Theology Questions Everyone Asks Edited by Gary M. Burge and David Lauber

8/13/2019 Theology Questions Everyone Asks Edited by Gary M. Burge and David Lauber

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theology-questions-everyone-asks-edited-by-gary-m-burge-and-david-lauber 1/27

in Plain Language

Questions

Theology

Edited by

Everyone Asks

Christian Faith

Gary M. Burge andDavid Lauber



http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=840441&product_redirect=1&Ntt=840441&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP

http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Questions-Everyone-Asks-Christian/dp/0830840443/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389042347&sr=8-1&keywords=theology+questions+everyone+asks

http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=4044



THEOLOGY

CHRIST IAN FAITH

QUESTIONSIN PLAI N LANGUAGE

EVERYONE ASKS

Edited by Gary M. Burge and

David Lauber

Foreword by

Philip G. Ryken

Copyrighted Material. www.ivpress.com/permissions



InterVarsity PressP.O. Box , Downers Grove, IL -World Wide Web: www.ivpress.comEmail: [email protected]

© by Gary M. Burge and David Lauber

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from

InterVarsity Press.InterVarsity Press ® is the book-publishing division of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA® , a movement ofstudents and faculty active on campus at hundreds of universities, colleges and schools of nursing in the United Statesof America, and a member movement of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. For information aboutlocal and regional activities, write Public Relations Dept., InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, SchroederRd., P.O. Box , Madison, WI - , or visit the IVCF website at www.intervarsity.org.

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from HE HOLY BIBLE, NEW IN ERNA IONALVERSION ® , NIV ® Copyright © , , , by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reservedworldwide.

While all stories in this book are true, some names and identifying information in this book have been changed to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.

Cover design: David Fassett Interior design: Beth Hagenberg Image: City pedestrians: © pixalot/iStockphoto

ISBN - - - - (print)ISBN - - - - (digital)

Printed in the United States of America ∞

InterVarsity Press is committed to protecting the environment and to the responsible use of naturalresources. As a member of Green Press Initiative we use recycled paper whenever possible. o learnmore about the Green Press Initiative, visit www.greenpressinitiative.org.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataTeology questions everyone asks : Christian faith in plain language /edited by Gary M. Burge and David Lauber.

pages cmIncludes bibliographical references.ISBN - - - - (pbk. : alk. paper). Teology, Doctrinal—Popular works. I. Burge, Gary M., - editor

of compilation.B .

—dc

P

Y




CONTENTS

Foreword by Philip G. Ryken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pre ace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What Is Christianity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . imothy Larsen

What Is the Bible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kevin J. Vanhoozer

Who Is God? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . George Kalantzis

How Does God Relate to the World? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gregory W. Lee

What Is the Meaning o Evil and Su ering? . . . . . . . . . . Jennifer Powell McNutt

Who Is Jesus? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gary M. Burge

What Is Salvation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Keith L. Johnson

Who Is the Holy Spirit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeffrey W. Barbeau

Who Are Human Beings? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Lauber

Who Is the Church? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daniel J. reier

How Should I Live? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vincent Bacote




What Is Christian Hope? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beth Felker Jones

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Where Do We Go rom Here? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .




FOREWORD

“I have a question.”With this simple statement, a dialogue is engaged. Te student asks a

question; the teacher responds. Te response usually raises urther ques-tions, or perhaps leaves aspects o the original question unresolved.Sometimes the teacher poses a question back to the student—a strategythat Jesus ofen used when people came to him with their questions. Sothe conversation continues, as two lively minds pass the questions andanswers back and orth, enabling true learning.

Te most pro ound questions and necessary answers are theological,pertaining to the knowledge o God. Who is God? How does he relate tothe world? What are his purposes, i any, or human beings? How can weknow?

College students ask these kinds o questions every day, especially thehard ones. “What is the relationship between divine sovereignty andhuman reedom?” they want to know, or “I God is so good, then why

does he allow so much suffering?” Teodicy, soteriology, eschatology—students put all the major issues on the table. Tey ask personal ques-tions, too, such as “How can I know God’s will or my li e?” or “Afer whathappened, how can I ever trust God again?”

