under the sun: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

i wonder how many blog posts in the world have that title... anyway, some random bits of information for those who are interested.

The Good:

The Husband and saw a documentary on Saturday called Pray the Devil Back to Hell. This film follows a group of Liberian women who; after enduring years of war, rape, bloodshed, and watching their boys turned into criminals; band together to demand peace in their ravaged country. Christian and Muslim women pushed aside their religious differences to fight the evil that surrounded them. as one woman put it - a bullet does not care if you are a Christian or a Muslim.

It is amazing what God can do through a bunch of women who reach the end of their patience. Go see this movie. i remember hearing little to nothing at all about these ladies while the Liberian civil war was going on, so i am glad to see that their faith, hope, and forbearance has been recorded.

The Bad:

I thought i was done with this, but here is yet-another post about Westminster Theological Seminary. in the wake of last year's fiasco, WTS Board and some of the faculty have now drawn up a list of 52 affirmations and 52 denials that each faculty member must subscribe to - in addition to subscribing to the Westminster Confession of Faith (pdf of the list, if the link works).

Now i know that the board and administration has every right to take WTS in whatever direction they deem fit, but i'm still saddened by this. Also, i don't really think they accomplish their stated purpose:

a. They [the affirmations and denials] clarify theological and hermeneutical misunderstandings that have occurred in the recent theological controversies that have impacted the Seminary.
b. They refine core commitments of the Seminary by clarifying foundational theological boundaries established by Scripture and the Standards for the teaching of our faculty and potential faculty hires in these controverted matters.

it seems to me that the affirmations don't clarify much. they are vague when they should be specific, and specific where they should be vague. examples:

We affirm that the truths affirmed in the Standards are true for all times, all places, all languages, and all cultures.

this seems a bit, er, too specific. to take the obvious argument: there were some revisions of the standards, see, after America started to rebel against England, that made it okay for America to do that. so, that part of the Stanards wasn't true for all times, places, etc. also, of course, the part about the Pope being the anti-christ. they got rid of that. but then, perhaps it's the revised Standards that are true for all times, places, etc. in that case, well, let's hope no one accidentally subscribes to the original Standards.

also, this is a bit vague:

We deny that Genesis 1 merely teaches that God made everything.

... glad we cleared that up.

and

We affirm that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were real people who went through the experiences that Genesis describes them as going through. (WCF 1.4; 2.1; 14.2; WLC 160.)

why those three? is Joseph off the hook? Esau? Rachel? etc. etc. This may seem like nit-picking, but it isn't. once they introduce this kind of specificity, they need to take it to its logical end or not be surprised when folks find loopholes in it.

and then there's this:

We affirm doctrinal continuity and harmony between the original historical and
human meaning of an Old Testament text and the meaning a New Testament writer
attributes to that text. (WCF 1.5; 1.9.)
We deny that there is any doctrinal divergence or disparity between the original historical and human meaning of an Old Testament text and its use in the New Testament.

so, Isaiah says a lady is going to give birth to a kid, and that is going to signal the end of the war in which Israel, 2800 years ago, was involved. but Matthew picks this up and makes it about a virgin and Jesus and the beginning of the arrival of the Kingdom of God. and Isaiah (not God, but Isaiah - the guy with the visions) knew this? uh, i'm going to have to disagree with that.

WTS's understanding of the ultimate and final course of this world and of God's people is built on a foundation of Spiritual surprise - the things spelled out in black and white in the Old Testament, things that were fulfilled then and there, will have a different, deeper look and meaning when Christ gets hold of them. Hosea's relationship with Ghomer isn't just about God physically returning rebellious Israel to their land. It's about Him restoring the souls of all His children, through Christ's death and resurrection. Don't tell me Hosea saw that coming. Frankly, we're going to have to take on a gramatical-historical exegesis to swallow this.

other things i find interesting:

We deny that any verse or passage can be given its full and proper interpretation by taking it in isolation from the book to which it belongs, or from the Scripture as a whole.

and

We affirm that when interpreting any passage, the true meaning must be found by comparing the one passage with the rest of Scripture (WCF 1.9.)

and yet, the whole of the women's roles argument hinges on two or three verses taken out of context...

to press on, my favorite contradiction:

We affirm that the Westminster Standards are fallible, that is, that it is possible in principle that they may err, and, further, that they are open to revision. (WCF 31.4)

but

We deny that there are truths found in Scripture but not in the Standards that overthrow or undermine any element in the system of doctrine expounded in the
Standards.

so, the Standards aren't fallible? wait, i think i've got it: it could have grammatical or spelling errors, but by way of doctrine, it's perfect. so no need for a Bible department, fellas. we've got all we need in the WCF.

For more on this, check out the discussion going on at Art Boulet's blog. initial comments are snarky, but press on for good discussion from both sides of the debate.

and finally, The Ugly: