Reformation Blogging

I want to encourage everyone to take note of the new blog that I've posted a link to. Reformation Theology is a blog featuring contributions from pastors of varying Reformed traditions, including Presbyterian, Baptist, and Charismatic. It looks to be a very interesting blog and I would particularly like to point out John Samson's posts. He is the pastor of a Reformed Charismatic church in Phoenix seeking to promote what he calls an "impassioned orthodoxy" in teaching and worship.

Reforming Epistemology

This is a paper that I wrote on Alvin Plantinga's article, On Taking Belief in God as Basic. It is somewhat in the vein of my last post in that it shows the criticisms that some Christian thinkers have of modernity. While it is not explicitly postmodern, this type of argument can lend itself to postmodern thought.

The question of God’s existence is one that must be asked by every serious thinker. Throughout the history of the debate there have always been those coming down on either side who could present clear, reasoned arguments for their positions. Certainly, wherever and whenever the statement has been made that God does exist, there have always been those who are willing to dissent. Despite these dissenters, it would appear that an affirmation of the existence of God has been the majority report in most periods of history. It could even be said of certain eras, such as the Middle Ages, that belief in God was all but universal (at least among Western thinkers). However, in his article, On Taking Belief in God as Basic, Alvin Plantinga points out that there are a significant number of modern philosophers who not only deny God’s existence but state that a disbelief in God must be assumed from the outset if one is to be intellectually responsible. The basic premise that this belief is based on is the claim that there is insufficient evidence to believe in God. Plantinga, in the tradition of the Protestant Reformers, wants to show that not only is belief in God plausible and intellectually responsible, but that it can also be considered a basic belief, or a belief upon which all of an individual’s other beliefs are based.

Plantinga begins the essay by noting what he refers to as the “evidentialist objection to theistic belief.” This view supported by thinkers such as W.K. Clifford, Bertrand Russell, and Antony Flew, among others, states that there is “insufficient evidence” for belief in God. This view does not necessarily claim that God does not exist or that he could not exist, but simply that there is not enough evidence to determine whether or not he does exist. While this view does not necessitate God’s nonexistence, it does make the claim that belief in God cannot be held responsibly. For an evidentialist, any belief that is held must be backed by sufficient evidence of its truth value. An individual’s beliefs affect not only himself but others as well. If he holds beliefs on insufficient evidence and someone is harmed by this belief or a repercussion of the belief, then the individual is morally responsible for holding a belief that they did not have sufficient evidence for. In light of these responsibilities to hold proper beliefs, it looks as though belief in God cannot responsibly be retained because there is a lack of evidence to make this belief irrefutable.

While Plantinga affirms that some type of responsibility regarding our beliefs must be accepted, he questions the strict sense in which an evidentialist would define these responsibilities. He offers three alternative ways in which intellectual obligations could be understood. First, they could be understood in a utilitarian sense, requiring that all intellectual endeavors make an attempt to provide for the good of as many people as possible. Secondly, intellectual obligations could be viewed aretetically, attempting to encourage “intellectual virtues” in oneself and in others. Finally, they could be construed deontologically. Plantinga describes this view as a “pure ethics of obligation.” This understanding would be representative of the evidentialist, requiring that a belief be held only if it can be shown to be true beyond any doubt. So, as Plantinga attempts to show here, while there certainly are intellectual responsibilities that must be fulfilled in forming beliefs, the evidentialist criterion that would seem to rule out belief in God appears to be only one way of understanding what these responsibilities entail.

As Plantinga goes on to explain, the evidentialist objection corresponds with classical foundationalism. Classical foundationalism would say that all beliefs are based on more basic beliefs. To build a responsible system of beliefs, one must base every belief upon a rightly held foundational belief. Plantinga expresses what he sees as the main tenet of classical foundationalism: p is properly basic for S if and only if p is self-evident, incorrigible, or evident to the senses for S. Plantinga’s objection to such a tenet is its inability to support itself by its own claim. It would seem that even this basic claim must have an even more foundational claim that it is founded on. This is a “self-referentially inconsistent” claim. The fact that the evidentialist claim is rooted in this foundational understanding of knowledge makes it untenable.

For Plantinga, the view of the Protestant Reformers, that belief in God needs no proof, is a position that, despite the objections of the evidentialist, is intellectually responsible. This position does not claim to prove the existence of God, just as the evidentialist position was not attempting to completely disprove God. Instead, the Reformed position attempts to show that belief in God is a properly basic belief. Plantinga notes that there are some who would assert that having no evidence for the existence of God would make the belief in God “groundless, or
gratuitous, or arbitrary.” To refute this claim, he looks at how we come to some other types of beliefs. In doing this, Plantinga lists the statements, I see a tree, I had breakfast this morning, that person is angry. These statements, regarding perceptions, memories, and ascribing mental states to another person, cannot be said to be founded upon irrefutable evidence. However, despite a lack of proper evidence for any of these statements, it can still reasonably be believed that the person has actually seen a tree, actually eaten breakfast earlier in the morning, or that the person they are observing is actually angry. In this respect, these statements can be considered basic beliefs. It is not he fact that the tree is there, or that breakfast was eaten, or that the person is actually angry that is basic, but rather the perceptions that reliably lead to these conclusion that are basic.