Pastors and teachers who work with college students know how hardit can be to provide answers that are theologically in ormed as well asbiblically sound and practically benecial. Tat is why I am so grate ulthat when students ask hard questions on my own campus they areanswered by compassionate mentors who also happen to be world-classscholars. Te theologians who wrote this book— riends and colleagueswho teach Christian doctrine at Wheaton College—care about getting




Q E A

the answers right. Tey also care about the students who ask the ques-tions. In this volume they offer wise and substantive answers to some o

the countless questions they get asked every day in their classrooms,offices and living rooms.

Tese scholar-teachers know what they are talking about. Teology isone o Wheaton’s most popular departments, and the contributors to this

volume have won an arm ul o teaching awards. Many o them wereeducated at leading evangelical colleges and seminaries (Fuller, Moody,rinity) be ore earning advanced degrees at some o the best universities

in the United States (Duke, Princeton, Yale) and the United Kingdom(Aberdeen, St Andrews, Stirling).Teology is not simply a career or these learned scholars, however; it

is a way o li e. As Christians who live and breathe theology every wakingmoment, they bring a li etime o theological reection to every questionthey ace. In reading their answers, experienced pastors and trained theo-logians will hear unmistakable echoes o doctrinal disputes that stretchedover centuries, as well as biblical principles that were de ended to thepoint o martyrdom. But the authors wear all o this learning lightlyenough to communicate clearly with contemporary college students.

Te result is a remarkable model o scholarship in service to JesusChrist, in which the best biblical, historical and systematic theology othe church speaks to the minds and hearts o a new generation. Studentswill read this book to get the answers; pastors and scholars will read thisbook to learn how to give them.

Philip G. RykenPresidentWheaton College




CONTRIBUTORS

Vincent BacoteAssociate Pro essor o Teology,Wheaton College & Graduate SchoolPhD, Drew University MPhil, Drew University MDiv, rinity Evangelical Divinity School

Jeffrey W. BarbeauAssociate Pro essor o Teology,Wheaton College & Graduate SchoolPhD, Marquette University MA, Marquette University MA, Old Dominion University

Gary M. Burge

Pro essor o New estament,Wheaton College & Graduate SchoolPhD, King’s College, Te University o AberdeenMDiv, Fuller Teological Seminary

Keith L. JohnsonAssociate Pro essor o Teology,Wheaton College & Graduate SchoolPhD, Princeton Teological Seminary TM, Duke Divinity SchoolMDiv, Baylor University




Q E A

Beth Felker JonesAssociate Pro essor o Teology,

Wheaton College & Graduate SchoolPhD, Duke University M S, Duke Divinity School

George KalantzisAssociate Pro essor o Teology,Wheaton College & Graduate SchoolPhD, Northwestern University M S, Garrett-Evangelical Teological Seminary MABS, Moody Graduate School

Timothy LarsenCarolyn and Fred McManis Pro essor o Christian Tought,Wheaton College & Graduate SchoolPhD, University o Stirling

MA, Wheaton College Graduate School

David Lauber Associate Pro essor o Teology,Wheaton College & Graduate SchoolPhD, Princeton Teological Seminary MAR, Yale Divinity School

Gregory W. LeeAssistant Pro essor o Teology,Wheaton College & Graduate SchoolPhD, Duke University MDiv, rinity Evangelical Divinity School

Jennifer Powell McNutt Associate Pro essor o Teology,Wheaton College & Graduate SchoolPhD, University o St AndrewsMDiv, Princeton Teological Seminary




Contributors

Daniel J. Treier Blanchard Pro essor o Teology,

Wheaton College & Graduate SchoolPhD, rinity Evangelical Divinity SchoolTM, Grand Rapids Teological Seminary MDiv, Grand Rapids Teological Seminary

Kevin J. Vanhoozer Research Pro essor o Systematic Teology,

rinity Evangelical Divinity SchoolPhD, Cambridge University MDiv, Westminster Teological Seminary




PREFACE

Te scholars in this brie volume represent over one hundred years oexperience teaching introductory theology to students at both theundergraduate and graduate levels. Although each o us has taught in anumber o other aculties, all but one is now teaching at WheatonCollege and Graduate School. At Wheaton we provide required the-ology courses in our general education program or undergraduates aswell as graduate students. Every our years over three thousand studentsmove through these courses. Some o our students come with extensive

background; others enter these courses with minimal exposure to thegreat ideas that shape our aith. For them the Bible is the sole source oChristian thought and reection on the theological discussions o thelast , years. And so the creeds and the commitments o the churchare an entirely new idea.

