Check out this LAist article about the ever-increasing beauty and awe-inspiring helpfulness of Google Maps…

Modern evangelicals have often formulated their doctrines of Scripture in dialogue with German higher criticism, which called into question the inerrancy of Scripture.

As a result, evangelical views of Scripture are often marked by two sometimes competing desires: on the one hand, maintain plenary verbal inspiration–the notion that the very words themselves are God’s words–and on the other hand, maintain the individuality of the authors.

As a way of doing so, authors will sometimes point to Jesus as a model for Scripture. Just as Jesus had a Divine nature and a human nature, which were not conmingled, confused, or divided, so Scripture has a Divine Author and a Human author. Such a move is often associated with a view of revelation that posits that word must be tied with action for revelation to be effective.

Herman Bavinck (BAH-vink!) appeals rather strongly to this notion.

In view of all this, the theory of organic inspiration alone does justice to Scripture. In the doctrine of Scripture, it is the working out and application of the central fact of revelation: the incarnation of the Word. The Word has become flesh, adn the word has become Scripture; these two facts do not only run parallel but are most intimately connected. Christ became flesh, a servant, without form or comeliness, the most despised of human beings; he descended to the nethermost parts of the earth and became obedient even to the death of the cross. So also the word, the revelation of God, entered the world of creatureliness, the life and history of humanity, in all the human forms of dream and vision, of investigation and reflection, right down into that which is humanely weak and despised and ignnoble.”

At some point, the analogy fails. After all, the human authors of Scripture were not (as far as we know) perfect as Jesus was perfect. It can also lead theologianas to make hyperbolic claims about Scripture (something, I confess, I am prone to doing). Bavinck at points makes it seem as though Scripture is a second incarnation of God, which is putting the analogy too strongly for my blood.

But there is a further (potential) difficulty: at some point, we must appeal to a paradox in the relationship of Jesus’ Divine and Human natures. If we make the same appeal in Scripture, then we run the risk of adding miracle on top of miracle. As I am disposed toward miracles, theologically this isn’t distressing to me, but it does raise the inexorable difficulty of the criterion: how many miracles in the history of salvation is too many?

Despite that, I am inclined to conceive of Scripture in this fashion, if for nothing else than that it grounds the Bible Christologically, as the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ and points back toward Christ. As such, it makes sense that he would act in analogous fashion to Christ.

Via John at Verum Serum, check out this video response by Pastor David Williams to the oh-so-charming “Rational Response” crew. The response was apparently flagged on YouTube for “inappropriate content.” (See the comments at John’s site, where one of the “Rational Responders” claims that the video was flagged for copywrite infringement.Even if that were true, it would be the equivalent of Christians decrying the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” for impinging on our “car logo,” the ubiquitous Jesus Fish. The phenomenon that is FSM is a real point for the philosophical naturalists camp in the publicity war, but it seems some don’t want to let the spoofs go both ways. Regardless, there’s good reason for everyone to be concerned that Pastor Williams’ video was removed.

1.  Make a product that breaks four months later.

2.  Send them a refurbished replacement, despite their pleas to have a brand new model.

3.  Make sure that refurbished replacement doesn’t work.

Bonus:  For extra added fun, make sure it has the same problem that their old one had.  Then they’ll really love you.
At least if they had sent me a new one, I would have had four months worth of printed pages, rather than…..oh wait, I can’t print at all.  I’ll be updating my open letter for sure.

I can not discuss the merits of the film.  To do so would require moving beyond the film’s effect on me, and I am not yet ready to do so.  If I reliquinsh criticism and surrender to mere promotion, then so be it.  I have no shame in praising Amazing Grace.

Wilberforce is a hero of the faith and a great man, and the movie captures his immense struggles with himself and with his mission.  The film depends upon characterization and dialogue, and both are effective.  I would suggest, however, that even if the critic judges them inadequate, the story of William Wilberforce is so powerful that it overwhelms any of the films failures. 

I left the theater contemplative, having watched the last 5 minutes with tears streaming down my face.  Wilberforce’s mission to eradicate slavery is at the center of God’s desire for justice and the well-being of all people, and the film does not blink at Wilberforce’s religious motivations for doing so. 

But even deeper, Wilberforce’s passion and single-minded devotion to his cause left an indelible mark, as did his shrewdness and ability to “play politics” for the cause of righteousness.  “Be wise as serpents,” Jesus admonished us.  Wilberforce and his crew were nothing less.

Amazing Grace is worth the price of admission.  It is a film that will outlive its box-office run and become a staple of family-viewing for years to come.  And we can only hope that through it God will form us into men and women with Wilberforce’s courage and conviction.

As Andrew Selby has already noted, “Amazing Grace” looks to be a pretty good film. But as much as I look forward to seeing the film, it’s been much more entertaining to see how some members of the secular press have been tripping over themselves to find an angle from which to review a story about an Evangelical Christian who achieved one of the greatest social victories of the last 300 years.

