So I’ve often wondered this. In November 2003, I attended the annual meeting of Evangelical Theological Society to see if they would vote affirmatively to kick out both John Sanders and Clark Pinnock on charges of denying infallibility on grounds of, what those brining the charge believed was, a necessary denial of prophecy.
I happened to pop in and hear John Piper present on the theme of “joy” in the works Jonathon Edwards, which was his portion of the Jonathon Edwards forum. At one point Piper passionately remarked that Edwards was one of his two favorite theologians. The other, he exclaimed, was C.S. Lewis. I guess this didn’t really blow me out of the water at the time. I’d seen Piper quote Lewis in places and I admit that I’ve see monergistic themes or at least a Piperistic approach to theodicy in “A Grief Observed.”
Yet as time passed I became more puzzled. Lewis has some pretty radical views of hell and soteriology. Granted he throws out the caveat at the beginning of almost every work explaining that he is not a theologian, still Lewis pushes the comfortable limits for most evangelicals, if you take the time to figure out what he is really saying.
So why? I wonder is something like Boyd’s open theism, a doctrine about the nature of the future, a call for a heresy trial while Lewis’ liberal approach hell and soteriology are not. I’ve heard Piper explain the limited atonement with the efficient and sufficient argument and much of the reformed camp refer to the “precious blood of Jesus.” How can Lewis approach these themes in such a seemingly haphazard manner and still be considered one of Piper’s favorite theologians. And he’s an Arminian for that matter. Isn’t it strange that one of his two favorite thinkers is an Arminian?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Ok, here's my random response to your question, although I think you'd agree, gleefully I don't quite fall into the Calvinist camp. I speak only for me, but, hey, you allow comments (with some glaring exceptions called "knuckleheads") so I'm commenting.
It seems to me often that the academic discipline of theology oscillates between revivals and abdications of the doctrinal loci of Christianity. A retreat to orthodoxy satisfies the need for meaning on one level, but this also dulls the prophetic and self-critical edge of it's own traditions.
Is there a possibility for a third space? A better matrix of conversation, with the end being a transformation of the religio-cultural symbolisms in the first place that we're already so painfully plagued with?
I think the Boyds of the world will always be filleted on the altar of the die-hard traditionalists and the Pipers will always envy and flirt with the edges of their own perceived anathema.
To your question. Don't have the slightest clue. (Oh, btw, one caveat. I'm no theologian, nor a writer, but I liked "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe".)
To be honest Josh, only Piper can answer that question. Many "Calvinists" don't like Lewis, myself included. I can certainly postulate why Piper does, but remember: Piper is no one's Reformed theologian. He is not Reformed (i.e. he doesn't hold to the three forms of unity and his views on covenant theology, law/gospel, and the sabbath are closer to mainstream evangelicalism). He would be the first to admit that he is something other than Reformed (at least that's what his right-hand man told me last year). Also, Piper was not the "spear-head" of the OVT heresy trial at ETS. Grudem maybe, Piper no.
I've heard him mention Lewis quite a bit. It's always in the context of Christian Hedonism. While reading Lewis Piper's eyes were opened to the truth that the reason God commands us to praise Him is simply for our joy. This idea totally revolutionized Piper's thought. So I'm sure this is at least one major reason why Piper constantly mentions Lewis.
So what does the Reformed community think about the heresy trial at ETS? Well, to begin with, we honestly *do* want to work with Arminians and consistant Arminians (OVTists) in the propogation of the Gospel, but we do not know how. When both sides are throwing the charge of heresy at one another the possibility of working side by side with one anther grows rather dim. I am convinced that OVTists are going to have to start writing at a level other than the "pop" level if any type of friendly dialogue is ever going to take place (by "pop" I mean Boyd's God at war and Satan and POE, etc). Believe it or not, Reformed academics are more easy to get along with than Reformed pastors. However, since there simply are not very many academic (i.e. exegetical, philosophical) OVT articles or books out there, the Reformed academics are forced to leave the dialogue to the overzealous Reformed pastors.
BTW, there are quite a few Reformed folk who are now distancing themselves from the label "evangelical." Out of all the reasons for doing so, I have not read anyone who refers to OVT. Rather, it's always a fundamental methodological difference between themselves and mainstream evangelicals. Van Til was the first (in my research anyway) Reformed guy who distanced himself in this way.
Ben thank you for your thoughtful response. If more reformed "pastors" embraced your generous attitude we probably would get somewhere.
your comments about the relationship between Piper and Lewis are informative. I learned a few things including that Piper is not considered reformed. I guess I probably formulated that thought becuase Lund went there and seemed to be so heavily steeped in reformed thought. Though I do remember him having qualms with some things at Bethlehem and maybe this is why.
I do take issue with one comment. "I am convinced that OVTists are going to have to start writing at a level other than the "pop" level if any type of friendly dialogue is ever going to take place (by "pop" I mean Boyd's God at war and Satan and POE, etc). Believe it or not, Reformed academics are more easy to get along with than Reformed pastors. However, since there simply are not very many academic (i.e. exegetical, philosophical) OVT articles or books out there, the Reformed academics are forced to leave the dialogue to the overzealous Reformed pastors."
