Did Jesus Descend Into Hell?

dantes infernoIn my first response to Mark Sandlin’s post questioning whether Jesus descended into Hell, I focused on the dubious motives that led to his conclusion. Now I’m going to address the theological merits of his post.

To begin with, I’ll repeat what I said to him: I don’t really have a dog in this fight. The existence of Hell makes scripture more theologically coherent, but the scholarly analysis regarding potentially misinterpreted verses is strong enough to be warrant consideration.

But to me, removing the doctrine of Hell raises a lot of problems liberal Christians haven’t satisfactorily answered. Not only does it render a number of key verses nonsensical, it also creates a slippery slope of theological problems: if Hell doesn’t exist, does Satan? If Satan doesn’t exist, do demons? If demons don’t exist, then what exactly was Jesus doing when He exorcised a legion of demons from a possessed man, leading them to seek refuge into a pasture full of 2,000 pigs that respond by hurdling themselves to their death?

Removing the existence of demonic spirits in these verses makes Jesus either a con man (which raises the possibility that his entire ministry was based on deception) or a fool (Jesus really thought He was exorcising demons, but he was too ignorant to know better). If one concedes the existence of these demons, then one must explain how they came to be and where they normally reside.

Liberal theology makes no genuine attempt to answer to these questions because by design, answers would rule out dissenting views. The need to accommodate all possible views trumps the desire to determine the truth.

But let’s get back to Hell. One of the straw men Sandlin trots out is mocking belief in Hell as belief in “Dante’s Hell.” It’s a straw mab because Sandlin doesn’t consider the existence of Hell in any form, and writing orthodox faith off as a misreading of a 14th Century poem makes it easy to avoid addressing the doctrine itself. But Dante’s vision of hell didn’t create the fire and brimstone imagery we are familiar with. Consider this passage:

And I saw on the north a place of various and diverse punishments full of men and women, and a river of fire ran down into it. Moreover I observed and I saw pits great in depth, and in them several souls together, and the depth of that place was as it were three thousand cubits, and I saw them groaning and weeping and saying: Have pity on us, O Lord! and none had pity on them. And I asked the angel and said: Who are these, Sir? And the angel answered and said unto me: These are they who did not hope in the Lord, that they would be able to have him as their helper.

This excerpt doesn’t come from Dante. It comes from the Apocalypse of Paul, a 3rd Century Coptic text that some Christian sects used as holy scripture. It’s startling just how graphic and specific the text (as well as the Apocalypse of Peter, a companion text that covers similar territory) is regarding the punishment awaiting the condemned:

 I further observed the fiery river and saw there a man being tortured by Tartaruchian angels having in their hands an iron with three hooks with which they pierced the bowels of that old man: and I asked the angel, and said: Sir, who is that old man on whom such torments are imposed? And the angel answered and said to me: He whom you see was a presbyter who did not perform well his ministry: when he had been eating and drinking and committing fornication he offered the host to the Lord at his holy altar.

 

And I saw another multitude of pits in the same place, and in the midst of it a river full of a multitude of men and women, and worms consumed them. But I lamented and sighing asked the angel and said: Sir, who are these? And he said to me: These are those who exacted interest on interest and trusted in their riches and did not hope in God that He was their helper.

To my knowledge, these texts are the earlIest indication that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah had been recast as a condemnation of homosexuality:

And I saw other men and women covered with dust, and their countenance was like blood, and they were in a pit of pitch and sulphur and running down into a fiery river, and I asked: Sir, who are these? And he said to me: These are they who committed the iniquity of Sodom and Gomorrah, the male with the male, for which reason they unceasingly pay the penalties.

Even though the Council of Nicaea dismissed the validity of these apocryphal texts, their influence has reached far beyond our memory of them. Clearly the belief in “Dante’s Hell” was already in place in many sects soon after Christ’s crucifixion. You can also find a thorough explanation of guardian angels in them, as well as condemnations of abortion and homosexuality that are far more explicit than any officially canonized text:

And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion.

