doubt, which is something usually frowned upon within the evangelical community, can actually be a healthy experience for believers. in some cases, as in rachel’s case (and my case and, i imagine, many other people’s cases), doubt can actually save one’s faith. throughout rachel’s journey, which started in an evangelical home and made various stops along the way (such as awana, christian camps, and an evangelical college), she struggled with many doubts. doubt has an odd way of turning into frustration, especially when one is doubting an entity who is not physically present with them. the valuable lesson that she learned along the way was that the problem wasn’t with doubting; rather, the problem was that which was the object of her doubt.

what rachel realized, and what many of us are now realizing, is that there is a healthy aspect to doubt when the object of your doubt is not god, but the doctrines, traditions, teachings, ethics, politics, dress codes, etc. that have been pushed upon us and presented as things that are supported by the almighty himself. when we learn to ask the right questions, doubt can be invaluable to a believer’s experience.

rachel goes into these issues more in-depth and more eloquently than i can. she presents her thoughts through a wide variety of experiences: from her time in india to her experience at an apologetics camp to her conversation with a friend in the military at a coffee shop. i don’t want to summarize or quote large parts of her book because i think everyone should read her book. for those in our generation, you will definitely see yourself in many of rachel’s questions and struggles as she begins to think through some of the “baggage” that has attached itself to evangelical christianity. if you are of an older generation, it is worth reading to get an insight into how many of us think. what you will find is that behind our questions isn’t rebellion, “post-modernism,” or liberalism; rather, behind our questions is a sincere desire to know more about our god and how we are meant to live as people who claim the name of christ.

i haven’t read the comments because, much like books published by crossway, i promised myself i wouldn’t waste my time with comment threads anymore. i’m nearly positive, however, that mike will get some push back and people will, quite strangely (if predictably), start a fight about mike not wanting to fight anymore.

i find posts like mike’s encouraging for me. it shows me that there is new, and vocal, generation of people who love jesus, want to serve the church and the world, and who also don’t want to get caught up in these petty fights over issues that people claim lay at the center of our faith.

perhaps it’s a bit reductionistic, but i don’t remember isaiah, jesus, paul, or any of the biblical authors stressing faith in a 144 hour creation.

what i do remember, however, is these biblical authors stressing how to live by faith in god and, by the spirit, living as a new creation.

i’d much rather spend my time worrying, thinking, writing, talking, and doing the latter. i’m glad that people like chaplain mike and rachael held evans (whose book he references and whose book i will be reviewing tomorrow) feel the same way. if i ever meet either of them, drinks are on me.

one of the reasons that this blog has fallen silent over the past few months has been because i have been working 40 hours a week as coordinator of the princeton dead sea scrolls project. but there is another reason:

i’m completely sick of fighting.

i just don’t care anymore.

the culture of conservative evangelicals (and especially of the conservatively reformed) is sickening to me. everything is about a ‘battle for x’ or ‘defending the heart of the gospel’ (which changes as the opponent changes…one day it’s justification and n.t. wright is a heretic, the next day it’s inerrancy and kenton sparks is a heretic). that’s not what i want to do with my time. i didn’t go to seminary so that i could get a ‘heresy hunter’ license and claim my spot among machen’s warrior children. i went to seminary because i want to positively contribute to the way christians think about the bible, about their god, and about how to live their lives in relationship to that god.

conservatives don’t seem to get this. they will give lip service to the idea, but their actions say something completely different: they need to fight. it’s in their dna. they were born and bred to fight. luther, calvin, hodge, warfield, machen, etc., etc. when all your heroes are prized not only because of their contribution to christian thinking, but also because of the battles they fought, one cannot help but look for a fight to hopefully recapitulate the great actions (read: battles) of one’s heroes.

the worst part about this (and the part that makes me really sick) is that they attempt to justify their constant fighting by quoting a passage from paul or claiming they are ‘protecting the faith once delivered’ or some other phrase that sounds just as pious as it is ambiguous. the means are always justified so long as the end can be phrased in a pious manner.

you can be an ass to another christian, as long as you are defending the gospel.

that’s not right…yet it happens daily in the conservative evangelical world.

it is not a secret as to why many people in my generation are running away from the evangelical world…but in case it is, let me make it clear:

it’s not the hymns or the suits…

it’s not the theology…

it’s not even the kjv or esv…

IT’S YOU.

it’s your constant fighting. it’s your unloving nature. it’s your desire to always be proven correct. it’s your pride. it’s your snarkiness and shady actions that you attempt to justify.

you are the reason so many of us are leaving your churches.

some of you may be thinking that this can’t possibly be the truth. the real reason is that we are rebellious or postmodern or barthian or emergent or immature or liberal or [insert current evangelical dirty word used to smear others]. that type of prideful van tillianism (i.e., always thinking you know what someone else believes or thinks better than they do…even when they are telling you what they really believe or think) is one of the symptoms of your sickness that has us leaving in droves.

the irony here is depressing: claiming to be defending the gospel from its enemies while becoming a stronger opponent of the gospel than your “enemies” ever were to begin with.

stop it.

please.

i don’t really know where i stand on the issue. it’s a good job nobody asked me to take a stand, so i’m in no hurry to hold a firm conviction on the issue.