I haven't read enough Pinnock to comment, but in regards to Sanders and Boyd. What do you mean by exegesis? They both handle the texts extensively in The God Who Risks and God of the Possible. True they don't share a reformed hermanuetic and thus approach them with a historic-grammtical one, but thier handling of the texts are at least fair. For example, someone like Mike Holmes who we'll call nuetral on the subject would agree with much of what they do with the Romans 9 text. So is it poor exegesis because one disagrees with thier conclusions or because they don't treat the text fairly?
And as far as the philosophical discussion. Boyd has done much with Aristotelian modal logic in the way of clarifying counterfactual discussion. In fact I think it is becuase of open theists that so many important issues have come to the forefront of the philosophical debate concerning providence for everyone. For examples: How do Arminians answer the question "how did God come by his foreknowledge?" "How do Molonists answer the grounding objection?" "How do Calvinists hold that God renders circumstances certain through secondary causes and yet we are moraly culpable for our actions?" and "Is God ever surprised according the open view?"
Maybe you were addressing this issue with something else in mind though. I look forward to your response.
Thanks for pushing me to sharpen my statement. To be blunt, I've seen some good feminist exegesis, some decent postmodern, and some pretty heafty Wesleyan stuff as well. I've read pretty much everything by OVTists that I can get my hands on and I have yet to see them go beyond pop exegesis. They fail to account for the history of interpretation (they attempt to account for it in the space of about 20 pages, which is less than an adequate amount of space) and the way most of them employ the languages is less than scholarly I think.
In fact, the historical theology that comes from OVTists seems very poor all around (I haven't seen any of them interact with Pelikan, McGrath, or Van Asselt, but I've not been reading OVTist for a few months). Pointing to Augustine simply will not do. If his soteriology was the basis for the intricate developements within the scholastic protestantism of the 17th and 18th centuries than how do you explain the ecclesiology of the Protestant scholastics? How do you explain the "center-piece" of thier soteriology, which was clearly the mystical union with Christ?
But leaving historical theology, it seems as though OVTists are not as influential in academia as I used to think. Boyd has tried to do something with Aristotle, but frankly what he's done doesn't make any sense to most (or all that I've talked to outside of Bethel) of those who have read what he's written on it. Rarely is the OVTist position mentioned in introductory or even advanced philosophy of religion text books. It just is not that big of a movement yet, as far as I can tell anyway.
But this brings up an interesting question: do you really care if OVT is a big movement in philosophy with great exegetes backing it? It seems to me that many OVTists pride themselves on not caring about those things. But perhaps I've misinterpreted you guys on this. Also, if you know of any recent OVT exegesis I would be indebted to you if you gave me that info. I haven't read anything by them for about six-nine months, so I'm probably quite behind the times.
Benny,
Hmm...well I guess at this point it would probably be most helpful if you gave specific examples.
Maybe if you could point me in the direction of a good feminist exegete as you point out who accounts for the history of interpretation. Then maybe I'll be able to make some comparative judgements and see where you are coming from.
We disagree about Boyd's use of philosophy, but that is o.k. I think he is a bright thinker.
As far as OT being popular. I guess I don't really care. I only hope that God guides people to place that is most helpful for them to deepen their relationship and love with and for Him. I have found thier use of philo. and exegeting helpful, but can understand why you don't. I do think thier have been some articles that have been helpful in crituqing and helping OVT refine some of thier thinking. For example David Werther's article in the fall 2003 Philosophia Christi.
Two good points you make. I think Augustine is blamed too frequently. There is certainly more to the tradition than just him. SEcondly, OV not such a big debate outside Bethel. And i would add the twin cities. Though the providence debate seems to be one of the most passionate inside evangelical circles, it certainly does not outside of it.
cheers,
Carney
Well, I guess I'm not exactly sure what kind of resources you want me to cite. I certainly did not mean to assert that the only thing that makes OVT exegesis "pop" was a failure to account for the history of interpretation; but it may have appeared that I was saying just that.
Nevertheless, some good feminist exegesis can be found in the series "Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings" published by Sheffield Academic Press. Richard Hayes and the commentary series Sacra Pagina both seem to offer some fine feminist exegesis. Sandra Schneiders seems to be very good; especially her contribution to Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, published by Eerdmans (pg. 349-369). She's probably the best place to start.
With respect to postmodern exegesis: as you know, these folks are much more philosophically oriented than textual. George Lindbeck's work was probably the most influential. But off hand, I can't think of any postmodern exegesis per se, just pages and pages of postmodern hermenutics.
I guess it just seems like we might be talking past each other Josh. I certainly did not mean to link the word "pop" with some kind of negative connotation. Most or all of Calvin's exegesis was pop exegesis (i.e. it was written for the common man). I merely wanted to say that I think OVTists should try to interact with academia more than they are. I'm sorry if I was unclear. If you want more sources I certainly could find more after searching through my notes.
Post a Comment