalism (including the National Association of Evangelicals) but also the liberals (National Council of Churches), the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. After all, all of them except perhaps a few radical liberals profess belief in the ecumenical councils of the Church.

So is Keller serious about his idea of "mere Christianity"? If he is serious, he should just stop the charade. Leave the Gospel Coalition, leave the PCA, and be an all out ecumenist! Be honest to your beliefs. Either fully embrace the idea of "mere Christianity," or man up and state clearly a position which one will live consistently by.

C.S. Lewis, for all his literary genius, is not an authority on the Christian faith. One can benefit from critically reading his works, but Lewis is not an authority on a lot of issues, the idea of "mere Christianity" being one of them.

To put it as simply and bluntly as possible, choose this day which one you will embrace: the Gospel (and all that comes with it), or "mere Christianity."