(As an aside, these apocryphal texts also do a nice job debunking the myth that pre-Council Christianity was a more liberal faith.)

Sandlin spends the bulk of his post focused on the claim that Jesus descended into Hell. Along the way he provides some good information explaining why this part of the Apostles’ Creed is problematic:

The word used in the Acts verse is actually the Greek word hadēs and it just doesn’t mean Hell the way we think of it.

It simply couldn’t have.

 

Hadēs is a place of the dead – all the dead. It is not a place of damnation. It’s just where you go when you are dead. It’s the equivalent of the Hebrew word sheol: the abode of the dead.

 

The word used in the Acts verse is actually the Greek word hadēs and it just doesn’t mean Hell the way we think of it.

All of that is true, but guess what? The majority of Christian traditions (including evangelicals) don’t believe Jesus descended into Hell, either. In fact, you can find the exact same proofs against the Creed on John Piper’s website, and evangelical websites. None if them deny that Hell in these verses is better understood as Hades. The teaching comes from Catholicism,  and even Catholic websites acknowledge the merits of counterarguments, and state that it is better to say that Jesus ventured into the Land of the Dead. So disbelieving the claim that Jesus went jnto Hell is only a heresy if you’re Catholic, and even then the church is willing to acknowledge that it’s a very complex teaching.  Even the Catechism acknowledges that this is better understood as Hades.

The debates among these faith traditions isn’t over Hell; it’s what Jesus did while in Hades. So Sandlin isn’t breaking new ground here. If refuting Acts 2:31 led him to doubt Hell’s existence, then he wasn’t paying attention in seminary.

Mark Sandlin’s God

tumblr_lx0ndigYDi1r4u11so2_1280Somehow it’s appropriate that a few days after commenting about how touchy liberal Christians are about contrarian viewpoints on their blogs, I got a post of mine marked as “spam” on one of their blogs.

Blogger Mark Sandlin, who’s written a series outlining his beliefs called “Heresies From A Southern Minister,” apparently doesn’t like it when people challenge his heresies.

I’ll try to recreate the points I made to him here on my blog because they dovetail nicely with my last post. Many of Sandlin’s arguments in his series fit the equation for liberal arguments I proposed here last week:

A  A society that believes Y will be a more moral one.

B. Therefore, God must believe Y.

In his post about Hell, Sandlin starts with a belief and presents arguments in favor of his predetermined outcome, which is a God that didn’t create hell. He openly states that his primary motive is personal rather than theological:

I don’t believe in Hell, and any confession that requires me to believe that Dante’s Hell is not only real but that Jesus went there…is not a confession that I care to confess.

From there Sandlin reverse-engineers his scriptural analysis so it falls in line with his goal Again, we see the liberal logic: conclusion first, scripture second:

A  A theology that believes Hell does not exist will be a more moral one.

B. Therefore, God must not have created Hell.

Despite his lack of objectivity, my second point was that Sandlin’s flawed approach does not necessarily lead to incorrect conclusions.

I remember an old episode of Cheers that illustrates this nicely. One of the main characters was Diane, a cerebral woman with zero understanding of football. In spite of her ignorance, she kept winning the bar’s football pool. Sometimes she based her choices on how a real-life confrontation between the team animals would play out ( “A bear against a dolphin?” she scoffed without realizing she had picked a major upset), while other times she picked them based which team color scheme she preferred.

Diane ‘s whimiscal approach echoes Sandlin’s approach to “heresy”. Sometimes he stumbles onto legit theological debate (there are good arguments that hell as we understand it might not exist) but other times he’s just plain off-target (like when he argues that you can be a Christian and not believe in Christ’s divinity.)

And while I didn’t compare his approach to a sitcom character in my post, I suspect that what irked Sandlin the most was my claim that he was arguing that God must endorse his beliefs because he’s really sincere about them. Sandlin has a vested interest in worshipping a God that didn’t create Hell, so he created one. Now maybe he’s right and God didn’t really create Hell. In that case his God is closer to the truth than the God I believe in that did create Hell. But the end result is due to Sandlin’s personal preferences rather than an attempt to try to understand God. HIs series is using the same shallow approach as tea partiers who comb the Bible for evidence that God loves the free market.

Ultimately,  Sandlin was making the case for a God who makes no demands upon him. Whatever he believes, God must be fine with it precisely because Sandlin would not worship a God who expected more of him. If your faith doesn’t move you out of your comfort zone or force you to consider the possibility that God might disagree with you or demand that you do things you don’t really want to do, then I would argue that you don’t really have faith. You just have an ego that you like to talk about in the third person.

Christian Logic

hqdefaultWell, I managed a pretty cool accomplishment this past month. I got banned from both a liberal and a conservative website! There’s nothing like moody forum managers to illustrate the truth in my moniker.

I don’t want to name the liberal site because I posted under my real name, but the conservative site was The Gospel Coalition. Since my last post there was a rather innocuous post explaining why employers hesitate to hire employees with evangelical ambitions, I suspect that someone over at TGC took a gander at my blog and decided they didn’t like me anymore.

At the liberal site, my crime was disagreeing with the opinions of people on the forum. Yup, that’s it. My last two posts there was a statement that arguing that hell doesn’t exist makes a number of New Testament verses about hell sound nonsensical, and pointing out (after the forum manager ranted against evangelicals spreading the “love the sinner, hate the sin” mantra) that the quote actually comes from Augustine.

After engaging fellow Christians on message boards and blogs nearly twenty-years, I’ve found that forums run by liberal Christians tend to be much testier than those run by conservative Christians. There’s a constant culling and deleting of even the mildest dissenters at them. The stakes at conservative sites tend to be much higher (your soul is at stake if you’re wrong), but for the most part administrators at those sites tend to be very permissive of dissenting opinion and rarely delete the evidence. That’s always struck me as odd.

And then it hit me: the answer was hiding in plain sight. Conservative sites are more permissive precisely because for them, the stakes are higher.

For a while now I’ve been toying with writing a post about the different ways conservative and liberal Christians think. I’ve touched on this in various ways on my blog, but last night it crystallized me with two simple, logical equations.

Here’s the conservative perspective about God:

A. God said X.

B. Therefore, a society that believes X will be a more moral one.

Now here’s the liberal perspective:

A  A society that believes Y will be a more moral one.

B. Therefore, God must believe Y.

You can plug in almost theological debate into these equations and they make things so much clearer. For example:

A. God said that homosexuality is immoral.

B. Therefore, a society that believes that homosexuality is immoral will be a more moral one.

and:

A  A society that believes homosexuality is moral will be a more moral one.

B. Therefore, God must believe homosexuality is moral.

Now let’s plug exclusivism into the equation:

A. God said Jesus is the only way.

B. Therefore, a society that believes Jesus is the only way will be a more moral one.

and:

A  A society that believes there all religions are true will be a more moral one.

B. Therefore, God must believe all religions are true.

Now so far, it sounds like I’m saying that the weight of logic falls in favor of the conservatives.  I’m not. And if we plug in slavery, then we’ll see why:

A. God endorses slavery.

B. Therefore, a society that endorses slavery will be a more moral one.

and:

A  A society that believes slavery is immoral will be a more moral one.

B. Therefore, God must believe slavery is immoral.

And herein lies a thousand internet debates distilled into their core elements. Now I know that some readers will insist that the conservative logic should say “The Bible says..” But remember that, from the conservative perspective, the Bible = God. And certainly many liberals make a good case that the Bible doesn’t teach that homosexuality is immoral, and therefore their argument fits the conservative equation.

But we’re talking psychology here. Conservatives prefer top-down, authoritarian logic. They believe that God’s opinion weighs supreme, and any discrepancy between mankind’s moral values and God’s must mean that mankind has gone awry.

Liberals prefer bottom-up, evidence-based theology. A pluralistic society strikes them as a more just society than a theocratic one, so that means that the pluralistic society is more reflective of how God wants us to live. Societies with a more loving attitude towards gays tend to be more just, therefore God must endorse homosexual relationships.

These equations also illustrates the strategy each side uses to challenge the other. Liberals ask whether it’s self-evident what God says (or whether conservatives are consistent about this). Conservatives argue that modern society is less moral, and that liberals prioritize societal values over God’s.

Check out Christian blogs for example. Notice how many conservatives blogs start with the question “What does God say about this controversy?” Liberal blogs, on the other hand, usually start with a personal experience or the impact the controversy has on people, and use that to illustrate where God must therefore stand on the issue. For liberals personal experience is evidence in moral debates, while conservatives see it as a nonfactor.

So what does this have to do with surly liberal blogs?

Well, if your theological arguments are evidence-based, then you’re working with a more ambiguous set of proofs than if you believe that God said it. The key difference is confidence. They are confident that the Biblical proofs they provide refute the liberal perspective. Conservatives are confident that liberals posting on their sites allow them to provide wise instruction to a visitor happening upon the debate. In their view, these debates serve a potentially evangelical function.

On the other hand, since liberals base their arguments on evidence, people providing contrary evidence muddy up the waters. A woman who pops into as discussion about gay conversion therapy to say she underwent it and lives a happy life will likely be deleted or banned (as I have witnessed), because the discussion as a whole rested on the case that gay conversion therapy has been awful for everyone involved in it. A man popping in to cite Bible verses to rebuke them gets tossed out because their focus is on evidence, not scripture.

In my case, I suspect that I was kicked out of The Gospel Coalition because my account linked back to my blog, where my liberal views are largely uncontested. The liberal site kicked me out because their case against hell rested on the belief that a God who creates hell would be unworthy of worship. Citing Bible verses muddies up their argument and takes it out of an evidence-based structure.

Matthew Paul Turner’s 38 Theses

matthew-paul-turner1Matthew Paul Turner recently posted a nice list of 38 inspirational suggestions for the Church. It’s a nice list of values and actions he would like to see it embrace. While I agree with most of them, there are some suggestions that I see as problematic.

Let me state up front that I get that these are supposed to be inspirational ideas, not specific agenda items. Most of my qualms are in regards to their application rather than the idea itself. For brevity’s sake, I’m going to skip over those that I’m on board with:

2) The Church needs to sober of its addiction to cool and/or its addiction of trying to be cool. We weren’t called to be cool or to pursue cool. Our addiction to that end is sucking us dry of meaning, depth, and future relevance. Besides, the Church isn’t cool, especially when its trying to be.

There are few things more cringe-worthy than seeing a Christian try to be cool. We’ve all endured pastors who try to use a pop culture reference in a sermon that reveals just how out of touch they are. But every element of our worship tradition was new at one time. What has deep meaning now was once a head-scratching change that lots of people probably didn’t get or feel comfortable with. The church constantly fumbles in its attempts to be relevant, but sometimes these attempts stick. Contemporary worship was a deliberate attempt to appeal to people who found liturgical services stuffy and dull. It’s been so successful that many Christians have never experienced any other kind of service.

8) The Church should be known more for celebrating and experiencing the mysteries of God as opposed to learning and reciting humanity’s definitions of God.

I’m not sure what Matthew’s getting at here. It sounds like he’s critiquing the Catholic Catechism, but I need to hear more.

11) The Church should stop fighting a war against religion and embrace the fact that we are a part of religion, that not all religion is bad, and that sometimes religion (in its myriad of forms) can actually be spiritually helpful for some believers.

I assume that he’s referring to evangelical rhetoric that Christianity isn’t really a religion, but a life-changing commitment. To me that line was always nothing more than a marketing strategy. I agree that it’s nonsensical, but I don’t think it amounts to a war against religion.

12) The Church should stop creating enemies out of people with whom it disagrees.

I agree completely, with one minor quibble. There’s a tendency for liberal Christians to criticize evangelicals for their adversarial mentality and miss the fact that they’re doing the same thing. I’m guilty of this, too.

13) The Church should be known for creating/engaging space, time, and practice for helping people connect to the God of the Universe.

As I see it, this idea conflicts with #2. If the church isn’t helping people connect to God, then it needs to try out new approaches, and this will inevitably lead to attempts at coolness.

15) The Church should be defined by the teachings of Christ more so than the theologies of Paul, the Apostle.

This is one of those tricky ideas that sounds good in spirit but becomes difficult to apply. No matter what denomination one subscribes to, most of our theology comes from Paul. Without him Jesus remains a great prophet whose teachings only apply to Jewish people.

22) The Church should evaluate and/or rethink its role among its community, seeking to serve the greater good of all people regardless of their creed, origins, or orientation.

 

27) The Church should seek to bring glory to God through worship, confession, prayer, and pursuit of the common good.

While I find postmodernism problematic, I do believe that there’s some merit to the deconstructionist approach to language. The premise that individuals apply their own meaning to language makes sense to me. (The Wikipedia article gives a good example: “Words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words. ‘Red’ means what it does only by contrast with ‘blue’, ‘green’, etc“). If I state that I bought a red car, you might envision a slick sporty red corvette, while your husband might envision a beat up old Volkswagen.  

The problem with the idea of a “greater good” or the “common good” is that everyone interprets the concept differently. Few people attend a church that they believe isn’t already serving the greater good. One church might define the community’s greater good as trying to convert as many people as possible, while other churches may interpret it as respecting all religious beliefs.

29) The Church should seek out ways to engage God’s resurrection story here on Earth.

This is another idea that I think needs further explanation.

Overall, I commend Matthew for coming up with a good list. But it’s deceptively easy to read some of these suggestions and come away with the belief that the church is already doing these things, or that a more conservative theology would accomplish these goals better than a liberal theology. Obviously this isn’t his intention, but that’s why we need to take the next step and work out how these goals would be carried out in real life.

Millennials Need Honesty

willow_performance2Why are Millennials fleeing the church?

For a lot of people that’s a worn out topic, but it’s crucial one that gets haggled over precisely because no one has come up with a satisfying answer.

Drew Dykes (managing editor of the Christian publication Leadership Journal) has a few thoughts on the issue that warrant some reflection. His main thesis is that churches need to foster intergenerational relationships and stop chasing after the latest fads. But it’s within his secondary points that I find more to chew on.

To begin with, I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with Dykes’ books, so my response may cover concerns he’s addressed elsewhere. But if we’re going to examine the problem seriously, then we need to make a distinction between people who’ve left the faith and those who’ve simply left the church.

Consciously or not, most of the prescriptions offered by pastors and columnists are concerned with ex-christians. This explains why the majority of analysts from the pastoral persective emphasize suggest a strategy that emphasizes the Gospel and doubling down on traditional theology. The unspoken assumption is the people leaving these churches are leaving congregations that have failed on these fronts.

But for Millennials who’ve left the church but remain faithful, their concerns are explicitly political. The problem isn’t whether the Gospel is preached, it’s the political conclusions the church has derived from it.

Let’s take a person who’s left the church because of its views on homosexuality as an example. Now discussion and listening are fine, but ultimately one side had to budge. To get that person to return, the church needs to either change its views on homosexuality or persuade her to change her beliefs.

Let me emphasize that this isn’t just a theological question. People aren’t just rejecting the church’s Biblical view of homosexuality, they’re also rejecting the political noise that surrounds it, like conversion therapy, negative propaganda about gays (gays make bad parents or are inclined to pedophilia), and campaigns against gays (see Arizona’s recent right to discriminate bill.) They’re rejecting Christians who cheer on Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson and favor candidates who promise to fight against gay marriage.

I know plenty of conservatives who believe that homosexuality is immoral, but they still won’t darken a church doorway because they think Christians are obsessed with the issue. You can win the theological argument and still fail to bring people back to church. .

And let’s face it: a big part of the problem is that churches equate loss of political leverage with loss of their rights. It’s fair to ask whether they want Millennials back for their value in the church body, or whether it’s just to have fresh blood to fight the culture wars.

The perception outside of the Evangelical bubble is that Christians have more influence now than they did eight years ago: womens’ health clinics are being shuttered, the Tea Party (which, like it or not, is equated with evangelical Christianity) has shut down the government and exercises greater control over the Republican party than ever, and instead of reaching out to minorities, evangelicals have broadcast loud and clear that they resent them.

Now I’m sure many are saying that I’m conflating Republican politics with the church. That’s because people outside the Christian bubble view them as one and the same. Aside from a few voices in the wilderness like Jim Wallis, it is safe to say that the political positions the Republican party stands for are the political goals the church advocates. A Republican political victory is viewed as an evangelical victory, so no one outside of Christians themselves believes that they’ve lost power. What they do believe is that down the road Christians will lose power by virtue of demographic trends. But not yet

While Dykes deserves kudos for recognizing that Millennials are waiting to get married and hold off having kids, the question then becomes whether the church wants those Millennials as is, or whether they intend to get them married and pregnant asap. Can the twenty-something woman who has no intention of having kids feel comfortable in a women’s Bible study, or will the women try to get them to conform to the nuclear family model? If the latter is true, then the church needs to be up front about it, and realize that most Millennials will recognize the insincerity involved (i.e. “I like you who you will become if you listen to me, not who you are now.)

I’m not going to go the usual route and suggest that churches change their theology in order to bring people back into the fold. That’s not going to happen. What I would suggest is that they be more honest with themselves and concede what everyone else sees: they are fixated on homosexuality, and they do consider it a bigger deal than other sins. If they want to make a theological case to justifying it, then do so. But don’t deny the fixation.

And finally, admit that a major reason why they want to bring Millenials back to the church is the desire to undo the social values and family trends Millennials reflect. It’s a strategic goal to change marital patterns, pregnancy rates, and reverse multicultural acceptance. Again, make a theological case if you like, but don’t pretend that you’re interested in Millennials as they are now. Admit that the fear of being a cultural minority is directly tied to the desire to reacquire the social leverage you used to have, and saving Millennial souls holds more value to you in the present than they will in the afterlife.

Peter Enns & The Sovereign Grace/ TGC Scandal Pt 2

christianity-todayIn my last post, I gave some context regarding the ongoing dispute between Tullian Tchividijan and The Gospel Coalition. For more details on the scandal, I highly recommend you check out the links in Part 1. Now that that’s out of the way, I’d like to dive into Peter Enns’ response to the controversy:

1. First of all, I’d like to reaffirm my respect for Peter, so people don’t misinterpret my intentions. However, I think he opens up a lot of interesting ideas that are worth further analysis.

I’l begin with Enns’ contention that the belligerence Tchividijan experienced is endemic to Reformed Theology. This implies that the Reformed movement is inherently problematic and therefore falls short of being good theology.

I tend to be skeptical whenever people make a “fruits-based” argument against a theological position. At face value much of Enns’ critique of the Reformed mentality (especial as manifested by The Gospel Coalition) rings true. But the truthfulness of a belief system isn’t dependent on how that system impacts its advocates’ behavior. I happen to strongly disagree with Reformed theology. But in theory Calvinists could be insufferable bores and also have a correct understanding of God. Their behavior is not evidence for or against their theology.

For example, in my view Richard Dawkins is a very unpleasant person. But his understanding of science is rock solid, and he could still be correct when he argues that God doesn’t exist. Feminism is correct when it argues that patriarchy is a major problem in our society, but their constant infighting turns people off. Evangelicals could be right when they say that God has called them to convert people. But evangelists are frequently off-putting and rude.

I don’t dispute the argument that some belief systems cause more harm than others. But since we’re all sinners, there will be fruits-based evidence against any belief system.

2.  I don’t believe that there’s any evidence that members of the Neo-Reformed movement are more prone to “fight” against their ideological opponents than other Christians are. There’s aways been an adversarial streak in American Christianity. And to be fair, a lot of the reasoning behind it comes straight from scripture. Over the last few years the Neo-Reformed movement has dominated online discussions about modern evangelicalism, but it’s important to keep in mind that an equal number of evangelicals identify themselves as Arminians, and no one would claim that Arminian evangelicals are any less prone to an “us against the world” mentality. And let’s not forget that liberal Christians are just as likely to take up the fight for their theological beliefs.
3. Quite a few people got tripped up over Enns’ statement that he “doesn’t really care about this issue.” I highly doubt that Peter’s implying that he’s indifferent to child abuse or the need for justice. But his reasoning behind his statement – that he has “no personal stake in the outcome” – strikes me as overly cynical.
For one, our ability to discuss and act on newsworthy problems would be dramatically handicapped if we only focused on those stories that personally affected us. In that case, why would anyone outside of the Gulf Coast report on the Hurricane Katrina? Most Americans had no personal connection to the disaster, and the degree to which the region has failed to rebuild doesn’t affect them one iota.
And even if it’s not readily apparent, the outcome of this scandal might impact Enns. Many people are speculating that the fallout could doom The Gospel Coalition and possibly the Neo-Reformed movement itself. I doubt that the impact of the scandal could reach that far. But if Enns is correct that the Reformed Movement is inherently belligerent, then the collapse of their movement should result in less belligerent brand of Christianity taking hold. That’s something that Enns clearly desires (as do I.)
4. I agree with Peter’s statement that “the world isn’t watching” to see the results of TGC’s shakeup. But word of the chid molestation scandal itself is bound to spread, especially given the likelihood of additional investigations and trials. And yes, souls have already been lost. Some of the people who have been hurt by SGM have left the faith and never looked back.

Peter Enns & The Sovereign Grace/ TGC Scandal Pt 1

tullian-tchividjianI’m a big fan of Peter Enns. I’m a regular reader of his blog and a number of his books. I’ve always found his ability to straddle evangelical theology and modern scholarship very helpful and enlightening.However, I have to disagree with his post regarding Tullian Tchividijian’s recent split with The Gospel Coalition.

But before we get to Peter Enns, I should provide some very important context. To sum up, there are two versions of this split. The Gospel Coaition claims that Tchividjian left due to theological differences that peaked with an online debate with Jen Wilkin about failure’s role in theology.  Both posts are worth your time, but to briefly summarize: Wilkins argued that by “celebrating” our failure to obey God, we risk tolerating moral laxity, while Tchividijian (pictured above) argues that Wilkins is being too harsh and underestimates the scale of God’s grace.

The Gospel Coalition establishment sided with Wilkins, and given Tchividian’s many contrarian posts on the site (specifically regarding TGC’s horrifically tasteless response last year to the CJ Mahaney sex abuse scandal.) , TGC told Tchvidian to pack up and leave ASAP. This led to Tim Keller posting their version of Tchividijian’s exit.

Tchividijian claims that the theological disputes are a smokescreen, and the real reason they told him to leave was his crtitism of TGC’s insistence on standing behind CJ  Mahaney in spite of the growing evidence that Mahaney and Sovereign Grace ministries  knew that childen were being molested in churches in their network. Rather than report it to the proper authorities, Mahaney and the church leadership are alleged to have covered up the allegations and shame the victims. Testimony during the trial appears to confirm this accusation. The pattern strongly mimics the code of silence we witnessed with Penn State and the Jerry Sandusky scandal. Coincidentally, Tchividijian was let go the same weekend Mahaney and Joshua Harris (current pastor of Mahaney’s former church) stepped down from the TGC board. This took place just days after the alleged molester was finally convicted on five charges of child molestation.

Usually whenever hot button topics like this erupt across the Christian blogosphere, I bow out because other bloggers have already expressed my views better than I can. But Enns’ take goes in a different direction I think it warrants further analysis, which I’ll provide in my next post.