Category Archives: Theology

Left Behind? Facts and Fiction

Posted on by

LeftBehindFacts.jpgWhile the Left Behind books conceived by Tim F. LaHaye and written by Jerry B. Jenkins are “just” novels (kind of like the DaVinci Code is “just” a novel), the influence they have on forming people’s views of the end times is enormous. My own eschatological views aside, my interest was piqued when I saw this book dealing with the “Left Behind” phenomenon:

Leann Snow Flesher, Left Behind? The Facts Behind the Fiction (Judson, 2006).
Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com

The work gets a pretty good endorsement from Walter Brueggemann: “The ‘Battle for the Bible’ continues, largely in a context where fear feeds ignorance. Flesher presents a careful, well-informed comment on dispensationalism in general and “left behind� eschatology in particular. Flesher shows the way in which Scripture is distorted to serve a political ideology that is grounded in fear. Her book is an accessible invitation to find out what the real scoop on the matter is. There is much to unlearn, and Flesher contributes to that task.�

Obviously the work does not share the premillenial dispensational outlook of the Left Behind series, but seeks to provide alternative understandings of end-times events from a biblical-theological perspective.

The book looks interesting and I think it is worth a gander — especially those who are “into” the Left Behind series, if only to let you become more informed about some other eschatological views.


Animals in Heaven?!

Posted on by

Animals_in_heaven.jpgJimmy Kimmel Live had a funny segment tonight on whether or not animals will be in heaven. The segment featured my favourite television prophecy gurus, Dr. Jack and Rexella Van Impe. Those of you who are wondering if Lassie, Garfield, and other animals will be with you in heaven will be relieved to know that “Dr.” Van Impe believes that they will — they have even produced a video on the subject.

The proof text appealed to for the notion that animals will be with us in heaven is Isaiah 11:6-8. The question I have is what happens if you have had a whole bunch of pets during your life? I’m not sure if I want all of my cats and dogs back, let alone all of the rabbits I had (and I imagine that the rabbits I sold to the butcher would be a bit peeved with me! Talk about an ackward reunion!). Just think the size of fish tank people would need if they get all their fish back!

What about pets in hell? (Kimmel’s segment on “Animals in Hell” was even funnier!)

So what do you think?


Go Up Baldy: The Curse of Baldness

Posted on by

Claude Mariottini, in a post on the “Old Testament and Baldness” linked to an article from the Mail & Guardian by Nicholas Lezard on The Horror of Going Bald. As one who at forty years still has a thick, lush, head of hair, such articles don’t concern me. The article did make reference, however, to one of my favourite(?) disturbing(!) Bible stories: the story in 2Kings 2:23-25 where Elisha calls a curse down on some children who are taunting his baldness. Here is the quote from the news article:

Baldness is a curse that demands all the fortitude at one’s disposal. It is a curse not only because it looks as though something biblical has happened to your head — it is also the way it is seen as comical, both as a fact, and as an occasion for comical reaction. The Moabites, reckless high-livers who made too many incursions into Israeli territory in the Old Testament, were afflicted, according to Jeremiah, by baldness. At one point Elisha is mocked by children (“There came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald headâ€?). Later God sends a couple of she-bears from the woods and they tear 42 of the Moabites to pieces.

What I thought was odd, was the reference to the mauled children as “Moabites.” Now, perhaps I am wrong, but the context is pretty clear that the children were from Bethel, an Israelite town. While Bethel may have shifted in political ownership between the tribe of Benjamin and Ephraim, it was never Moabite. Here is the biblical passage in question:



23 He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!� 24 When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. (NRSV)

So the 42 “small boys” mauled by the bears were fellow Israelites. The biggest question surrounding this passage is “what do we make of it?” There are a number of disturbing passages in the Hebrew Bible. Many of them are horrifying illustrations of human depravity (e.g., Judges 19), which don’t necessarily reflect poorly on the deity of the Bible. But in this passage, it is God who is the implied agent behind the bears’ actions. Elisha curses the young boys “in the name of Yahweh” and then the bears go about their business.

The problematic nature of this passage has led to much exegetical gymnastics by commentators trying to make this passage less morally offensive. Many suppose the boys taunted Elisha at the instigation of their parents and that the who event was to be a prophetic warning to the inhabitants of Bethel. Others suggest the “young boys” were teenage ruffians, though the Hebrew makes this unlikely (while נער “lad” “boy” by itself may suggest adolecents, it is qualified by קטן “small,” which suggest they were on the younger end of things). Still others suggest that by taunting him to lit. “go up” they are wishing for his death (or at least his departure from this earth, perhaps similar to Elijah’s). Most of the explanations focus on the idea that when the boys taunted the prophet of Yahweh, it was tantamount to taunting God himself, and that their mauling is somehow justified. Obviously the adage, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me” doesn’t apply to prophets! (This to me is the real problem with this passage, no matter how bad these boys were, their judgement sure seems to me to be out of proportion).