Similarly, some people can be said to perceive things about God. This would include impressions such as, God is speaking to me, God has created all this, God disapproves of me, God forgives me, God is to be thanked and praised. Plantinga would argue that these propositions could also be considered basic propositions. These are thoughts or feelings that many people have. As such, they can be seen to be just as basic as the other beliefs that have been listed regarding experience, perception, or memory. Since it has been shown that the task of classical foundationalism to find the most basic of beliefs seems impossible, Plantinga is attempting to show that there are some beliefs we must simply accept as basic. Insofar as these beliefs about God can be taken as basic, belief in the existence of God can responsibly follow from them.

To some it may seem that Plantinga’s argument is simply an elaborate attempt to deny the seemingly obvious fact that there is not sufficient evidence to prove that God exists and that the position that he does exist cannot be responsibly held. However, as obvious as this objection might appear, to raise it is to misunderstand Plantingas’s goal. His purpose is not to show that sufficient evidence actually does exist to prove God’s existence. On the contrary, he takes as an assumption that no such proof is available or even possible. His claim is that the existence of God can be legitimately taken as a basic belief upon which to build other beliefs apart from hard evidence that he actually exists. In this attempt, it would appear that Plantinga is quite successful. By demonstrating several ways in which intellectual responsibilities can be understood, he dispels the idea that belief in God must be dismissed because conclusive evidence for his existence cannot be demonstrated. Similarly, his critique of foundationalism shows that many of a person’s basic beliefs are not founded upon more basic irrefutable beliefs. By demonstrating how many basic beliefs are considered reliable simply by way of an impression or perception of them, he makes room for considering a person’s perceptions and impressions about God as basic beliefs as well. While this argument does not necessarily serve to convince an atheist that belief in God should be taken as a basic belief, it does demonstrate how belief in God could responsibly be taken as a basic belief. In accomplishing this, Plantinga defends the intellectual integrity of traditional theistic belief and legitimizes the Reformed understanding of basing all knowledge upon the existence of God.

The Holy Spirit and Postmodernity

I have become increasingly frustrated by Christian brothers and sisters who speak of postmodernity as though it were the all-encompassing evil of our society. It would seem from the way that some people talk that postmodernity can simply be summed up by offering some rhetoric about the lose of absolute truth, the rise of religious pluralism, and downfall of all certainty in knowledge. These certainly are serious charges if they are true and not to be taken lightly. However, I would contest that this trite condemnation (which, at least in my experience, really does seem to be the extent of what many people have to say on the subject) is far from representative of even a basic survey of the subject. While I would acknowledge that the charges stated previously do in fact seem to have very legitimate grounds in postmodern thought, I would also claim that there is much more to be considered in a discussion of the topic. Furthermore, I would contest that the perspective from which postmodern thought addresses issues such as absolutes and plurality is one that is altogether wrong, evil, or even unneeded by the Church today. In fact, there seems to be strong sense in which a better understanding of postmodernity will give a better understanding of a particularly vital aspect of the life of the Church: the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

The term "postmodern" is one that is bantered about quite frequently, but often with seemingly little comprehension of what the term precisely means. While this may be a frustrating tendency, it also seems to speak of the truly ambiguous nature of postmodern thought. It is not something that can be easily defined and, I would argue, not something that should be fundamentally rejected and spoken of as though it were a thought system specifically designed to undermine the foundation of Christian thought. Dr. John R. Franke of Biblical Theological Seminary offers something helpful comments in his article, Reforming Theology:Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics:

"...the wholesale identification of postmodern thought as nothing other than a radical brand of relativism is simply too narrow to do justice to the actual breadth of the phenomenon and fails to account for the many postmodern thinkers who distance themselves from the more radical implications of poststructural and deconstructive thought."

Franke goes on to list many different current Christian thinkers in a variety of fields of study that employ curtain aspects of postmodern thought in their work. Included in this list are such Reformed thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga and William Alston, whose work in the area of Reformed epistemology is deeply critical of modern evidentialism and opens the door to at least some aspects of what would commonly be thought of as postmodern thought.

Upon examination of the term, it is obvious that postmodern thought would be that which follows modernity, or the Enlightenment of the 18th century. Included in modern thought is the Cartesian project to find a fundamental certain knowledge upon which to base all other knowledge. It is this project upon which our societies current glorification of empirical, scientific certainty is based. This is also where much naturalistic, evolutionary thinking finds its roots. It is difficult to see how this type of worldview is able to produce doubt about much knowledge that is fundamental to Christian belief. And even an outright rejection of any knowledge not derived from naturalistic means. This would threaten the idea of revelation or any other supernatural act of God. So, it would appear that this attempt at absolute certainty in all knowledge can make it difficult to retain many of the beliefs we would hold to be fundamentally Christian. Yet, in spite of these obstacles to faith it appears, to me at least, that his is a view taken for granted by most (or at least many) Christians.

