Beale on Broader Evangelicalism
” …let’s just zero in on the most significant problem with Dr. Beale’s taxonomy—that there are only two groups in our day, Fundamentalism and Broad Evangelicalism” - Doran
- 108 views
Andy: The problem is that he is using Redaction Criticism to get his results. Other methods exist for getting the same results. His observations on particular gospel texts are not that hard to figure out. You don’t need RC to do that. His use of RC is a big change at BJU. People wanted an example of change. Well, that’s an example of change. Stewart Custer, when Chairman of the Bible Department, would never have allowed that. But BJU allows it. That’s a big change.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[WallyMorris]To say that BJU is using Redaction Criticism, unqualified, is to accuse them of liberal unbelief in undermining the integrity and inspiration of the Scriptures. It’s a very serious charge. If you are going to charge the school with Redaction Criticism, you ought to be able to explain exactly what they are doing that justifies such an allegation. So, when I asked what Stiekes is doing wrong, you say Redaction Criticism, but I want an example of what he is doing that Dr. Custer would not allow. Right now you are just name calling. I want more than a name, I want to know where his theological methodology is wrong. You say other methods exist for getting the same results. What are those methods and how are they different from Redaction Criticism?Andy: The problem is that he is using Redaction Criticism to get his results. Other methods exist for getting the same results. His observations on particular gospel texts are not that hard to figure out. You don’t need RC to do that. His use of RC is a big change at BJU. People wanted an example of change. Well, that’s an example of change. Stewart Custer, when Chairman of the Bible Department, would never have allowed that. Bow BJU allows it. That’s a big change.
Another false dichotomy: ” 4… . (Strange, I thought Christ was what brought unity to a Christian school).”
Can’t we agree that the same group of people can unite around more than one dimension and that some of those dimensions have a higher priority than others? Praise God, my nuclear family is united in redemption in Christ. We are also united in the human family that we share. We are also united in the fact that we call the same dwelling home. We are also united in the fact that we all speak the same language. We are also united in our strong preference for Chick-fil-A.
Has something like “I believe that being a Bruin is what makes us one” been added to the BJU creed? (No, it has not.)
The parenthetical comment in #4 is unfair in my humble estimation.
[G. N. Barkman]No, I would not consider BJU to be sinning if they separated from Samaritan’s Purse. I, personally, have chosen not to support Samaritan’s Purse, even though a former member of our church worked as a personal assistant to Franklin Graham for several years. There are several things about SP with which I am not enthusiastic. However, neither will I condemn those who choose to support them. I think this is one of those areas where brotherly love demonstrates patience and kindness. I will say that I am impressed with Franklin Graham’s strong denunciation of any number of social and religious issues. He is clearly much stronger than his father. He is willing to say things that are hugely unpopular at the risk of losing support. This, I applaud, and would think that other Bible believers should do the same.
I can appreciate what you are saying and the importance of extending kindness and patience when considering these things. I do however believe some ministries are off enough that no one should partner with them. BGEA is one of those. But, if history tells us anything, people draw that line differently and many don’t draw it at all.
[JohnS]Has something like “I believe that being a Bruin is what makes us one” been added to the BJU creed? (No, it has not.)
Well, they did replace the lamp with the dancing bear in the University Crest, so there is that.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]Well, they did replace the lamp with the dancing bear in the University Crest, so there is that.
Actually, no they did not. The crest has a cross (can we be charitable and assumes it represents the Cross of Jesus Christ?), an open book (can we be charitable and assume it represents the Bible?), a lamp, and a bear that looks awfully aggressive to be “dancing”.
John: My parenthetical comment is entirely fair because defenders of BJU’s involvement in intercollegiate sports have told me that unity is one of the reasons for beginning that type of sports at BJU, and a member of the administration told me that many alumni have expressed the concern that sports seem to be more important than Christ, and that impression is coming from somewhere. Can a school have sports and also emphasize Christ? Of course. But in daily reality among students, what are they really unified by and excited by? The BJU Bookstore is full of Bruins material. Difficult to find a piece of clothing without the Bruins mascot. That is the concern.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Andy: Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully. I have previously stated that Stiekes uses RC with limits and still holds to Biblical inerrancy. I have never accused of theological liberalism or that Stiekes uses RC “unqualified”. I am not “charging the school” with RC; You are reading that into my statements. I am saying that the BJU Seminary now allows one of its professors to promote RC. People asked for an example of change. That is an example of change. As far as methodology, all you need to do is study the text and make comparisons between the gospels. Not hard to do, and you don’t need the philosophy of RC to do that. I was a deacon at Dr. Custer’s church and he was chairman of my ordination committee. He would not allow RC in any form. What Stiekes is doing wrong is using RC in any way. Don’t need it. Unnecessary. Stiekes’ conclusions in his posts are just as easily available from basic study. Not hard to do. You don’t need a “methodology”; Just compare the texts and study. It really is that simple. If you have not already, take the time to do some research on RC and examine carefully, for example, The Jesus Crisis. What Stiekes is doing is unwise, and those allowing him to do it are unwise. Sometimes Biblical scholars like to appear “scholarly” to others, quoting German words in their writings and “breaking new ground” within their particular theological group. Whether that is Stiekes’ motivation, I do not know and will not form an opinion.