some of my first thoughts were that i agree with much of what hendel is saying. i don’t think it’s good for the fitness of critical biblical scholarship for theological convictions to used in arguments, whether that be in sbl sessions, sbl publications, or rbl reviews. there are many contexts in which theological convictions are welcome and encouraged (ets comes to mind), but sbl is not one of those places. perhaps one of my greatest nightmares would be to walk into a debate about the continuity of the sign gifts or a classic calvinist/arminian tussle on the book floor at sbl. i also don’t think that sbl should not be a context for proselytizing, whether the proselytizers are christian, jewish, atheist, buddhist, etc.

with that said, however, i realize that i am taking a chunk out of the branch on which i am standing. as a christian, i cannot simply remove my christian convictions full-stop and then present a paper. i wouldn’t ask an atheist to drop all of their convictions before presenting a paper and i don’t think that should be done. i think the critique of hendel needs to be more nuanced and much more subtle. i don’t think the issue is with faith-based organizations being at sbl or with evangelicals writing book reviews. the issue is their behavior. if a faith-based organization starts handing out copies of ‘more than a carpenter’ to jewish scholars in the midrash section, then that organization needs to be banned from sbl. the society, and its members, should not stand for such nonsense.

in a similar vein, perhaps members should be held to higher standard. i remember one paper in the pentateuch group in a regional sbl where the presenter waxed on for 25 minutes about substitutionary atonement (and not within the ancient near eastern context…he was openly being theological). that person should be banned from presenting papers. that person did not function within the mission statement or goals of the society (and the paper sucked on top of it). perhaps there should be some form of review so that such nonsense does not happen again. maybe those who are presiding in the sessions can report these types of papers to regional directors, chairs of sessions, etc. i agree that something must be done when this type of thing happens.

i’m still thinking through this issue, so any comments are viewpoints that you may have will be welcomed. do you think faith-based “reasoning” should be welcome at sbl? what should sbl do to move forward? or is there even a problem with sbl?

the utter silence coming from westminster philadelphia about this whole situation is telling. like darryl points out in his post, it seems odd that an institution would not highlight (or shout from the mountaintops) the fact that their president was a guest on a popular, nationally televised tv show and that his book was also the number one selling book on amazon.com.

the silence can mean many things, as silence often can, but one has to wonder if the seminary is embarrassed by the appearance of their president on a program hosted by a mormon with far-right political leanings. why else would they not highlight this situation or send out an email alert to students, alumni, and friends of the seminary?

it all seems very odd, yet no one is really talking about this situation openly. is there a gag order in effect?

he brought up the dead sea scrolls and said that not many people know why the dead sea scrolls exist. he then goes onto explain the dead sea scrolls (my own transcript follows):

when constantine decided that he was going to cobble together an army, he did the council of nicaea, right, pat? council of nicaea, and what they did is brought all of the religious figures together, all the christians, and they said, “ok, let’s put together the apostles’ creed, let’s, you know, you guys do it. and so they brought all their religious scripture together, that’s when the bible was first bound and everything else. and then they said, “anybody who disagrees with this is a heretic and off with their head!”

well that’s what the dead sea scrolls are. dead sea scrolls are those scriptures that people had at the time that, they said, “they are destroying all of this truth.” whether it’s truth or not is up to the individual, but that, at that time those people thought that this was something that needed to be preserved. and so they rolled up the scrolls and put them in clay pots and they, they put them in the back of caves. no one could find them. they were hidden scripture because everything was being destroyed that disagreed with the council of nicaea and constantine.

that’s what those things are.

first, i think glenn was meaning to say the nicene creed, not the apostles’ creed. the apostles’ creed, or at least a part of it referred to by a letter from the council of milan to pope siricius in 390 CE, is older than the nicene creed. not only that, but it does not share the same concerns as those addressed in the nicene creed (christology, pneumatology, etc.).

second, beck probably could not be more wrong about what the dead sea scrolls actually are. they are not various scriptures that were rejected by the council of nicaea and then hidden in caves. in fact, part of every book of the hebrew bible, except esther, has been found within the corpus of the dead sea scrolls. rather, the dead sea scrolls are a collection of texts with a jewish origin that were collected (and perhaps even written) by a particular group of jewish people who (may have) lived at the qumran settlement from around 150 BCE to around 67 CE .

third, it was not constantine from whom the scrolls were hidden. rather, it was most likely the roman empire of the mid-first century CE, hundreds of years before constantine, from whom the scrolls were hidden.

fourth, there is absolutely zero evidence that anyone at the council of nicaea was even aware of the texts that were found in and around qumran. for instance, there is no mention of sectarian texts, like peshar habakkuk or 4qmmt, at the council of nicaea. these and other types of texts (apocalypses, psalms, “re-written” bible, etc.) are all part of the qumran library and were not an area of contention at the council of nicaea.

to put it succinctly, glenn beck has no idea what he is talking about. he is simply making up history and pretending that it is the truth. if his recent infatuation with books romanticizing the assumed christianity of george washington wasn’t enough to convince you he was off his rocker, this type of non-sensical (and simply false) history lesson should do the trick.