We are deeply committed to teaching these classes care ully becausewe are committed to our students’ theological and spiritual growth. And

we want them to understand why we believe what we believe. We wantthem to add to their devotional lives the capacity to think Christianlyabout the world, humanity, our redemption—myriad topics—so that intheir maturity they will be able to think with agility and condence whennew questions come their way in the uture.

For years we have used textbooks with great success to guide thisconversation. oday we possess a rich eld o books to choose rom thatcan guide students at every level. However we have also noticed onedecit. While textbooks supply description and analysis o all the classicquestions o doctrine, they ofen miss the contemporary questions ourstudents want to ask in class. Students may wonder i the Holy Spirit is




Q E A

still an active orce in our churches today. Tey may wonder whetherJesus thought about getting married. Tey may want to describe a

current natural catastrophe and ask about God’s sovereignty. Some-times these questions are asked in class. Ofen they are not. And whenthey are asked, how ofen have we wondered ourselves as aculty howto rame the best answer?

Tis book was born out o our desire to answer those questions. Astheologians, we pooled those questions we heard again and again in class,we sorted them, and we decided to answer them to the best o our ability.

We did not think about this effort as a replacement or a well-writtensurvey o Christian theology. We see it as a supplement. Tis is a bookthat can parallel any good theological text, and in it students (and aculty)can peruse the tough questions and see how we have tried to answerthem. In classroom settings, this book can also be an effective discussionstarter. Once the basic lecture material has been covered and studentshave read these contemporary questions, a stimulating classroom dis-cussion might orbit around these lead thoughts: Did any of these ques-tions resonate with you? Did you nd any of their answers satisfying? Un-satisfying? Te hope is that these provocative questions will “ring true”with beginning students. And when they do, their appetite and love ortheology will begin to blossom. We want these questions to inspire re-ection, debate and disagreement, but above all, engagement .

Te answers to these theological questions belong to the writer oeach chapter. Tey do not belong to Wheaton College nor does one seto answers reect how another aculty member might approach aproblem. Simply put, we are thinking aloud with the wider communityo teachers and students exploring how tough questions might nd cre-ative answers. Each chapter opens with a concise summary that de-scribes how Christian thinking has resolved some o the classic theo-logical problems that are be ore us. Te chapter then launches a serieso specic questions and answers that ollow rom these problems. At

the end o the book we provide a help ul list o books that will assistbeginning theologians to take the next step in their study.

While we originally penned these chapters with the student in mind,we immediately recognized that we were learning rom each other as




Preface

well. As pro essors, we have heard these same questions weekly andreading the answers o our colleagues has helped our teaching. Tere ore

other aculty in other colleges and graduate schools may benet just aswe have, listening in as theological colleagues show their “best answers”to questions we have heard or years.

But something else occurred to us. Each o us has many years o ex-perience teaching a variety o theological topics in the local church. And(not surprisingly) these same questions appear there. Adults (and ado-lescents) ofen have questions about their aith and yet, unlike a college,

they have no curriculum or classes, and no venue where such discussionsare a matter o course. And in most cases, they have no access to theologypro essors who can help them wrestle with many o the most challengingquestions. Tus, this book could easily serve the church as well. Imaginean adult education curriculum that moves through the book each Sundaycovering one chapter at a time!

So, our wider aim is to help believers—whether they be laity orstudents—to grow and ourish in their aith. And when an intellectualobstacle impedes that growth, we want to let them know that good andthought ul answers are at hand that can help.

Gary Burge and David Lauber, editorsWheaton, Illinois




1

WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY?