A masterful exhibition of this media conundrum is the following New York Times review by Manohla Dargis: “The Imperfect Soul Who Helped Bring an End to the Slave Trade.” Despite Wilberforce’s unmatched commitments to abolition and social justice, Dargis simply can’t bring herself to actually pass positive judgment on the unequivocally evangelical Wilberforce, or the movie that tells his tale.

You can see this tension from the very first paragraph where Dargis writes: “He was an evangelical Christian and social conservative who rallied for animal rights and against trade unions, which makes him a tough nut to crack.”

Translation: “Wilberforce was “Bad Thing A and B”, yet did “Good Thing X and Y”; how can this be?”

(Watch for Dargis to contradict even this mixed compliment later in the article by alleging that Wilberforce, leader of the socially active Clapham Sect, played pawn to business interests by focusing attention on the slave trade and avoiding the cause of the poor.)

My question, though, is this: how has it happened that today, the combining of “committed Evangelical Christian” and “effective Social Activist” creates circuit overload for secular mental categories? Do we blame a prejudiced secular conceptualization of Evangelicals, content with the caricature that Christians must be hypocrites, half-wits, or both? Or do conservative Christians have some role in making it possible for such an assumption to develop?

Herman Bavinck (I have no idea how his last name is pronounced, but what fun it is to emphasize the final syllable!), along with Abraham Kuyper, was one of the most prominent Dutch theologians of the late 19th, early 20th century.  Reading his Reformed Dogmatics is tough slogging, as he interacts with every theological brook and stream.

Of interest to me, however, is that he critiques the historical critics of the late 19th century in the same fashion as Warfield.  I don’t know if Bavinck read Warfield, or vice versa, but the similarity of their position is impressive (on this issue, at least–they differ when it comes to their positive formulations of inspiration).

For inspiration is a fact taught by that very Holy Scripture.  Jesus and the apostles have given us their witness concerning Scripture.  Scripture contains teaching also about itself.  Aside from all the dogmatic or scholastic development of this teaching, the question is simply whether or not Scripture deserves credence at the point of this self-testimony.  There may be disagreement about whether Scripture teaches this divine inspiration of itself; but if it does, then it must also be believeed at this point just as much as in its pronouncements about God, Christ, salvation, etc.  The so-called phenomena of Scripture cannot undo this self-testimony of Scripture and may not be summoned against it as a party in the discussion.  For those who make their doctrine of Scripture dependant upon historical research into its origination and structure have already begun to reject Scripture’s self-testimony and therefore no longer believe that Scripture.  They think it is better to build up the doctrine of Scripture on the foundation of their own research than by believingly deriving it from Scripture itself.  In this way, they substitute their own thoughts for, or elevate them above, those of Scripture.

Bavinck’s point is the same as Warfields:  looking at the characteristics of the Bible (its history, its origin, its cohesiveness, etc.) and basing doctrine on them is a theological party foul.  Theology and Christian doctrine is the explication of the teachings of Scripture, not of the creation and attributes of its foundational text.

This photo by Spencer Platt won the World Press Photo of the Year award.   

Taken in a neighborhood in South Beirut, it is an interesting juxtaposition of the comforts of normal life with the havoc of war.  Notice the girl capturing the scene on her camera phone.  

Other images from the contest are available here. 

I wasn’t sure about whether I could put the image on Mere O, but the Washington Post story had it and the following disclaimer, which includes (I think) Mere O’s use: 

World Press Photo of the year 2006 by American photographer Spencer Platt for Getty images showing young Lebanese driving through a devastated neighborhood of South Beirut, August 15 2006. This material is for single publications in print or for a temporary online publication, and may be used exclusively to publicize the 2007 World Press Photo contest and exhibition. It may not be published as part of an article or any other item that contains no direct link to World Press Photo and its activities without prior permission from the photographer or agency. (AP Photo/Spencer Platt/Getty Images) (Spencer Platt – AP)

Today is Ash Wednesday, and though this is going up late, I think it appropriate.

The Lenten season is one of the most difficult periods of the Christian year. It is a time of reflection and repentance for our sins. It begins with Ash Wednesday, which is above all a startling reminder of our mortality. “Remember, O Man, that Thou are dust, and to dust Thou shalt return.”

I have written recently about the importance of confronting this fact as individuals. But Ash Wednesday reminds us that we must confront our own mortality corporately. It is not enough to be isolated in our acknowledgement of our sin: as a Church, we must confess, repent and return to the Lord.

Evangelicals sometimes struggle to admit “celebrations” such as Lent into their corporate life. After all, it can be depressing to spend a whole service on how sinful we are. But at the same time, if we as Christians are going to have the Word of God be active among us, then we must have the whole Word of God active among us, not just those parts that we are comfortable with. Not only Easter, but Good Friday. Psalm 51 in addition to Psalm 150. Our communal life must be canonical–it must reflect the diverse nature of the Scriptures. The canon includes many diverse elements, and our communities need to incorporate those elements. From difficult intellectual slogging (Romans) to telling our history (1 and 2 Chronicles, etc) to singing in worship (Psalm 150), our experience with each other should reflect the various elements of Scripture.