i’m sure a majority (if not all) of you have probably read some overviews of the ipad, so i don’t want to beat a dead horse. bottom line: it’s beautiful. the display is really sharp, the form feels great in your hands or lap, and the user interface is elegant in its simplicity. everything is very intuitive. i was surprised at how sharp the streaming video from both the abc app and the netflix app were. the quality is much higher than on a computer. the touch screen is very responsive and multitouch seems to be created for a nice larger screen like this.

there is definitely a learning curve when it comes to typing (i’m actually typing this review in the pages app on the ipad right now with little difficulty). after nearly two weeks, i find that i can type quite well, much like the couple of weeks it took me to learn how to type on the iphone. the keyboard, when horizontal, is very close to the size of the keyboards on apple’s notebooks. the biggest difference is the height (my biggest problem is hitting the b or n key instead of the spacebar). I rarely use the keyboard when the ipad is vertical. it does the trick when you are doing a quick search or typing in your itunes password, but beside that it isn’t worth the hassle of trying to type a lot. it’s a weird size: not small enough to use your two thumbs while you hold it, but not large enough to use both hands comfortably. it’s the best use of real estate, but not ideal. the horizontal keyboard, however, makes up for it because i really like typing on it.

the ibooks app is really nice, but i’m not sure, yet, how long i can read on a back-lit screen. i saw my parents and sister with their nooks and immediately thought they were much better for reading. my favorite apps that i downloaded are: pages, espn scorecenter xl, evernote, keynote, netflix, abc video player, npr news, ny times editor’s choice, scrabble, esv hd, and harbor master (free game). i’m really looking forward to some nice new ipad apps in the future.

i would suggest getting a case for the ipad as the back is reported to scratch easily. i have the apple case and love it. i folds over to place the ipad at an angle that is easy to type as well as allowing you to set the ipad horizontally or vertically to watch movies or display your photos.

the mail app is great, as is safari. i would much rather use email and browse the web on the ipad than on my desktop or iphone. google mobile sync works for the ipad, so my email is pushed, my contacts are all in sync with the native contacts app, and all my calendars are in sync with the native calendar app.

a few negatives:

first, the name. ipad. it’s a horrible name. i understand the logic: ipod, iphone, ipad. but still: ipad? a better name would have been itab or islate. oh well.

second, (and this is temporary) google docs does not work yet. i’m sure google with fix that soon since the issue is on their end. i realize it’s not all roses on the google/apple front, but i think google with fix it soon because it will, at the very least, undercut apple’s iwork.

third, it doesn’t do my laundry for me. walking down to the basement is annoying and i fully expected there to “be an app for that.”

those are honestly my only complaints, and they are minuscule compared to the objective awesomeness of this product. some people will get annoyed at the lack of camera or usb ports or sd card slots or whatever. those do not matter to me. the ipad isn’t my computer and it isn’t my phone. i’ve never been in a situation where i need to immediately get a photo from an sd card or have to have a usb port stat! that’s why jesus created computers.

the ipad may not be for everyone, and that’s fine. but it fits brilliantly within my life. we were thinking about getting another macbook because my wife was starting to use mine a lot for work and her laptop is nearly dead. i use my macbook for taking notes, answering or sending emails, and using the internet. with the ipad i can spend $500 less and get everything i need and more (it’s really cool to stream netflix movies on this thing!). if i need to type more for a paper or access apps i need for work projects, i have my desktop for that. pages allows me to transfer my notes to my desktop or files from my desktop to my ipad (the file management could be better, but it works well for me at this point). the ipad just made sense for me and the way i use a computer.

this is just one person’s experience with the ipad. it is not meant to convince anyone to get one or to start an argument with the ihaters. if the ipad makes sense for your digital life, the go for it.  if not, then drop the $500 more and get a macbook or spend less and get a piece of crap netbook. it’s your choice. i will say, however, that you should at least take the time to play around with the ipad. it is a great experience. feel free to still hate it, but don’t knock it till you try it.

Dr. Bruce Waltke from the RTS Orlando campus has resigned from his position as Professor of Old Testament and will no longer be making his annual trek from the West Coast to teach his winter and early spring classes in Orlando.

there are a few reasons why this may be the case. it could be that people simply haven’t read waltke on these issues because he is consistent with what he has written in the past (see below for some quotes from waltke’s work). it could be that people have read waltke on these issues but haven’t really thought through the implications of what they have read. for instance, here are some annotated quotes from waltke’s published work:

in his genesis commentary (2001), waltke points out that moses “clearly did not author the extant text [of genesis] in our hands” (22, clarification mine). unlike many conservatives who either claim mosaic authorship for all of torah (and that moses wrote about his own death prophetically) or for most of torah (and claim, completely unsubstantiated, that joshua wrote the bit about moses’s death), waltke makes room for some substantial redaction of torah (such as anachronisms and additions [28]).

speaking more directly of the first creation narrative, waltke writes the following:

If by the word myth one means a story that explains phenomena and experience, an ideology that explains the cosmos, then the Genesis account of creation is myth. In this sense, myth addresses those metaphysical concerns that cannot be known by scientific discovery (74).

