Category: Systematic Theology

I hold to Covenant Theology

Along with many Reformed theologians and thinkers, I too think that the story of the Bible is wrapped up in Covenant.  Reformed thinkers speak of “A Covenant of works” and “A Covenant of grace.”

For sometime now I’ve been pouring over Covenant Theology, and I’m convinced of its soundness and validity.

In a nutshell, the Covenant of works, first to Adam, has been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, as promised in the Covenant of grace.

It’s that simple.

The origins of call-and-response preaching.

T.D. Jakes preaching with emotion.

In Black Fire: One Hundred Years of African American Pentecostalism the author, Estrelda Alexander, catalogs how something from the African religious tradition known as “griot” shaped what we refer to as “call-and-response” preaching. She provides a very eye-opening explanation of how it originated and how it functions. Alexander writes,

“Characteristics of the black sermon such as antiphonal structure in which the preacher and the audience form a joint choir, with the preacher becoming the lead singer and the congregation the chorus are more pronounced within Pentecostal worship. The longer and louder the preacher goes on, the more the audience talks back, and the rhythm of the preaching forms a cadence of its own.” (p. 52)

For those not familiar with Pentecostal-Charismatic preaching this is a liturgy of sorts. As I discussed this with my wife this morning she recalled our experience with Roman Catholic and Anglican worship where there were times in which the congregation is asked to talk back to the speaker. When we first visited an Anglican congregation they would say, “Peace be with you.” I would stare back. Another person said it and I think I responded with “thank you” until I realized the appropriate response is to say “And also with you”.

Our current assembly is a non-denominational evangelical church with German Lutheran roots. On Easter Sunday someone in attendance was very verbal in his support of our pastor’s sermon. He disrupted the order of a service a bit and he received a few stares. While I am not much of a yeller during church it didn’t surprise me. I have always understood the sermon, if done well, to be something in which the congregation participates.

It is a Pentecostal liturgy of sorts. Elsewhere she discusses the expectations when the music is playing in a Pentecostal service. She says,

“Not to move (raising hands, clapping or swaying) in some visible way indicates that a person is not part of what the community is experiencing and signals a lack of spirituality; it gives evidence that he or she is an outsider and might be a candidate for conversion. The importance of rhythmic engagement in Pentecostal worship is inescapable.” (p. 50)

Before one chides Pentecostals let me say as I sat in Anglican worship gatherings I missed cues that showed that I am an outsider. The same can be said of my experience around Catholics and even Baptist or non-denominational, hipster evangelicals. All communities have an ethos that shows whether or not someone is a regular.

Now as regards the sermon there are expectations. During a homily from a Catholic priest most stay very, very silent. In my current church there is not much more interaction. In (specifically Black) Pentecostal circles homilies and testimony is understood as such:

“Though one person has the floor, the entire congregation is involved. Pentecostal testimony service parallels the African practice of storytelling by griot. Testimonies are not just my testimony of what God has done for me but also our testimony of what God has done for us–in our family, our church, our community and our history. They are the testimony of how God, through the centuries, has brought deliverance, as he did the children of Israel in Egypt and as he did in bringing a remnant through the middle passage, as he delivered us from slavery and from the Jim Crow experience in America.” (p. 53)

This is true of Anglo-Pentecostal and Latin0-Pentecostal groups as well. To preach or to give a testimony is not to lecture to an audience. It is a group action.

There can be much wrong with this approach. It can result in cheerleading. It can lead to group think or the worst kind. But in reading Alexander’s take on the subject I feel a bit rebuked for sometimes being critical of it over against the more “refined” homilies seem in Catholic, mainline, or evangelical pulpits. Everyone has their liturgy. This is just another version.

__________

See my previous comments on this book:

- “In the Mail: Black Fire by Estrelda Y. Alexander”

- “Segregation in Pentecostalism”

Segregation in Pentecostalism

While reading Estrelda Alexander’s Black Fire (see here) I was struck by two claims she makes about Pentecostalism:

(1) She says that “Within ten years of the movement’s beginning, there were virtually two Pentecostal movements–one heavily white, the other almost entirely black.” (p. 20) As an aside, I think this is very true except that it seems to ignore that there has been a large Latino brand of Pentecostalism as well. Nevertheless, this her main point is that it seems to have been a great struggle for whites to have black leaders and whites have often been much more comfortable with white leadership often leaving groups led by blacks or hindering blacks from having leadership in predominately white organizations.