Timothy Larsen

Growing up I had an uncle—my mother’s brother—who lived nearby ourhouse. He was a very different kind o man rom my ather. Dad was arst-generation immigrant rom Norway, a northerner (New Jersey), anavid reader and a businessman. My uncle, on the other hand, was asoutherner (Alabama), rom Scotch-Irish people who had been in the

Appalachian Mountains or longer than anyone could trace, and a blue-collar outdoorsman. As a young boy, I ofen ound my uncle’s teasing,gruff way o interacting with me con using. He had a habit o askinggotcha questions like, “What do ya know or sure?” I remember himasking me when I was about eight years old what my ethnicity was.Looking back, I suppose this was his way o trying to erret out whichside o my extended amily I most identied with. I elt instinctively thatit was a trick question and, searching around or a way out, pronouncedtriumphantly that I was “a Christian.”

What does it mean to say that you are “a Christian”? Te word itsel isa clue as it obviously has something to do with “Christ.” Christianity isa way o li e that results rom believing in and ollowing Jesus Christ.Jesus o Nazareth is there ore the central gure whose li e and workcreates the Christian aith. During his earthly ministry, Jesus calledpeople to himsel . Tose who believed in him and were willing to laydown their own priorities to ollow him became his disciples. Afer hisresurrection and ascension, his disciples gathered together in congrega-tions. Te Book o Acts tells us that “the disciples were called Christiansrst at Antioch” (Acts : ). In the early church the notion that ol-




Q E A

lowing Christ might mean to take up one’s cross and die was not just ametaphor. Te earliest words afer the New estament writings that we

have rom a Christian woman are in the prison diary o Perpetua, whowas martyred in . . . Accused by the Roman Empire o the capitalcrime o being a Christian, Perpetua records that her pagan ather urgedher to save her own li e by denying her aith, but she replied to him thatshe could not “call mysel anything else than what I am, a Christian.” Although those o us living in America are blessed not to ace such op-position, in various regions around the world today people are still being

persecuted and killed because o this con ession. Christians are thosewho believe in Jesus Christ and ollow him whatever the cost.

Isn’t that setting the bar too high? After all, we are sinful andfallible people who all fall short in various ways. What is theminimum someone has to believe and do to be a Christian?

Everyone who cares about Christianity has asked themselves this

question at some time or another. I you really think about it though, itis actually very weird. Imagine i I were to say to my wi e: “You know,husbands are allible people afer all. So it would help me to know whatis the least that I can do and what is the most I can get away with doingwithout you actually divorcing me. What i I never cleaned up afermysel ? What i I were to have an affair? What i I never said I loved you?”and so on. Tis would not be a healthy—perhaps not even a sane!—wayto think about your marriage. Te right way would be to continuallywonder: what can I possibly do to make my spouse’s li e better and ourrelationship stronger? How can I be all in?

In the same way, the right way to think about the Christian aith is toask the question: what ought a Christian to believe and do? Tis bringsus back to the radical words o Jesus and demands o the gospel. It alsoleads us into ull, orthodox doctrinal teaching o the aith—orthodox,afer all, means “right belie .” In other words, a commitment to orthodoxycalls us to not ask about the minimum necessary to believe; but ratherabout the correct, true belie s in all the ullness o God’s revelation to us.

It is true that we are sin ul and allible and all short. What this meansor us as individuals is that we are continually repenting o our sins and




What Is Christianity?

asking God or orgiveness and mercy. When we nd unbelie in ourhearts and minds and disobedience in our thoughts and actions, we turn

to God or the grace and power to become more truly Christian. Just likewhen I suddenly realize that I am not speaking, eeling, thinking oracting like a good husband should, I ought not to wonder i it is never-theless good enough to get by, but instead seek to change so that I ambecoming what a good husband should be.