Genesis bears little resemblance to modern conceptions of history. In short, it is not straightforward or positivisitic history (75).

The days of creation may also pose difficulties for a strict historical account. Contemporary scientists almost unanimously discount the possibility of creation in one week, and we cannot summarily discount the evidence of the earth sciences. General revelation in creation, as well as the special revelation of Scripture, is also the voice of God. We life in a “universe,” and all truth speaks with one voice (77).

throughout this section waltke also argues against reading the days of creation chronologically and presents the issues with taking the view of assuming “apparent age” in creation (76). waltke also positively cites karl barth (66, n50), r. mushat frye’s book is god a creationist?: the religious case against creation-science, and multiple primary ancient near eastern sources and secondary works on the ancient near east.

in his an old testament theology (2007), waltke makes some other interesting comments about the creation narratives in genesis (chapter 7, “the gift of the cosmos”):

We are now in a position to compare and contrast the biblical cosmogony with the cosmogonies of the ancient Near East and modern science. We will discover that the form of the biblical account stands closer to the former than to the latter (201).

The best harmonious synthesis of the special revelation of the Bible, of the general revelation of human nature that distinguishes between right and wrong and consciously or unconsciously craves God, and of science is the theory of theistic evolution (202).

waltke goes on to argue that god created all things, god used evolution to produce animals and humankind, god (at some point in the evolutionary process) directly created adam in the image of divine beings, god allowed humankind to follow their nature and sin against god, and that god chose some fallen humans to redeem and sent christ to redeem them (202-03). i’d encourage everyone to read those two pages (starting with “G. Conclusion” on 202). waltke positively cites the work of francis collins (202, n81) and notes that both b.b. warfield and james orr supported the concept of biological evolution (202, n80).

i think the real issue, though, is the culture of fear in evangelicalism. dr. waltke has published his views on evolution as well as made some other moves that the fearful in evangelicalism would frown upon (i.e., positively citing barth, using ancient near eastern texts to interpret the bible, make room for non-mosaic portions of torah, etc.). it’s very odd to me that rts would want the video removed when it simply distills what waltke has already said, publicly (via his published works), in other places.

the updated post says it well:

The fact that Dr. Waltke felt he was unable to leave the video in place, despite the fact that he still agrees with its contents, is an extremely important statement about the culture of fear within evangelicalism in today’s world. Leading evangelicals who support evolution are rightly fearful of personal attacks on the integrity of their faith and character. Even when they believe that scientific data must be taken seriously, and that science has revealed the ways in which God created the world, they are more willing to be associated with those who are clearly wrong about God’s truth as revealed within His World, and who are thereby also wrong about how they understand His Word. How will the Church ever come to discern truth and falsehood if academic discourse is neutered for fears of public perception? This situation, before us, more than any that we are familiar with in the one year history of biologos.org, poignantly demonstrates the importance of the task we all have.

god help us all if this culture of fear continues.

just to be clear, it is not that phillips disagrees with enns, waltke, and longman. the issue for me, and many others, is that phillips fails to actually deal with the issues. i’ve come to find out that this is a major m.o. for the conservatively reformed, especially for those mentioned by phillips involved in the enns situation at wts. instead of actually dealing the the issues at play, this post reverts to a smug arrogance presented through a mocking tone, which allows phillips to maintain his previously held viewpoints, condemn people as heretics, and reassure himself all while never having to remove his head from the sand. it’s brilliant.

i don’t care if people disagree with other’s viewpoints, nor do i care if people disagree with mine. that’s part of life. what i do care about is people ignoring the evidence, being either unwilling or unable to actually discuss the issues at hand, and arrogantly and mockingly dismissing issues that must be dealt with. it’s shoddy intellectual work and it’s cancer for the church and it’s one more reason that so many of us have left the world of the conservatively reformed.

i was interested in this review because i read the book some time ago. i was sent the book to review for this blog. however, after reading it i realized that i honestly had nothing positive to say about the book and decided not to write anything. i was assuming that someone would write a review for rbl that would point out the shortcomings (and there are many) in oswalt’s work.

however, what we have been given is not a book review. instead mariottini has simply given us a summary of the book and some of the contours of oswalt’s arguments. we have essentially been given a cliff’s notes version of the book packaged under the identity of a review.

that’s not scholarship; that’s distillation.

alan lenzi makes some good points about this review with which i agree. i do not think that sbl or rbl are places for theology. they are forums for biblical studies. when one’s faith commitments begin to color one’s argument, one is free to go to aar, ets, or some other organization in which such a coloring is accepted. i don’t think that sbl is, nor should be, the accepted forum for that type of work.

i am not against books like oswalt’s being reviewed in rbl. what i am against are summaries of books being presented as reviews. i’m also against scholars of any faith pushing their faith commitments onto the rest of the academy as part of their historical and critical work. there is a place for faith commitments to guide our interpretation. those places are the church or the synagogue. not rbl or sbl. they are not theological societies. they promote the critical study of the bible within it’s historical context. reviews, papers, and publications should reflect this.