What I found most outrageous was this claim regarding Pentecostal groups (which she did not support with a footnote, so I cannot fact check it): “…the Assemblies of God has remained the most racially segregated, with less than 2 percent of its constituency being African Americans.” (p. 21) Two percent?! Is there anyone in the AOG who can confirm or deny this?

(2) Alexander claims regarding the impact of Charles Parham and William Seymour that, “Though black involvement in all Pentecostal arenas rivaled and in some ways surpassed that of whites, most early Pentecostal history had been written by white scholars who have not only downplayed Seymour’s contribution in defense to Parham’s but have also ignored the contributions of many other African American Pentecostals.” (p. 21)

As I think about my own upbringing I always perceived Topeka, KS, to be a footnote to Azusa Street. Parham was seen as the match that ignited global Pentecostalism while Seymour was the gasoline that caused it to become a quick moving inferno. I don’t doubt Alexander’s claims. I am simply saying that even in the white circles with which I was most familiar Seymour is seen as something of a hero.

In the Mail: Black Fire by Estrelda Y. Alexander

Alexander, Estrelda. (2011) Black Fire: One Hundred Years of African American Pentecostalism. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. (Amazon.com; IVPress.com)

Yesterday I was pleasantly surprised to find a copy of Estrelda Alexander’s new book Black Fire: One Hundred Years of African American Pentecostalism sitting in my mailbox. Like myself, Alexander was raised in oneness Pentecostal circles though my own experience was likely very different in many ways. Nevertheless, there is bound to be many similarities between her story and my own.

I must confess that in some weird way my heart has always wanted the best for Pentecostalism in part because of the very type of story it seems that Alexander seeks to tell. It is an amazing narrative about Christianity for the outcast (well ain’t it odd that there must be such a thing). This is not Pentecostalism for Pentecostalism’s sake, but Pentecostalism for Christianity’s sake. By this I mean a healthy thorn in the flesh for the established institutionalized church where women, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, lower middle class and impoverished, uneducated and under appreciated can become pastors, theologians, prophets, and psalmist for the Kingdom of God.

Yet as Alexander shows within the first fifty pages or so (yes, I began reading it already and I could hardly stop in spite of other obligations) even Pentecostalism has fallen into the traps they sought to critique. She points out how many Pentecostal historians and leaders have sought to exalt the memory of Charles Parham and all that happened in Topeka, KS, over against William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival. How women have played such an important role in Pentecostalism’s global impact only to see splits and divisions over whether or not they should be leaders. How a movement based on unity in the Spirit has splintered into hundreds of large and small denominations causing complete disunity. It appears Alexander will hold nothing back and thank God she doesn’t!!!

I trust that I will say more about this book over time. We need to hear the story of how Black Pentecostalism has influenced the world. It is only right since it is true.

Calvinism and Hip-Hop?

"Too Short coming straight from Oakland" because he was predetermined to do so.

Yesterday I mentioned (see here) a post by Efram Smith where he critiques the recently evolving “odd marriage” between “holy hip hop” and Calvinism. Smith understands Hip-Hop to be a form of music that emerged as a voice for “poor urbanites feeling rejected by upwardly mobile people of color.” On the other hand, Calvinism is a “theology driven by the priviledged”. In context, he states the following:

“Hip Hop influenced entirely by Calvinism is no Hip Hop at all. Reformed Theology, though it contains some theological elements that I totally agree with should not be the only or primary theology influencing Holy Hip Hop. Calvinism is Eurocentric in nature and in the United States of America has evolved into a theology driven by the privileged. Hip Hop, Holy or Secular is about the engaging and presenting of the issues surrounding a sub-culture of the historically marginalized of urban America.” (See the full post here)

Later in the day this blog received a trackback notice that Bobby Grow had written a response. I read it and I thought it presented an important counter-critique. Grow wrote:

“It seems like to me that Smith is of the belief that theology is really a political maneuver; one associated with a power game. What makes Liberation Theology, for example, any better than Calvinism? Aren’t both suspect constructs? Don’t both presume upon a certain doctrine of God? Is Black Liberation Theology more proximate to the Christian Gospel because it developed under constraints that were seeking to throw off the oppressor? To me the problem with both of these alternatives is that the Calvinism Smith has in mind suffers from a God of brute power (and thus theocentric while not christocentric); and Liberation Theology suffers from a focus that is horizontal in orientation, and thus man-centered. I don’t think either one of these alternatives actually represent good alternatives for hip-hop artists. Not because one developed in Europe and the other in Latin America, but because neither one actually offers an actually Christian approach, methodologically. So it’s not where a theology was developed, but what, and more importantly Who that theology communicates. Am I denying that locale has no effect on theological development? God forbid! If theology could be marginalized because of its socio-cultural genesis; then to be consistent with this, we would also need to say that Christianity is only really viable for Jewish people. Since, of course, Christianities’ particularization is Jewish and finds its mooring in a first century Jew named, Jeshua.”

Unfortunately, it seems like he has removed the post (Update: The post is available again here). I thought the point he was trying to make was worth discussing. Is Smith proposing “that theology is contextual and thus because it is contextual only has relative and particular purchase versus universal force in its proclamation” as Grow said elsewhere in the post?

In another post with a different response, T.C. Moore shared a couple of short articles he has written on Calvinism’s influence on Hip-Hop (see here). In the first article he states, “It is no secret that holy
hip hop is now dominated by Calvinist theology, and honestly I’m concerned about the effect this
will have on the generation listening.” Why? Moore makes the following points:

(1) Calvinism is determinism.

(2) Determinism is not the theology of the oppressed.

(3) Hip Hop is a culture born in oppression.

(4) Calvinism dominates conservative theological education in the United States.

E-40 and I both come from Vallejo, CA. It seems he was predestined to make music. I was predestined to buy it.

In juxtaposition with Grow, it does seem that Moore is suggesting, at least in part, that Calvinism is culturally conditioned and therefore, in this instance, yes, theology is contextual. The context of Calvinism (maybe not in origin, but at least in recent history) seems to favor the status quo while Hip-Hop has always challenged that very thing.

In Moore’s second article he suggest some of the following:

(1) He is concerned with the number of Christian Hip-Hop artists embracing Calvinism because (A) it can reinforce institutional racism (i.e. it propagates the theological system of the very conservative seminaries who promote an “inordinate and disproportionate exultation of the theologies of dead, white/European theologians over the present, majority, global theologies of non-white people groups around the world and Black theology developed right here in the US”) and (B) it plugs itself into an already present “cultish theological elitism”.

(2) He worries that it will impact the current listening generation resulting in (A) “apathy and complacency” and (B) an “indifference toward evil and injustice”.

I recommend you read Moore’s articles because my overly simplified points are for introduction more than summary. Likewise, if Grow restores his post it is worth reading for a counter point.

What are your thoughts on this subject? Is Calvinism compatible with Hip-Hop? If so, how? If not, why not? 

Recognizing my monochromatic Christian theology

It is Black History Month. This is when we are reminded of the people and events that create what some call “the African diaspora”. We often see pictures of Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, Rosa Parks, and Jackie Robinson. For many of us Caucasians this is one of the few times during the year where we are reminded that “history” doesn’t equal “European history”.

Today I thought briefly about my book shelfs. I asked myself, “How many of your books are written by African, Asian, or Latino authors?” Sadly, not many. I have a book shelves with names like Barth and Bonhoeffer, Foucault and Pascal, Gadamer and Vanhoozer, Wright and Dunn. I am not embarrassed that I have those names listed. I am embarrassed because it is obvious I continue to do monochromatic Christian theology!

While I may not say that the best Christian theology comes from Germany, Italy, France and the people in the United States who look like me my book shelf tells me that I must think that. I am not justified in reading a few speeches by Dr. King. Do I have any James Cone on my shelf? Nope. Have I read any contemporary Black theologians like Anthony Bradley? Nope.

What is wrong with me?