And as we are reminded on Ash Wednesday, and for all of Lent, that includes mourning.

The celebration of Lent (or some equivalent–theoretically, if evangelicals created their own church calendar equivalent, I wouldn’t be opposed to it) is only worthwhile if individuals enter into communion with their Risen Lord during it. But celebrating it as a community allows us to ensure that the whole counsel of God has room to speak into our communities, as much as our hearts.

For lots more Lenten reading (from lots of people I wasn’t familiar with!), see the brand new “Lenten Blog Carnival” held at the excellent Homemaking through the Church Year.

Update:   From the deep linking pockets of John Schroeder comes this story about clean comedy that mentions the Church of England is trying to make Lent more fun.  Egads!

I haven’t been so excited to see a film in theatres for some time. Walden Media is releasing a film about British abolitionist and statesman William Wilberforce’s life. It is only being releasedin 800 theatres nationwide and its wider distribution largely depends on how it does this weekend. Go to their website, view the trailer, and find out if it is playing near you.

I kept this brief, because Matt has written some great stuff below that you won’t want to miss!

Remember to check out the mini-blog on the sidebar.  I have been updating it at least once a week with interesting articles, etc.  I’d encourage you to check it out.

And now the question:  as readers of Mere Orthodoxy, do you like the mini-blog or not?  Any feedback on what would make it more valuable to you?  And if I put together a survey about different aspects of Mere O to help us know how we are doing and where we could improve, would you take 5 minutes to fill it out?

Phillip Johnson explicates the state of the intelligent design movement in biology on the Discovery Institute website.  It’s worth reading.  From the end:

The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing. This is different from the current restrictive philosophy that rules out of consideration the possibility that a creator may be responsible for our existence, even if the evidence is pointing in that general direction. Whether or not it is successful, the IDM has made a contribution to a better understanding of reality. It tries to raise the fundamental question of creation, by visibly making evolutionary naturalism the subject of critical investigation based on evidence, rather than allowing it to rule by default as the unquestioned philosophical position to which science must by definition adhere. For now the mandarins who speak for science have the support of the courts and the media in their campaign of excluding any challenge to their basic premise from public education and from scientific consideration.

Doctrine, it seems, always moves into clarity under duress.  And just as the Christological heresies of the early Church forced the Church to articulate exactly what it thought abou t the person of Jesus Christ, so German higher criticism confronted Protestant Christianity with challenges to its view of Scripture.

Enter B.B. Warfield, with his magesterial Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.  Warfield’s work is a penetrating criticism of the German higher critics, and any Christian wanting to develop a doctrine of Scripture should wrestle with his approach.

One of Warfield’s main arguments is that the doctrine of Scripture is, in fact, a doctrine.  As such, it is the province of exegesis, rather than historical criticism.  In other words, Warfield plays a territorial game with his opponents, arguing that the project to understand the sources, the history, the authors, etc. of the texts themselves is worthwhile, but not the source of doctrine.  That is for the province of Biblical theology.  “Direct exegesis after all has its rights:  we may seek aid from every quarter in our efforts to perform its processes with precision and obtain its result with purity; but we cannot allow its results to be “modivfied” by extraneous considerations.”

In other words, the question of the doctrine of inspiration is not, “What is true about the Bible?” but, “What does the Bible teach?”  In the order of theologizing and understanding Scripture, it is important to move from the latter to the former, as it raises the burden of proof for those who wish to disprove the Scriptures.  Inconsistencies in the text, or other aspects of what some critics called “the phenomena of Scripture” do not merit readjusting the doctrine of inspiration to include them.  Rather, they should be harmonized, or left unharmonized.  Such errors only count as defeaters for verbal plenary inspiration if “it is not only impossible for us to harmonize them, but also unless they are of such a characgter that they are clearly contradictory.” 

If Warfield is right, the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture is a doctrine for theologians to wrangle over, not apologists.

This is, I think, deeply opposed to how most evangelical Christians think about the Scriptures.  For some reason, until reading Warfield I thought that the reliability, the historical accuracy, etc. could be grounded in the doctrine of inspiration.  But Warfield will have nothing of it:

Inspiration is not the most fundamental of Christian doctrines, nor even the first thing we prove about the Scriptures.  It is the last and crowning fact as to the Scriptures.  These we first prove authentic, historically credible, generally trustworhty, before we prove them inspired.” 

In approaching the Scriptures, it is crucial to understand the “division of labor.”  Historical criticism is for the historians, but doctrinal development is for the theologians.  And while there is clearly overlap in the truth claims, doctrinal claims have precedence.  If Scripture claims to be the Word of God, then it is important to admit it on its own terms, rather than terms of our own choosing.