one final thing before i end this rant. on lenzi’s page mariottini attempted to defend the conclusion of his “review” and stated that lenzi’s reaction “proves the point [mariottini] made in [his] conclusion.” his point was that those who believe the bible is a product of divine revelation will accept oswalt’s argument. those who don’t take this view will not accept oswalt’s argument.

i can safely say that i believe the bible is a product of divine revelation and that i do not accept oswalt’s arguments. they are weak arguments, as mariottini himself notes in the comment on lenzi’s page (why he skipped over this in his “review” remains a mystery). reviews, at least good reviews that are actually reviews, should deal with both the good and the bad of the book, not simply summarize the material and end with a benediction.

hobbins has long been an advocate for the term inerrancy. unlike many, he is willing to take the time and actually engage with the issues that many, such as myself, have with the term. for that reason, i listen when hobbins talks and always take what he says seriously.

to be honest, the real reason that the term inerrancy doesn’t sit well with me is because of the way i saw that word in action at wts. not only was the term and all its meaning shaped into a sledge hammer and wielded over the head of peter enns, but it represented a radically right wing understanding of inerrancy. inerrancy, for that group, meant the bible did not make scientific mistakes, that isaiah wrote the entire book of isaiah, that the pastorals were undoubtedly pauline, that extra-biblical literature couldn’t determine meaning because of the “primarily divine” text, etc. inerrancy became a synonym for “stop thinking” because of how it was presented to me at wts.

i say that because i have heard extremely balanced versions of inerrancy here at princeton and from people i respect, such as hobbins. the issue for me isn’t necessarily what hobbins or others take inerrancy to mean, it’s my history with the term. in my mind, if i embrace the term, i’m embracing all the nonsense that went on at wts. i’m not sure i’m to the point where i can do that (my therapist tells me i should be over the wts episode in 5-10 years…i’m pushing for 3).

i realize that this isn’t necessarily fair because i’m letting my experience get in the way of listening to the arguments that people are presenting. but i never claimed to be objective and i find it better to be honest about why i am not comfortable with the term so that people can at least attempt to understand my knee-jerk reaction against it.

at the end of the day, i find many other terms less confusing and less prone to intellectual abuse than inerrancy. terms such as perfect, infallible, and authoritative are preferred vocabulary for me. i find they express some of the better parts of inerrancy while functioning much better to describe the phenomena of scripture.

but don’t let my biases get in your way. definitely read hobbins’s post and listen to what he says. he’s smarter than me anyway.

the good news is that i will have more time to blog (well, that can be good news if you like reading this blog or bad news if you hate it). i was recently hired by the princeton theological seminary dead sea scrolls project to work on their critical edition of the dead sea scrolls. it’s a really exciting opportunity and was one that fell in my lap when the director emailed me out of the blue and asked if i would want to be a part of it. on top of that, i was hired to be a research assistant. i will be splitting my time between editing various volumes (currently working on a volume of articles having to do with the afterlife in second temple judaism) and doing text critical and translation work on the dead sea scrolls. it’s all very exiting.

because of these opportunities i was able to quit my job at starbucks (last night was my final shift!). i enjoyed my time working at starbucks because of the people with whom i worked. it’s nice, however, to move onto a job that contributes towards my future.

so, with less time steaming milk and more time with my nose in a book, i will be able to resume blogging on a regular basis. i have a bunch of book reviews and thoughts that i’ve been saving for the time when i could consistently dedicate effort towards this blog. look for them in the very near future.

from the article:

“It looks like they’re trying to take over the college and imprint the college with their own kind of narrow Christianity,” Crenshaw said. “That does not bode well for Erskine to continue as a liberal arts center.

you can read the entire article here.

i’m especially excited for two courses this semester being taught by two world class scholars. the first is a ph.d. course, which i’m taking for m.div. credit, entitled ‘early jewish apocalyptic texts’ being taught by loren stuckenbruck. i took a course on evil and the new testament taught by dr. stuckenbruck last semester and am really looking forward to learning more from him. from the required reading list, it looks like we will be focusing on 1 enoch and 4 ezra (both hermeneia commentaries on these books are required reading for the course). the second course i’m looking forward to is ‘the doctrine of election’ taught by bruce mccormack. i’m not usually excited about systematics courses, but i’m really excited to take a course with dr. mccormack. the course will focus on the doctrine of election in augustine, thomas, zwingli, calvin, and barth.

based on how my schedule looks right now, i’m not sure i will have much time to blog. i’ll try to throw up a post as often as possible, mostly book reviews or thoughts on some of my classes…and probably a few photos of the dog that my wife and i are getting in two weeks. hope everyone has a good semester.

what many of the negative reviews seem to forget is that the ipad is not a tablet computer. it is not meant to replace the mac (as jobs made perfectly clear at the beginning and end of the keynote: it is a third category product). many have compared the tablet to netbooks or macs in terms of specs. that’s fine and well and good, but it misses the point: it is not a netbook; it is not a mac; it is an ipad. some also compare the ipad to the iphone and harp on its inability to take photos. again, it’s not a phone or a camera and is not meant to take the place of those things. it’s meant to compliment both the mac and the iphone…not replace or compete with either.

once we have in mind that the ipad is not meant to compete or replace the iphone or mac, we have a better idea of how it can compliment both. when i think about what a normal day looks like for me, i see the ipad fitting perfectly into my digital life. as a student i spend most of the day in pages taking notes in classes or writing papers, on the internet doing research, or reading .pdf documents of articles or reading books. those are the exact things that the ipad is meant to do (plus more). everywhere i go during the day (campus, coffee shop, apartment) has internet connectivity, so i see great value in having a wi-fi only ipad. if i ever need to look anything up where i don’t have a wi-fi option, i use my iphone (complimenting each other…not in competition with each other). the only program that i use consistently that i would need my mac for would be accordance bible software. that’s what i have a desktop for (and accordance is also working on an iphone app which will work on the ipad). i could go on, but, in my particular case, the ipad is a brilliant product that fits perfectly within my world. at a low price point of $499, it’s incredible (i was thinking it would be $699-$999 for an entry level device).

there are some unknowns that apple didn’t address in the keynote, such as multitasking. that’s not necessarily an issue for me for two reasons: when i’m taking notes in class or writing a paper in the library, i’d rather not have the ability to check my email consistently or browse the web. it’s only a distraction. some people may see it as a deal breaker, but i don’t. the other reason is that i’m sure apple has some new features that they are working on for the next os that will include multitasking. if it is the big issue that many make it out to be, then i’m sure apple will work it into the ipad.

another unknown is file management, especially since there will be syncing between the mac and ipad version of pages, keynote, and numbers. i’m sure apple has thought of this and more information will be coming when the product is ready to ship. it doesn’t surprise me that they didn’t talk about some technical issues (i.e., file management) when introducing the product. the keynote was about showing off the product. file management is what manuals or instructional videos are for…not keynote addresses of the steve jobs variety.

the bottom line, at least for me, is that the ipad is an incredible piece of technology that perfectly compliments the iphone and mac. that was apple’s goal and i think they nailed it. as long as people continue to compare it to the iphone or mac, they will continue to miss the point. of course, these things are inherently relative and some people will continue to hate the ipad, make false comparisons, and insist on not buying one. to each his own. i will continue on my current mission of insisting that the ipad is the only thing i want for my birthday.

Greg Beale is concerned that the foundations of evangelicalism are shifting. He lays much of the blame at the feet of a rising generation of evangelical biblical scholars with degrees from major research universities, who have “assimilated to one degree or another non-evangelical perspectives” (p. 20). A related cause is the creeping influence of postmodernism among evangelicals, where “conviction about anything is out of vogue” (dedication). These two interrelated influences have been contributing to the erosion of the “conviction that all of Scripture is true” (dedication). Beale’s response to this dual threat is a call for evangelicals to return to the “standard evangelical view of biblical inerrancy” (p. 21) expressed in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI), which heretofore represented the “broad consensus among American evangelical scholars about the inerrancy of Scripture” (p. 19). The Erosion of Inerrancy, a republication and/or reworking of a number of previously written essays, is Beale’s defense of his understanding of biblical authority against these eroding influences. Because Beale focuses on me as a leading proponent of these new challenges to biblical authority, and so directs four of the books eight chapters in responding to his understanding of my views, it is apparent that I am not writing as a disinterested party. This fact, however, has not skewed my assessment of the book, and I am thankful to the numerous scholars who have read this review and concurred with that judgment.

To summarize, the introduction lays out the concerns of the book by means of a fictional dialogue between “Progressive Pat” and “Traditional Tom.” Chapters 1-4 are a rehearsal of the exchanges Beale has had with this reviewer. Beale’s reviews/responses are published in full with minor changes to accommodate the change in literary venue. My own responses, however, have been briefly summarized by one of Beale’s doctoral students at Wheaton College in an effort to “achieve the greatest possible objectivity” (p. 57).

In chapter 5, Beale argues that the only viable option open to evangelicals concerning Isaianic authorship is to take at “face value the repeated affirmations of Jesus and the New Testament writers that the prophet Isaiah wrote the entire Old Testament book known as Isaiah” (p. 123). In chapter 6, Beale rehearses some well-traveled territory in OT scholarship, the ideological connection between cosmos and temple. Based on this, Beale argues in chapter 7 that the biblical creation story can be reconciled to modern science, since Genesis 1 is only secondarily about the creation of the physical universe and primarily a reference to the universe’s theological and symbolic significance as a temple.

In appendix 1, Beale revisits a debate with NT scholar Steven Moyise, a “soft-postmodernist,” who errs in suggesting that John in Revelation provides “new understandings” to the OT. In the addendum to this appendix, Beale contends that “conservative systematic and biblical theology and biblical interpretation in the Western world” has much to offer the global church rather than being a western imposition. In Appendix 2, Beale reproduces the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition. Finally, Appendix 3 is a selection of quotes from Barth’s Church Dogmatics that undergirds the faulty view of Scripture espoused by some evangelicals.

It is not possible to do a thorough review of Erosion, but a general assessment presents itself quite easily. The value of Erosion is that Beale is very clear about what he thinks constitutes a proper evangelical view of biblical authority. In fact, he seems to have drawn a line in the sand, and it is good to know what Beale thinks evangelical biblical scholarship should look like.