Any moral justification aside, God using animals to bring about his judgement is found elsewhere in Kings (1 Kgs 13:20–24 and 20:35–36). This is also akin to other extreme judgements in connection with the violation of the sacred (e.g., the touching of the Ark of the Covenant in 2Sam 6). Perhaps there is something in the many explanations offered about this passage. While this may be the case, I tend to think this is just one of those passages that reveal the dark side of the God of the Bible and it is better to let stand, rather than offer poor explanations to make it more morally palatable.

What do you think?

P.S. The South-Park-esque comic about this passage I mentioned in a previous post may be found here (be warned; the comic is twisted).


Cancer and John Piper Follow-Up

Posted on by

I wanted to post a follow-up to my previous post on “Cancer, John Piper, and the Falleness of Creation” in order to tie up some loose ends and offer a bit more reflection.

First, I would like to thank everyone who commented on my original post (I have moved all of the comments to WordPress) as well as those who have offered reflections on their own blogs (e.g., see the divergent perspectives offered at Christ and Culture and rhettsmith.com). As an armchair Barthian, I especially appreciated Ben Myer’s quotation from Karl Barth, which is so good I must reproduce it in full:

“[Sickness] is opposed to [God’s] good will as Creator and has existence and power only under his mighty No. To capitulate before it, to allow it to take its course, can never be obedience but only disobedience towards God. In harmony with the will of God, what man ought to will in face of this whole realm … and therefore in face of sickness, can only be final resistance.” Church Dogmatics III/4, pp. 367-8

I encourage you to read Ben’s own reflections (as well as the interesting discussion in the comments to his post) at Faith and Theology.

In my post, I was not espousing open theism, nor was I offering a critique of John Piper’s reformed theology as a whole; I was just offering personal reflections on two points of his post “Don’t Waste Your Cancer.” As such, I didn’t think I needed to engage everything Piper has written on suffering and the sovereignty of God! In regards to Piper’s “proof-texting” my point was simply that when offering scriptural support to a particular argument, it is important to understand the verse(s) in their larger context — as well as the larger context of the canon of Scripture. I did not feel that Piper did that in the post I was responding to (his second point was especially problematic IMHO).

At any rate, the primary reason I wanted to follow-up my original post was due to the fact that a student in my Biblical Theology course I am teaching this semester (the topic of his post came up in class discussion) contacted John Piper with some questions about the appropriateness of thinking of cancer as a “gift from God.” The John Piper Ministry, Desiring God, responded with the following (note that the reply is not responding to my blog post, but to an email my student sent):

Thank you for your email to Desiring God. My name is Brian Tabb, and I work at Desiring God and will answer this email for John Piper. Your questions/comments come in response to “Don’t Waste Your Cancer,� posted by John Piper the day before his cancer surgery. Piper cited Job 2:7-10 as support for the statement “You will waste your cancer if you do not believe it is designed for you by God.� This passage begins, “So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and struck Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head� (Job 2:7). Satan is the instrument and intends Job’s harm and ultimately his denial of God. Yet he can not so much as lay a finger on Job without asking God and God saying yes. God’s role in Job’s suffering is not minimized by the Biblical author or by the character of Job or his wife. Both knew that God was behind the boils. Job’s wife responded negatively (a common way to respond to cancer/boils/etc.) “Curse God and die.� This is exactly what Satan wanted out of this affliction. Job’s response is rebuke and humble submission, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?�

You want to emphasize that suffering exists only because ours is a sinful, fallen world, and I agree. That does not exclude Piper’s position but talks past it. You argue, “In a sinless and unfallen world, cancer would not be a gift from God so how can this be in our sin-filled world?� However, this is arguing for a hypothetical world in which cancer is not a gift rather than arguing from the world we live in. God did not ordain cancer in Genesis 2 and there will be no more in Revelation 21. But we live in between, and while the kingdom of God has been inaugurated in the ministry of Jesus (Lk 11:20), it will not be consummated until Christ’s return (Rev. 12:10). Jesus did come to heal, yet in God’s wisdom he also died a criminal’s death as the crowds jeered “Save yourself� (Lk 23:37). Why did Jesus not go immediately to heal Lazarus, his beloved friend, in Jn 11? For the display of the glory of God. Why was Paul not healed of his thorn in 2 Cor. 12? He said “so that the power of Christ may rest upon me� (12:9).

You are correct to point out that we must deal with the sinfulness that is real and pervasive in our present world, and Piper and I certainly agree with you. But it is too simplistic to say that such and such happens because of sin. Job’s friends did that and were heartily rebuked at the end of the book because they had no clue about God’s wisdom and design. The disciples in John 9 said “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?� Jesus’ answer blows their retribution theology out of the water, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.� Sin is a very real cause of suffering, but it is not ultimate. What we want to stress is that God is ultimate as this seems the clear witness of the above passages and more. I hope this helps to clarify the article and I welcome any further feedback.

