<Theofragen>

The term, "inerrancy" is no longer helpful--even though some scholars, laypersons and clergy insist that this is the "hill on which to die."

I have a pastor friend who insists that biblical inerrancy is the only "faithful" position to take in regard to the Bible. Not long ago he preached about the mustard seed and I pressed him to clarify Jesus' statement that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds. Scientifically, this is a false statement. Other seeds are known to be anatomically smaller than the mustard seed (actually epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest produce the world's smallest seeds, weighing only 35 millionths of an ounce). I asked my friend to explain this to me and he told me that it is not a false statement because Jesus' audience would not have known about Brazilian orchids. The point of this statement is to use everyday language of the people in order to help them understand the nature of God's rule. I wholeheartedly agree. The point is not biological, but theological.

Follow my logic. If a) Jesus is God and b) God created the world and c) Jesus makes a statement that contradicts the created order, we are left with three options. 1) Concluding that Jesus is not fully God; 2) Concluding that Jesus is one with God and is knowledgeable about creation but was merely confused; or 3) Jesus Christ is more concerned with communicating something profound about God's rule than he is about agricultural veracity.

It seems that we need to abandon the term "inerrancy" for the dogmatism and bifurcation it creates. Essentially, its use forces believers who share a similar view of the inspiration of Scripture into conflict over semantics (case in point). What not call it what it really is... a logical fallacy designed to be a crutch for people who can't fathom mystery. What do you think?

posted by Jake at 11/30/2004 12:55:00 PM

Calvin, the CPE supervisor?

Today in one of my courses, The Theology of John Calvin, we got to see the softer side of Calvin. When he isn't fighting off his opponents he reveals a warm, pastoral side of himself that is truly worthy of emulation. Yet, some of his comments caused me to reflect on aspects of pastoral care. As I prepared for precept, I read Calvin's words to a father whose son has just died. He writes:

The Lord has taken back to Himself the son whom He had given you and as if entrusted into your hands. There is no ground, therefore, for those silly and wicked complaints of foolish people: 'O blind death! O horrid fate! O inflexible disaster, inescapable and intractable! O cruel fortune!' The Lord who had lodged him here for a season, at this stage of his career has called him back.... And therefore He took him away, because it was of advantage both to him to leave this world, and to you by this bereavement to humble you or to give you occasion to practice patience. (296)

This kind of pastoral care seems to reflect exactly what my Chaplaincy supervisor this summer told me to stay away from. Common phrases by well-intentioned people can cause disastrous effects in a pastoral care setting. Chaplains learn never to utter such cliches (i.e. "God needed another angel in heaven," "It's okay, you can have another child," etc.) to the patient who has just suffered a profound loss.

In Calvin's defense, my preceptor offered a helpful challenge to modern notions of pastoral care, that are unapologetically baptized techniques appropriated from secular psychotherapeutic theories. My chaplaincy supervisor at the hospital constantly challenged such unqualified borrowing of secular therapy in pastoral care. Yet, I have a feeling that he too would cringe if one of his students offered the kind of care that Calvin offers this grieving father.

My question is this: where do we draw the line? Is there a way to employ helpful techniques from secular psychology and still maintain distinctively 'Christian' pastoral care? If so, what might it look like in practice?

posted by Jake at 11/22/2004 01:46:00 PM

Jake's Movie Reviews

Abby and I checked out the movie National Treasure on Saturday. For a rainy New Jersey afternoon, I thought it was a pretty good film. It's kind of like Indiana Jones meets the DaVinci Code. It had a descent plot-line, good character development, and an appropriate ending. Nicholas Cage gave a pretty good performance, which was comparable to his work in Matchstick Men and Con Air. Diane Kruger--who played Helen in Troy--offered a nice performance as well. And like every Jerry Bruckheimer film, plenty of things blew up, caught on fire and there was, of course, a high-speed car scene. Jake's movie rating:

posted by Jake at 11/21/2004 08:53:00 PM

Just in time for the holidays...

In case you're still wondering what to get that special someone for the holidays, look no further. For the person who has everything, get them the new, ulitimate 10-disk Matrix collection. This new box-set is due out on December, 7 2004. The new Wachowski brothers release promises over 35 hours of bonus footage. Just imaging, you could skip work for almost an entire week watching nothing but Matrix footage. In case you want to know more about it, you can watch the new trailer here.

Also, I highly recommend purchasing Stephen Faller's book, Beyond the Matrix: Revolutions and Revelations. He treats many of the theological and philosophical issues presented in the Matrix triology wonderfully and his book is worth a read, regardless of your opinion of the Matrix films.

posted by Jake at 11/20/2004 10:29:00 PM

"Yet hope remains..."

Rarely am I pleased with news releases that involve Baptists. For those of you not familiar with the ins and outs of Baptist politics, this is HUGE. Dr. Molly Marshall is truly regarded as a pioneer in Baptist life. Maybe PTS will one day follow suit?

posted by Jake at 11/18/2004 04:42:00 PM

On the Virtues of Blogging

Why blog? One might reasonably respond, "Why not blog?" The answer for me has heretofore rested in my addictive personality, which I was afraid to let lose with such an undertaking. However, recent events in my life have prompted me to enter into intentional community with my brothers and sisters who are reflecting in the anonymity of cyberspace.

I tend to keep my thoughts to myself. Even in my seminary precepts I tend to only contribute to conversations when I feel as if I have something that needs to be said. Consequently, my academic and ministerial colleagues present their fragrant intellectual offerings (or not so fragrant/intellectual) to the God's of the academy, while I gather their insights like a squirrel gathers her acorns and retreat to the inner solace of my own mind.

Why blog? I have reached a point in my life in which I need to share my own ideas. When one engages in conversation with one's self, it is difficult to have true dialogue--short of a split-personality disorder. If you are reading these musings I encourage, nay implore, you to challenge my ideas. Many of my rantings/reflections/theologizing will be crap. However, perhaps with the collective scrutiny of my colleagues, I may transform my picayune musings into insightful ruminations on what it means to be a Christian in a post-colonial, post-Christendom, post-holocaust world. To that end, I thank you.

The Heresy of Inerrancy (Part 1)

Calvin, the CPE supervisor?

Jake's Movie Reviews

Just in time for the holidays...

"Yet hope remains..."

On the Virtues of Blogging