Apart from the clarity with which Beale stakes out his ground, however, I cannot say that Erosion will be helpful in clarifying the specific issues under consideration. The most serious problem with Erosion, which is the source of every difficulty that burdens the book, is likely from Beale’s point of view the book’s great strength. Beale assumes the very point that many evangelicals call into question, namely, that one particular evangelical understanding of inerrancy, promulgated in CSBI, is the non-negotiable standard by which any differing assessments should be judged. Beale does not countenance the possibility that the current level of unrest among evangelicals, leading to its doctrinal formulations being so widely scrutinized, suggests that perhaps a re-evaluation of these commitments is in order through patient listening and scholarly dialogue.

By assuming the inviolability of his position, Beale’s argument is like that of a defense attorney out to defend his client at any and all costs, rather than a scholar weighing evidence. Such a defense attempts to establish the client’s innocence by casting some shadow of doubt, however minimal, on the prosecution’s case. Hence, Beale is free to employ rhetorical tactics that would normally be dismissed in moderated scholarly exchanges, among which are: argument from authority (e.g., appeals to J. I. Packer or the CSBI settles arguments); guilt by association (e.g., Barth citations); minimizing/ignoring counterevidence (e.g., for multi-authorship of Isaiah); overwhelm the opponent with marginally relevant but impressive data (e.g., pages of post-biblical references to support 8th century authorship of Isaiah; see also pp. 136-42); logical leaps or mere assertions at crucial junctures (pervasive); mischaracterizations and use of polarizing labels (e.g., postmodernism, “soft” postmodernism, Beale’s use of “myth”); obscurantist attention to his opponents’ “ambiguities” or “lack of clarity,” etc. (various places), and so on.

The difficulty with reviewing Erosion is that the types of problems glimpsed above permeate the entire volume, beginning already on the dedication paragraph, and so a thorough recounting of these and other problem would yield a review of unwieldy length. Still, a few further observations can be offered. (I will not revisit here the issues that occupy chapters 1-4, Inspiration and Incarnation. Space is limited, and I do not seem to have been successful in my previous responses to convince Beale that further scholarly dialogue is needed. It would not be fruitful to pursue those matters here again.)

Dialogue. The dialogue between Traditional Tom and Progressive Pat is no doubt intended as a congenial attempt to clarify the issues to be considered in the book. But, rather than clarifying, we see a distracting collection of unexamined notions of truth, history, error, falsity, authority, “natural” ways of understanding, scientific accuracy, straightforward readings, etc., etc. Delineating what these and other terms mean in the context of the present debate is the entire point, and Beale needs to move beyond simple reassertion. To boot, the “progressive” position is weakly articulated and defended, and suggests that Beale does not fully appreciate the position taken by those against whom he is contending (e.g., Pat’s failure to expose Tom’s obscurantist comments about error on p. 14; Pat’s obeisance to postmodernism on p. 15; Pat’s limp response to Tom’s defense of traditional Isaianic authorship at the bottom of p. 16). Even though so much of the book is directed toward my own alleged “postmodern” views (they are actually more “modernist,” “progressive,” or better “synthetic,” although I do not wish to encourage further Beale’s attraction to labeling), I do not feel that my position is fairly represented.

Isaiah. The reason many evangelical scholars ascribe to some developmental model of Isaianic authorship is not because they fail to take Jesus at his word, have bowed the knee to unbelieving scholarship, or have a low Christology. Incredibly, Beale fails to offer more than a passing acknowledgment that there are positive reasons for multi-authorship and postexilic final redaction based on evidence within the book of Isaiah itself. Pages of biblical and extra-biblical citations (pp. 126-36, what Beale calls “evidentiary literature,” p. 126) neither engage nor counter those reasons. I understand that Beale is troubled that an erstwhile Evangelical consensus on Isaiah is “eroding,” but had Beale engaged the various reasons why scholars across the theological spectrum have adopted in some form the non-traditional position, rather than simply reasserting traditional (and often irrelevant) arguments, the present chapter would have been wholly rethought, if not abandoned.

Cosmic Temple. The ideological connection between houses of worship and cosmology is a well-known topic among biblical scholars. Beale enters that discussion in chapter 6. His handling of this issue is not without its shortcomings, but the far greater problem is Beale’s desire to co-opt that discussion to speak to the Bible/science debate in chap. 7, which yields at best an idiosyncratic use of the evidence. Beale insists that cosmic temple imagery in the OT is in no way mythic or guilty of promoting an errant cosmology. Instead the imagery is merely of a theological/symbolic nature that employs phenomenological language. Other reviewers will hopefully address this arbitrary view in more detail, but no one I know of, least of all the scholars Beale cites in support of his cosmic temple theory, would even think to make such a claim. Myth is the conceptual and narrative foundation of ANE cosmic temple imagery. Separating the two is only required in a theological framework where the OT needs to be shielded from its environment.

Barth. Beale concludes with several pages of citations from Barth’s Church Dogmatics. To collect some quotes from this enormously prolific and complex theological thinker and pose this as in any way contributing to an argument, does justice neither to Barth nor to the issues before us. It is rhetorically effective, though, particularly in the closing moments of Beale’s plea for his particular brand of Evangelical orthodoxy. In my opinion, this maneuver is an apt summation of the type of argumentation that pervades the entire volume.