Christians’ use of RC is somewhat similar to the approach some have toward CCM: If we “clean it up a little bit” and remove its objectionable components, then we can use it.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[JohnS]Actually, no they did not. The crest has a cross (can we be charitable and assumes it represents the Cross of Jesus Christ?), an open book (can we be charitable and assume it represents the Bible?), a lamp, and a bear that looks awfully aggressive to be “dancing”.
Well whatever. The dancing bear replaced something. I forget what it was.
You can call it aggressive if you want, I identify it as dancing.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The bear does look a little odd. :)
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[WallyMorris] Andy: Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully. I have previously stated that Stiekes uses RC with limits and still holds to Biblical inerrancy. I have never accused of theological liberalism or that Stiekes uses RC “unqualified”. I am not “charging the school” with RC; You are reading that into my statements. I am saying that the BJU Seminary now allows one of its professors to promote RC.
Yes, you have at times qualified your accusation, but your very first post on the subject did not, nor did your post to Bert on Monday. If people read those, they could get the wrong idea, and so that is why I have been pushing back. BTW, your last two sentences quoted above appear contradictory to me. I don’t know how to resolve those two statements.
As far as methodology, all you need to do is study the text and make comparisons between the gospels. Not hard to do, and you don’t need the philosophy of RC to do that… Stiekes’ conclusions in his posts are just as easily available from basic study. Not hard to do. You don’t need a “methodology”; Just compare the texts and study. It really is that simple.
Exactly right and exactly what Stiekes is doing. He is not starting from the unbelieving presuppositional philosophy of liberal RC. He is starting from a position of verbal plenary inerrant inspiration, and he is studying the text to identify the unique theological message that each gospel writer brings to the forefront. It is important good work and nothing different from what Dr. Custer did in the Apr 1994 issue of Biblical Viewpoint when he identified things that were unique to Luke (“Luke alone records many of the most important doctrinal instructions concerning salvation.” p 59; “King. Luke uses this title in two parallel passages where Mark does not have it.” p 56; to quote just two examples).
When I asked for a specific methodological example of what Stiekes is doing wrong, all you can come up with is, “What Stiekes is doing wrong is using RC in any way.” All Stiekes is doing is the same sort of thing Custer did. God gave us four gospels, not one. Too often when these Biblical books are taught, they get flattened into a single harmony of the gospels. But God inspired four views of the life and work of Christ, with four unique perspectives, with different theological goals. It’s important to discover and show that. I’m glad and encouraged by what Stiekes is doing!
The “sin” of Stiekes, if there is one, is that he is saying that when believers do that, i.e., look for the theological motivation behind the authors choices in what they present and say, they are doing Redaction Criticism but starting from a presupposition of a high view of scripture. Should he have said that, maybe not. He got push back form Layton Talbert about using this terminology. It has opened the door to this very criticism that we are discussing, but it is not really a change at all, or something to accuse BJU about.
So, to recap, BJU is on the Stone Mountain slippery slope to compromise and downgrade because of the following:
- BJU has partnered with Samaritan’s Purse in an effort to feed children, rescue children in crisis, and care for orphans. Instead of partnering with an evangelical Christian organization, BJU should have partnered with a similar separatist Fundamentalist charity (which doesn’t exist) or a non-religious charity. But then, maybe not, because after all that just promotes the social gospel. Plus, helping needy children has deleterious economic impacts. On second thought, it’s probably best that BJU not encourage its students to visit orphans and widows in their distress in order to keep itself unstained by the world … and by the world, we mean “the inclusive, Broad Evangelicalism.”
- BJU started intercollegiate sports, which supplanted the university’s unity and excitement in Christ with unity and excitement in sports. Not to mention, school leadership introduced intercollegiate sports surreptitiously, which fits the pattern of an administration bent on malevolent change.
- BJU has a Bible professor who promotes redaction criticism. We don’t know how, why, and to what extent he actually references redaction criticism, but that doesn’t matter. We are convinced he is promoting it. Just like with CCM, a little leaven leavens the whole lump. Next stop for BJU: inviting Bart Ehrman to become a visiting professor.
- BJU replaced something on their university crest with an odd looking, semi-aggressive dancing bear. Not only that, but this same dancing bear is also all over the merch in the campus bookstore. We’re not sure what this forebodes, but anything associated with dancing can’t be good.
Have I captured everything?
Now, Brothers, I’ve written some of this in jest. But, I’m honestly struggling with what the real, substantive issue is with BJU. I’m a PCC grad, so maybe I just don’t get it.
Andy: I am not your research assistant. Study the history, presuppositions, & methodology of RC yourself.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Have I captured everything?
No. You forgot the comparison between God’s image-bearers who have been redeemed by Christ and the disobedient dog in how they both push the limits to see how far they can go in “sliding” towards danger to illustrate the slippery slope.
[T Howard]So, to recap, BJU is on the Stone Mountain slippery slope to compromise and downgrade because of the following:
………….
Have I captured everything?
Now, Brothers, I’ve written some of this in jest. But, I’m honestly struggling with what the real, substantive issue is with BJU. I’m a PCC grad, so maybe I just don’t get it.
Since we’re jesting. My lame attempt at humor. It’s all I have left after reading comments.
A dancing bear,
Men with beards;
A sprinkle of RC,
Helping children in poverty.
BJU ain’t what it used to be,
Compromise is all I see;
Demand more separation.
Give my concerns legitimization.
Discussion