I am sure I am not alone. I imagine some of my Black brothers and sisters wouldn’t want me to read a book just because the author is Black, but that is not the point. The point is that this is something I have become without realizing it. Christianity looks a lot like me. What to do?

Spring 2011 at George Fox Evangelical Seminary

I type this as I sit in the Graduate Reading Room of Suzzallo Library at the University of Washington. Because of the Pacific Northwest libraries’ Orbis Cascade (Summit) alliance, I can check out books from the UW and use its internet—all for free.

 

Suzzallo Library Graduate Reading Room @ the University of Washington

If all goes according to plan, I begin my last semester as a student with George Fox Evangelical Seminary on January 10, 2011. This semester I am doing something directly with the university and the seminary, as opposed to previous semesters where my involvement with George Fox University was more indirect. Here is the lineup for this semester:

  • BIST 545 Greek Readings with Donann Warren, MA (Classics)
  • BIST 565 Master of Arts in Theological Studies Teaching Internship with Laura Simmons, PhD (practical theology)
  • BIST 575 Thesis Continuation with Paul Anderson, PhD, (advisor) and Kent Yinger (faculty of records)
  • BIST 585 Theological German (Seminar in Biblical Studies) with Kent Yinger, PhD
  • CHTH 552 Essentials of Christian Theology with R. Larry Shelton, ThD

The Christian theology class is GFES’s only systematic-theology-type class; this will also be my first and last class with Dr. Shelton. The teaching internship, although listed with Dr. Simmons as the internship director, will be supervised by Dr. Anderson—this is what relates me to GFU more directly this year.

Well, wish me the best and keep me in your prayers! Maybe I can attend a GFU women’s basketball game this year, and hopefully they will bring the championship home again.

I Confess: I’m a Bit Skeptical of (Some) Systematics

Wayne Grudem has written a book titled Politics According to the Bible. This is a book that I would never read. As I said on T.C. Robinson’s blog I am a bit skeptical of such an endeavor. Any time I see a book on “family in the Bible” or “eating right in the Bible” or even “politics in the Bible” I suspect it will be a bit too crisp and a bit too clean for my own liking. I know this probably pushes me into the “biblical literature/exegetes v. systematic theologians” debate so I want to clarify that I don’t mind systematics, per se, but I do sometimes worry that these types of books oversimplify subjects in a way that Scripture does not.

Non-Biblical Language is Essential for Christian Theology

In a recent online discussion with several people I know (and some that I did not know) the subject of fellowship between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals was being discussed. A former professor of mine, who I think is still part of the Oneness sect, said that fellowship could occur when “…both groups decide to limit themselves to biblical language and avoid the use of extrabiblical terminology”. JohnDave Medina, who co-blogs here, rightly pointed out that this would allow Arians (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses) into fellowship as well and I added that this destroys any possibility of doing Christian theology at all. Rather, it regulates us to Scripture memorization and quotation that ends in proof texting as best.

Although I would not say that I am a big fan of John Piper I noted a few things that he said in a lecture on Athanasius that I felt were relevant. He said, “The truth of biblical language must be vigorously defended with non-biblical language.” Then he gave his reason: “You can use Bible language to say things that are false to the Bible”. I think Piper is correct.

It is not that heretical or heterodoxical sects cannot quote the Scriptures. In fact, it is the opposite. Usually it is the goal of such groups to “let the Scriptures speak for themselves” which actually means “we have a predisposed understanding of what this passage means and if we actually think critically about it we would realize our predisposition doesn’t account for what the Scriptures say at all”. Equally, it is forgotten by these people that part of allowing the Scriptures to speak is to actually clarify what the Scriptures mean.

For Athanasius he fought the Arians over a definition of Christ’s relationship to the Father that was only one letter different from his opponents. For Athanasius and the Nicene party Christ was homoousias (of one substance) while for the Arians it was homoi0usias (of a similar substance). That extra iota made the differance between whether or not Jesus was one with God or Jesus was the first created being of God.

If Athanasius would have not used an extrabiblical term like homoousia we may all be Arians today. Let us not forget that the Scriptures were meant to be read, interpreted, and understood, not just quoted. Extra-biblical language is essential to Christian theology. Without it we are left to a church without teachers and text without power.