Tat is how we respond in our lives. When it comes to other people,ultimately only God is their judge. Tis does not mean that we have

nothing to say in the ace o unbelie , error, disobedience and sin. It is ourduty to proclaim ully and aith ully what God has revealed, including thewarnings in God’s Word about the consequences or ailing to respondand or persisting in sin and unbelie . Still, only God is God. We are all

just God’s creatures. We are like a group o elementary-school-age siblingsinteracting with one another. We can only report what our parents havedecreed: “Dad said i you rode your bike to the park while he was gonethat you would be grounded or a week.” In the end, it is or the parentsto decide i and when they will extend mercy. Te act that we are not the judge means that we have no right to sentence people, but only to in ormthem soberly o the warnings that God Almighty has given in the Bible.On the other hand, it also means that we do not have the authority toextend mercy, to enter into a plea bargain negotiation on God’s behal . Itis not or us to say, or example: “Well, it is true that the Bible reveals thatGod has commanded us to be baptized, but I can cut you a deal and saythat just believing is good enough”; or “Well, Christians have traditionallybelieved that Jesus rose rom the dead, but as long as you believe that Jesuspoints the way to God then I’m content to say you are close enough andlet you off on the rest i you are having a hard time buying it.” Once again,the only right question to ask is: “What is the ullness o what God hascommanded us to believe and do?” And the only right response is tobelieve it and do it and call upon others to do the same.

Is Christianity the only true religion?

Te modern academic discipline o religious studies has taught peopleto think in terms o “religions.” Tis approach has been criticized as a







got rid o it as ar as it possibly could, but it was still one o the most op-pressive, bloody states—counting the lives o its own people very cheap

and slaughtering them in horric numbers, as well as being willing toerment violence around the world. Tis sad tale has been true o other

anti-religion states as well and still is in some places today. North Koreahas certainly not become a more tolerant, less violent part o the world bydeciding to get rid o religion.

We have already mentioned that religion is itsel not usually a help ulway to conceptualize realities. Still, it is one way o labeling what people

care about most, where people nd meaning in li e. Everything thatpeople care deeply about they tend to nd worth ghting or. Consider“crimes o passion,” where, or example, someone’s deep love or anotherleads to jealousy and then the murder o a rival. Saying that we wouldhave less violence i we did not have religion is like saying we would haveless violence i people never ell in love. I suppose on one level that mightbe strictly true, but it would just be another way o saying that i humanbeings did not care about things that matter to them then they would notght over them. Its potential to cause violence is not an argument againstreligion any more than it is an argument against love or amily or any-thing else that can be the occasion or conict. Religion, like romanticlove and amily, is one o the things that makes human li e meaning uland precious.

Moreover, how can you get people to behave violently? Or to justi ytheir own brutal acts to themselves? One o the most effective ways is toappeal to what they care about most. Samuel Johnson once amously andsagely remarked, “Patriotism is the last re uge o a scoundrel.” Tat is tosay, it is precisely because good people rightly have a love o country thata bad person will appeal to this value in order to manipulate the situation

or evil ends. Patriotic reasons are presented because love o country isgood, but they mask baser motives when appealed to by a scoundrel.Tis has ofen happened with the Christian aith throughout history. For

example, plantation owners in the rst hal o the nineteenth centurymight have quoted the Bible in order to justi y enslaving people andwhipping them, but this was a way to rationalize their own economicsel -interest and selsh desires. I there was no religion, it would not




Q E A

mean that violence and injustice would have gone away but only thatexploiters would have ound another reason. Tey would have said it was

or the good o their country or their amily or whatever else could betwisted to give some ostensibly respectable cover to their actions. It isnot religion that causes violence but rather it is the dearness o aith tothe hearts o people that causes wicked people to exploit it or evil ends.

In act, the orce o this question can be completely reversed. As aChristian, I have aith that Jesus Christ, the Prince o Peace, will somedayput an end to all violence—that there will come a day when there is no

more “death or mourning or crying or pain” (Revelation : ). Afer theailure o communism, it no longer seems that there are atheists whohave any utopian hopes that human beings will someday become a har-monious race where everyone is cooperating with and helping one an-other. In act, i they thought about it, atheists would likely have to admitthat they expect violence to end only with the extinction o the humanrace. Tus, the Christian aith is not the cause o violence, but rather oursource o hope that it will be overcome.

Does secularization mean that Christianity is destined to dieout as society becomes more modern?

Tis is another myth. It originally got traction through the ideas o athe-istic intellectuals in the nineteenth century. Te French philosopher Au-guste Comte claimed to have discovered a law that humanity progressesthrough three stages: the religious, the metaphysical and the scientic.Tis was a way o claiming that religion was a primitive way o thinking

rom the in ancy o the race and that it was destined to die off and becompletely replaced by scientic thinking. Various other leading ag-nostic thinkers claimed something similar. Marx and Freud both pre-sented belie in God as an illusion that humanity was nally learning todispense with. Tese gures were merely expressing what they, as peoplewho did not believe in God themselves, wished would happen. As it hadnot happened already, their statements about the development o humansociety were really prophecies. Ironically, they were also deeply unscien-tic assertions. Despite lauding the scientic as the destiny o humanity,Comte clearly had no idea how real scientists go about nding warrant





or and ormulating a law. Freud has also been shown to be very un-scientic in the way he went about constructing his views—and Marx’s

predictions about how society would develop have been proven alse onmultiple ronts.

Still, this mythology led many people to imagine that modern thoughtwas disproving belie in God and there ore that thinking, educatedpeople would no longer nd it possible to believe. For some people thisprobably even became a sel - ullling prophecy—worrying that theywould be “lef behind,” as it were, when thinking people stopped going

to church to make sure that they were keeping up with where theyimagined the world was going.Tings did not develop as the great nineteenth-century agnostic

thinkers imagined, however. In the twentieth century a lot o leadingintellectuals were actually Christians; quite a ew o them even returnedto aith as mature thinkers or came to aith later in li e. oday there arenumerous leading philosophers, scientists, novelists, artists, politicians,academics and intellectuals who are very open about their Christian

aith. In act, recent studies have shown that people with more education—particularly at least one college degree—are more likely to go to churchthan less well-educated people, the exact opposite o what people likeFreud imagined would happen.

With those predications not working out, a second version o secu-larization theory arose in the twentieth century. In this view, religionwould not die out because o an intellectual de eat but rather throughsociological changes. Modern society, with its actors such as urban-ization, industrialization and individualism, was said to be incompatiblewith aith and there ore religion was destined to wither away as culturebecame more modern. Tis view was particularly ashionable in westernEurope where declining church membership and attendance seemed tolend proo to it. Tere was one problem, however. Te United States oAmerica was generally leading the world in technological advance and

modernization, and yet aith was not diminishing there the way it wasin places like England or Sweden. Tis led some sociologists to speak o

“American exceptionalism”—that the United States was an anomaly. Inthe twenty-rst century, however, it has become increasingly clear that




Q E A

religion has a great deal o vitality in most parts o the world. I strongspiritual belie s and practices mark the lives o billions o people across

A rica, Asia and Latin America, then maybe what needs to be explainedis “European exceptionalism”—religion is normal in the contemporaryworld and there ore its torpid state in Europe is what needs a specialexplanation to account or it. Te Christian aith has been rapidlygrowing even in historically non-Christian countries such as China.Similarly, although no one could justly claim that it is a less modern oradvanced society than others, Christianity has made amazing advances

in South Korea in recent decades.Tis does not mean that we should become complacent about thehealth o Christianity in the uture. Christians are ollowers o JesusChrist and our Master rattles us out o any such complacency with hisprobing question: “When the Son o Man comes, will he nd aith on theearth?” (Luke : ). Perhaps part o the reason he said that was to keepus alert enough to prevent us rom being bullied out o our belie s by

alse prophets who declare that belie in God is destined to die out in themodern world.

Christianity Worldwide. About one-third of the world’s popu-

lation identifies as Christian today. In 1910, only about 9% of

Africans were Christians; today almost half of all Africans

self-identify as Christians. In the first decade of the twenty-

first century, Africa had the fastest growth rate for Christian-

ity, while Europe had the slowest. In 1910, 66% of the world’s

Christians were in Europe; today it is only 25%. The majority

of the world’s Christians today are not in the West, but in Af-

rica, Asia and Latin America. There are more evangelical Chris-

tians in China today than there are in the United States, more

in India than in Great Britain. South Korea now sends out more

Christian missionaries than Great Britain or Germany. India now

sends out more Christian missionaries than Canada. There are

around 707 million evangelical Christians in the world today. 4





But hasn’t Christianity always been opposed to scientificadvances? What about Galileo and all that?

Tis is also a misconception. Modern science arose within Christiansocieties and Christian belie s, habits, commitments and interests madeit possible. Many o the greatest scientists in the past have been devoutChristians (Sir Isaac Newton, or instance) and this is still true today.Te idea that aith and science are at odds with each other was actuallycreated by agnostic scientists as a way to attack Christianity. Te onlyproblem was that this picture was not accurate. In act, many urban

legends were created. (Tat is my polite way o saying that they weretelling lies!) For example, agnostic scientists claimed that Christianstaught that the world was at and opposed the view that it is round.Actually, the Greeks and Romans knew that the world was round be orethe time o Christ and Christians never thought the world was at. Evenin the midst o the so-called Dark Ages a monk like the Venerable Bede(d. ) knew and taught that the world was round, as did the theolo-

gians o the medieval church and beyond. And there are many suchurban legends.

It is true that Galileo’s ideas about the nature o the solar system wereinvestigated and condemned by the Inquisition. Tis historical detaildoes not teach us that Christianity is typically opposed to scientic ad-

vances, however. What it really tells us is that the medieval Inquisitionwas a power-hungry, control- reak, oppressive institution. It was terribly

a raid o anything it did not understand or could not control and wasquick to use orce to suppress it. Tis is a classic example o a corruptinstitution, an abuse o power and o unchristian things being done inthe name o Christ. But it is not about a Christian campaign againstscience. In act, ar more saints than scientists were persecuted by theInquisition. Joan o Arc, or example, was condemned as a heretic andburned at the stake (Galileo was merely conned to house arrest). Sinceher death, Joan o Arc has been ormally canonized by the RomanCatholic Church and is now one o the most popular and beloved osaints. Tere are many lessons to learn rom this dark chapter o churchhistory, but the idea that the Christian aith and modern science areinherently in conict is not one o them.




Q E A

Why are there so many different Christian denominations?

Jesus prayed that his disciples “may be one” (John : ) and there orewe know that the unity o the church, o believers, is God’s will. AllChristians should be grieved by division in the body o Christ and worktoward unity. It is not clear, however, that Jesus desired or the churchto be united through a single institutional structure with a human leaderat the top. Tis is the Roman Catholic view—that all Christians shouldnd their unity under the leadership o the bishop o Rome, the Pope.Te eastern churches such as Greek and Russian Orthodoxy, however,only envision a single, hierarchal, institutional church across a singlegroup o people or national bloc, and with the various churches existingin doctrinal agreement and ellowship with one another but with nohuman authority at the top o them all. Many Protestants—o which Iam one—believe that the unity Jesus prayed or is a unity o doctrine,

ellowship and the Spirit, but not necessarily a unity o institutional or-ganization and human chain o command and authority. I this view isright, then the existence o different denominations would not be inher-

The Faith vs. Science Myth. The idea that the Christian faith

is opposed to scientific advance was made popular by two

books, John William Draper, History of the Conflict between

Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White, A His-

tory of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom

(1896). Although these books pretended to be documenting a

conflict between faith and science, they were actually trying to

create one. They did this by presenting as “facts” many urban

legends and false claims. For example, they both claimed that

the church opposed the use of anesthetics for expectant moth-ers during labor on the grounds that it was a violation of the

statement in Genesis that childbirth would be painful. This was

simply made up. No church opposed anesthetics. Instead, the

inventor of chloroform received fan mail from ministers from all

the major denominations thanking him for helping to alleviate

the suffering of women in labor.





ently a mark o disunity—they could be a way or God’s people to cometogether in manageable, relational networks o local congregations

which are also in core doctrinal unity and the unity o the Spirit and el-lowship with other networks. Tis is not the current state o the church,however, and there ore i we are honest we must admit that we are in astate o disunity which grieves the Holy Spirit.

It would be wrong there ore to try to justi y our denominationalism asit currently exists, complete with differences o doctrine on vital pointsand even sometimes a lack o goodwill between some groups, let alone a

lack o unity in the Spirit. Nevertheless, just as violence per se should notbe justied, though it can be a sign that something worth ghting or isat stake, so the many denominations not in ull ellowship with one an-other are partially an un ortunate byproduct o good desires. Christiansrightly desire to take their stand on key points o doctrine and practicethat they believe aith ulness to God requires even at the price o settingthem apart rom others. Te unity Jesus prayed or is not that Christianswould be so careless and apathetic about their belie s, worship andmanner o li e that they would join with others on any terms. rue unitywill only come as all believers draw closer to the center who is Christ in

aith ulness, obedience, charity, selessness, grace and truth.

What is meant by evangelicalism?

For many people in America today, “evangelical” probably conjures upan image o an angry, white, male brandishing a political poster. A truermental picture o an evangelical would be an A rican, Asian or LatinAmerican woman smiling and swaying as she joy ully sings praises toGod. Evangelicalism is a truly global expression o Christianity. Temain action o the story today is ofen in the Majority World.

Te evangelical movement began in Protestant groups in the rst halo the eighteenth century. Tey had become concerned that while peoplemight give lip service to God and to Christian doctrine, they had notreally been trans ormed by the power o the gospel. Tey might knowabout God, but they did not actually know God. Tey began to long orrevival and renewal to come and or people to become truly spirituallyalive in Christ. Soon they came to realize that they had more in common




Q E A

with Christians rom other denominations that also elt this way thanthey did with people in their own denomination who did not. Te root

word or “evangelical” is gospel and there ore they started re erring topeople like themselves as “evangelicals”—those people who prioritizedthe message o the gospel and its effectiveness to trans orm people’s lives.

o say that someone was, like you, also an Anglican or a Baptist or aPresbyterian was only to say that they agreed with you on certain pointso doctrine or church order. Tat counts or little, however, i they areonly a nominal Christian with no living relationship with Jesus Christ.

o say that they are an “evangelical,” on the other hand, was a way osaying: “Tey might be a Presbyterian, while I’m a Baptist, but I knowthat we both agree on the good news o the atoning death and resur-rection o Jesus Christ and the importance o people being converted byits saving power—that we share a common testimony o this work oGod in our lives—and that is more important than our differences.”

Evangelicals are Christians who believe in the gospel, a message whichhas at its heart the work o Christ, the Son o God incarnate, on the crosson our behal . Tey believe that this is good news or all people and thatChristians are called to join in the great task o working or all people tohear it—that is, the work o evangelism and missions. Tey believe in thepower o the Holy Spirit to bring conversion and then an ongoing li e o

ellowship with God and empowerment to love and serve others and tolive God’s way. Tey believe in the Bible as the unique source o God’sword written and the nal authority God has given us in matters o aithand practice.

It is because evangelicals believe they are called to spread the gospelthat so many Christians rom western countries went to other parts othe world as missionaries in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Tiswas, in a sense, only to return the avor, as both Britain and Germanywere once pagan countries in need o oreign missionaries to bring themthe good news o Jesus Christ. So westerners went to the world in the

s and s. It is partially the seeds they planted then that are nowproducing such a harvest o vibrant Christian aith in A rica, LatinAmerica and Asia. Evangelicalism is readily adaptable to many differentcontexts. Believers with Bibles empowered by the Spirit quickly turn into





churches, spreading the gospel and planting more churches. Te missionelds o the past then become the missionary-sending places o the

present. For example, many Christian missionaries today are being sent from South Korea, a place they were being sent to a hundred years ago.

Defining Evangelicalism. Here is a definition that I developed

to help people understand what is meant by evangelicalism. An

evangelical is

• a Protestant orthodox Christian

• who stands in the tradition of the global Christian networksarising from the eighteenth-century revival movements asso-

ciated with John Wesley and George Whiteeld

• who has a preeminent place for the Bible in her or his

Christian life as the divinely inspired, nal authority in matters

of faith and practice

• who stresses reconciliation with God through the atoning

work of Jesus Christ on the cross

• and who stresses the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of an

individual to bring about conversion and an ongoing life of

fellowship with God and service to God and others, including

the duty of all believers to participate in the task of pro-

claiming the gospel to all people.

Documents

Theology Questions Everyone Asks Edited by Gary M. Burge and David Lauber