Beale laments that the doctrine of inerrancy is eroding. In my opinion, the reason for this is not the insidious influence of a new breed of evangelical scholars, but the very thinking displayed in this book. If Erosion represents the kind of work necessary to defend the model of inerrancy Beale fancies, the erosion he fears may quickly become a landslide.

Peter Enns
Landsdale, PA

one quote from robertson’s moronic dribble had me thinking. here is the quote:

They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.’ True story. And so the devil said, ‘Ok it’s a deal.’ And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another.

here’s my question: how does robertson know what the devil said in response?

my theory: pat robertson is friends with the devil. there is no other way he could have that type of inside information unless he was good buddies with the prince of the power of the air. even he could appreciate that kind of backwards logic!

on a more serious note, this is absolute and utter nonsense. at a time when thousands of people have recently died and thousands more are left to mourn and question what has happened, this idiot goes on national tv and makes this ridiculous statement. this is the polar opposite of how christians should be responding to this disaster. there is nothing redemptive, nothing gospel-centered, and nothing christ-like about this type of stupidity.

i was particularly struck by this question and answer [question in bold; sailhamer's answer follows]:

Several evangelical scholars have recently called on their colleagues to appropriate the methods of critical interpretation. What do you make of this effort?
I’m saddened by it. Criticism has its place in biblical scholarship, but I cannot envision how or where it would play out in evangelicalism. As evangelicals we have the responsibility of addressing the questions raised by biblical criticism. But I would expect that to happen alongside of and from within our own “non-critical” perspective.

this isn’t necessarily a surprise coming from sailhamer, as anyone familiar with his work can imagine him answering the question in such a way. i’m worried, though, that this type of posture towards critical scholarship will continue, especially considering leaders such as driscoll and piper are endorsing this book. i don’t think that such a posture is helpful for evangelicals. to view “questions” (already there are certain presuppositions at work in labeling them as such) posed by biblical criticism as something that “non-critical” (more presuppositions) christians are to address puts the two in opposition from the start. i think the work of kent sparks, among others, has shown that evangelicals can benefit from an appropriation of some of the fruit of critical biblical scholarship without accepting the conclusions that some may draw (i.e., jesus didn’t rise from the dead).

this whole conversation reminds me of people who were probably scared to death when they heard about penicillin. why in the world would you put something bad in your body to cure yourself? probably not the best analogy, but it’s all i got at the moment.

i think there is a place for a canonical method, like sailhamer’s, but i don’t think it means that we cannot and/or should not be critical in our study of scripture. like it or not, our religion is concerned with history (ever notice that a guy called pontius pilate made it into our creeds?). we cannot, and should not, pretend that it isn’t.

i had a difficult time distilling all my thoughts into 1500 words. we were also given the instruction that we should be writing our essay in such a way that an ‘educated layperson’ would be able to understand it. so without the ability to hide behind multi-syllabic words, i had to press onwards.

i spent the first part of the essay focusing on what we mean when we say ‘bible.’ most of the time we assume the 39-27 reformation split when we think of ‘the bible,’ but it is important to understand the process behind the formation of the canon and the fact that ‘the bible’ has meant different books to different people throughout church history. i then discussed the various greek versions of the hebrew bible as well as some text-critical issues of the nt.

the second part of the essay was focused on the idea of ‘truth.’ i have a hard time attributing this term in a flat way to all of scripture because of how some people (i.e., the educated layperson) may understand the term. when i say that scripture is true i don’t mean that adam and eve existed or that angels had sex with women to spawn a race of giants. i also don’t mean that the gospel narratives are creative fiction with a kernel of truth. so, on the one hand, i don’t want to flatly ascribe the term ‘truth’ to all of scripture because of different ways i know that can be interpreted. on the other hand, i don’t want to abandon the term either. i took a backdoor way of answering this part of the question by proposing the term ‘perfect.’ by ‘perfect’ i mean to say that scripture is perfect for the purpose which god has given it to his people. this allows the interpreter to read scripture in such a way that gen 1-11 can be viewed as mythological appropriation while the resurrection narratives can be read as an account of something that really happened in history while still saying that both are ‘perfect.’ sometimes that ‘perfection’ includes correspondence to history; other times it does not. the latter, however, does not make it any less perfect for the purpose that god has given it to his people.

in the final part of the essay i argued for the historical-critical method. i see the logic (and even the necessity, in some cases) for a theological or literary reading, but i don’t prefer those methods at all. for a confessing community, a theological reading makes sense. for a community focused on the text as a literary artifact, the literary method makes sense. i simply prefer to study scripture historically, in the same way that any historical text is studied. i think methodologies can co-exist (see joel baden’s article on the tower of babel in the latest jbl) and hope that any historical work i do on scripture can benefit from both literary and theological readings.

at the end of the course we need to revise and expand our initial essay to 2000 words. that will give me a little extra space to argue for my particular viewpoint, but it will still be a struggle, especially when the issue is so enormous as the doctrine of scripture.

how would you answer the question?