The Trinity in the Old Testament: A Christological Hermeneutical Approach?

Yesterday I wrote a response to a Oneness Pentecostal theologian who placed emphasis on the lack of “Father-Son terminology” in the OT (see here). After I posted my thoughts I begin to ponder the hermeneutical approach to the OT exemplified both by the NT authors as well as the early church fathers. Here are some of the ideas that crossed my mind that I would like to place here in order to hear responses from others:

(1) The ‘Son of God’ terminology in the OT referred primarily to a human. It was usually used of the Davidic king, but it could also be used of Israel in general. Yet Christianity, especially Johannine Christianity, placed special emphasis on ‘Son of God’ as a category of deity rather than mere humanity. Did the NT authors and the early church fathers abuse the original terminology to prove their a priori conclusions or did they recognize the sensus plenior of this statement thereby recognizing that the true ‘Son of God’ must be deity?

(2) If we allow for the NT authors and the church fathers to read back into the OT using a Christocentric hermeneutic why can we not allow for this same approach when we reinterpret the OT in regards to the Trinity? For instance, in the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Colossians it is obvious that there is a sense in which Genesis 1:1-3 has been reread through Christology. In John 1:1-3 the “Word” which was with God as well as being God is clearly derived from Genesis 1:3 where God speaks creation into existence. Furthermore, in Colossians 1:16-17 we see the transference of the wisdom of God–which Jewish literature depicts as God’s creative agent–to Christ. If Christ is the agent of creation he is understood to be the Word/Wisdom of God that was from the beginning.

(3) Equally, the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:1-28 us depicted as the agent of new creation. The Holy Spirit is redeeming the “sons of God”. In vv. 19-25 it becomes obvious that part of the Holy Spirit’s creative activity is new creation, or recreating. The whole cosmos groan and patiently wait for the children of God to be redeemed. Inherent in this text is the idea of resurrection. Christ is the “firstborn” from the dead; those who rise again to glorification are his siblings. The whole creation awaits this latter half because at that time it will be released from its own current bondage (hence, newly created itself).

It appears pretty obvious to me that the Apostle Paul understands the Holy Spirit as having a role in recreation. It is likely that the Holy Spirit as creator derives from Genesis 1:2 (at least). There the Spirit hovers over the face of the waters.

(4) If we maintain the hermeneutical approach of Oneness Pentecostalism regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, thereby closing off the OT to any discussion regarding the Triune nature of God, we cut off a hermeneutical approach shared by the NT authors as well as the early church fathers. If these people could see God as Creator, Word, and Spirit in Genesis 1:1-3 and then apply these attributes to the personified expressions Father, Son/Word, and Holy Spirit, why can’t we do the same?

(5) Although it is true that the NT writers never used the word “Trinity” it is not true that the concept was not there. It is admitted by Oneness Pentecostals that there is some “personal” distinction between the Father and Son. The Father is understood to be God-transcendent; the Son as God-incarnate. But the Spirit is equally personified by Paul in Romans 8:26-28. The Spirit intercedes for us. Oneness theologians often used the incarnation to explain the prayers of Jesus (which is partially true since prayer was needed because of his incarnate state), thereby making the body/flesh pray to the transcendent Deity (often falling into Nestorianism). But what do we do of the Spirit’s intercession on behalf of Christians to the Father because the Spirit knows the will of the Father?

Usually Oneness theologians do a bit of exegetical gymnastics here. I have heard “The Spirit knows the will of the Father because the Spirit is the Father”. Ok, why didn’t Paul just say that? It would have cleared up a lot of confusion!

(5) Finally, I want to throw this out there although it is somewhat unrelated. Why do Oneness Pentecostals argue that the Trinity is an “extra-biblical development” (as if all theology isn’t?) yet affirm the Protestant canon? Let us be clear about this: the canon is equally a later development as the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals rightly affirm that the Scriptures that became canon where already canonical but had to be recognized. Yes, and I say the Trinity was proto-orthodox, it just had to be clarified.

Anyways, those are my five thesis. I am not Martin Luther. But I hope for some feedback if anyone has any thoughts on these matters.