As mentioned earlier, postmodern thought by definition follows after modern thought and makes an attempt at correcting it. Postmodernism, as presented by some of its major thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Jean-Francois Lyotard, attempts to show the impossibility of the kind of certainty sought by the Cartesian project. It emphasizes the subjectivity of experience and the relative nature of truth as opposed to the objectivity and absolutism sought for during the Enlightenment.

While this is surely an inadequate definition, there is a sense in which a fuller explanation would not be of much use. As a reaction to modernism, postmodernism doesn't lend itself to absolute definitions and inflexible tenets. However, identifying postmodernism as a movement that entirely rejects absolutes and succumbs to complete plurality of truth is not a fair charge to make. While more radical versions may fall not this trap, most serious postmodern thinkers will not reject the absolute truth (realizing that "there is no absolute truth" is clearly a self-refuting statement) but instead focus on the subjective and experiential aspects of truth.

Now, with the preceding discussions in mind there are two traps that could easily be fallen into. First, we could totally reject all forms of thought connected with modern or Enlightenment thought for fear of the naturalistic tendencies that it can manifest. Second, we could write off all postmodern thought because some of it has produced views that reject absolute truth. Either one of these would be a terrible mistake to make. I believe that both thought systems have influenced the Church in strong (though not always easily identifiable) ways. However, while the aspects objective and absolute beliefs as articulated by modernity seem to be embraced with little or no discretion, postmodern tendencies to express subjectivity and unknowability (at least when expressed in the term postmodern) are rejected categorically. Not only is this a mistake, but it is one that I believe will rob the Church of a fuller understanding of an extremely important and often neglected aspect of its life and practice; specifically, the activity of the Holy Spirit.

An objective understanding of doctrine, such as regeneration, propitiation, and above all justification, is not only necessary, it is the foundation of the Church. Without a sure and absolute understanding of man's sinful condition, God's holiness, and Christ's work of reconciliation, the Church would have nothing of substance to offer. However, we must also recognize that we will never be able to absolutize all of the character and work of God in this way. Specifically, there is a strong element of the work of the Holy Spirit that must be a subjective, unexplainable experience. In a spiritual climate where all aspects of the Christian life are often expressed in subjective, experiential terms (despite a seemingly contradictory desire to hang on to thoroughly modern mindset in many other ways) this can be a dangerous proposition. But, if we are to maintain a proper element of the unexplainable and unexpected outpouring of the Holy Spirit, it is a necessary danger. A charismatic understanding of the gifts of prophecy and tongues is not something that can be systematized. Likewise, various outpourings of the Spirit in times of revival, such as the Great Awakening, are aspects of the faith that cannot and should not be denied even if they are not easily categorized. No doubt this is one reason why discussions on the work of the Spirit are so often limited to His role as the seal of salvation and the agent of sanctification. While these are central roles, there certainly seems to be room for a more comprehensive understanding of the Spirit's work if New Testament language on the subject is to be taken seriously.

No doubt, God is absolute truth and there are many things that may be said about Him absolutely. However, given our finite understanding of such an infinite God, surely we can recognize that there will always be an element of His activity, particularly His activity in the person of the Holy Spirit, that will always remain relative to our understanding. As the Spirit manifests himself in a plurality of new and totally unexpected ways, we must remain humble in our understanding of how He will go about His work. We can be assured that He will always work within the framework of clear, Biblical absolutes, but we must also recognize that Scripture allows Him more freedom tha nwe might often wish to. As we seek to more faithfully serve God and to better comprehend His ways, we must realize that He will not be encumbered by thought systems, modern, postmodern, or otherwise. However, if our spirit is humble and we allow Him to speak to us through His Scriptures, we will find a new ability to discern the truth. We will be able to benefit from positive and truthful elements of all philosophies without falling into extremes. Christianity is not modern or postmodern. It is not even premodern. The Spirit will not be confined by these labels. And yet, as our vision is set on Christ, He will be faithful to use the thought behind these labels to give us a better understanding of the work of His Spirit.

Emergent Church Analysis

In doing a good amount of reading on the subject of the recent movement among young evanglicals called Emergent, I have found it rather difficult to neatly summarize or categorize this new way of practicing the Christian faith. I realize that the participants of this movement (many of its leaders would prefer that it called a "conversation" although if the explosion of books, churches, and websites with the title "Emergent" is any indication, it has certainly moved past the category of a mere conversation and at least started to become a movement) would be more than happy with my inability to put pigeonhole them with Christian labels or categories. I do, however, believe that it is important for any system of thoughts or beliefs to be able to communicate its basic tenets to those outside of it circles.

Surely, some of this is simply a matter of time, and if the program from PBS' Religion and Ethics Newsweekly to which I am posting a link is any indication, a better understanding is beginning to be grasped. This is probably the clearest summary and some of the best analysis of the Emergent conversation that I have come across. In particular, I found the interviews with Scot McKnight and D.A. Carson to be very enlightening. McKnight does a good job of summarizing the movement and Carson offers some insightful critiques (although if you read some of the other things he has to say about Emergent, he will be found to be much more generous in pointing out the movements strengths).

Cover Story Part 1

Cover Story Part 2