For the Supremacy of Christ in All Things,

Brian Tabb
Desiring God
2601 East Franklin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55406
888.346.4700 (toll free)
612.338.4372 (fax)
www.desiringGod.org

I have a couple reactions to this response. First, I would agree that God is presented as absolutely sovereign in the book of Job. The adversary (hasatan) only does what God permits. That being said, the point of the book is to undermine traditional retribution theology that sees all suffering as the result of sin. I don’t think its point is to argue that all suffering is caused by God (nor is that the point of John 9). The prose prologue to the book of Job gives us a metaphorical glimpse into God’s council chambers in order to provide an incontrovertible example an individual whose suffering is not the result of his own sin (and let’s face it, Job is presented as the poster-boy for traditional retribution theology). It’s point is not that all suffering should be seen as a gift from God anymore than it should be understood as the result of a wager between God and a celestial adversary!

Second, I would agree that it is “too simplistic” to say that suffering is the result of sinful actions (I don’t think my post would have given this impression; I imagine that it is more in response to my student’s email). I would also say that it is “too simplistic” (or reductionistic) to attribute all suffering/sickness to direct divine agency. The question of suffering is complex and I believe ultimately mysterious. In the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (and in parts of the New Testament as well), the dominant theological view saw a direct connection between action and consequence (for more on retribution theology, see my reflections on hurricane Katrina here). The book of Job dismantles this reductionistic view and ultimately argues that only God knows the solution to the question of suffering (hence, passages like the mediation on who is truly wise in Job 28 is not extraneous to the message of the book as a whole). The biology lesson that God gives Job in the final chapters of the book forcefully makes the point that if we as humans can’t understand the world that God has put us in, how do we think we could understand the divine economy? Suffering has many sources. If we take into consideration the entire biblical witness, then suffering may be understood as the result of human, demonic, or divine agency, or its origins may be the result of the fallen state of the world. To reduce it to any one of these is saying more than Scripture allows.

Finally, back to the topic of cancer. In my humble opinion, cancer is not a gift from God. Perhaps the difference between Piper’s views and my own are semantic, though I don’t think so. What is a gift, however, is the grace, hope, and healing that God may give to those who are struggling with cancer.

In terms of an update, I am happy to report that my father-in-law and good friend have both had their first round of chemotherapy and are doing remarkably well, all things considering. I have not heard anything more on John Piper’s condition (I couldn’t find anything on his website, so I assume no news is good news). Please continue to pray for these individuals as you see fit.

Once again, I encourage you to consider supporting one of the many agencies or foundations who work towards cures and more effective cancer treatments, such as the Canadian Cancer Society or the American Cancer Society.


Faith-Based Wissenschaft: An Oxymoron?

Posted on by

Michael V. Fox has a thought provoking essay at the most recent SBL Forum entitled, “Bible Scholarship and Faith-Based Study: My View.” While I have the utmost respect for Fox as a scholar (his various works on the wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible are absolutely second to none), I am not sure I agree with his bold statement “faith-based study has no place in academic scholarship” (see Danny Zacharias’s reflections at Deinde, as well as James Crossley’s posts here and here).

On the one hand, I’m not sure I like the implication that “faith-based scholarship” (or Wissenschaft) is an oxymoron. While I would agree that any scholarship that presumes its conclusions is methodologically problematic (and borders on disingenuous), faith-based scholarship does not necessarily have to fall in this category (though some certainly does). Furthermore, I would think that secular Wissenschaft could learn a lot from a lot of faith-based scholarship as well as other ideological approaches. As Peter Donovan has recently noted, “the scientific study of religion can ill afford to insulate itself from the thinking of others interested in the same subject-matter, merely because they may hold very different views about theory and method” (“Neutrality in Religious Studies,” in The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion: A Reader [ed. Russell T. McCutcheon; New York: Cassell, 1999], 245). What is perhaps most important for any approach to biblical studies is that the approach is academically sound, methodologically rigorous, and up front about any and all presuppositions.

On the other hand, Fox’s point has some validity in that he is not dismissing the “scholarship of persons who hold a personal faith.” In fact, he notes that “there are many religious individuals whose scholarship is secular and who introduce their faith only in distinctly religious forums.” Basically what I understand Fox as saying is that “Wissenschaft” employs a “secular, academic, religiously-neutral hermeneutic” and any scholars who want to engage in biblical Wissenschaft needs to play by the agreed upon rules. Thus, Wissenschaft becomes a “middle discourse” by which people of different faiths and/or no faith can engage in scholarly discourse.

This debate within biblical studies is paralleled by a larger debate within the discipline of religious studies. Since the end of the nineteenth century, the discipline of religious studies has typically been understood to be the “value-neutral” and “objective” study of religions, while theology is the confessional or particularistic study of one religion (see, for example, Donald Wiebe, “The Politics of Religious Studies,” CSSR Bulletin 27/4 [November 1998] 95-98). This distinction played an important part in the establishment of religious studies departments in a number of universities in Europe and North America — and especially Canadian public universities (interestingly, not all educational institutions thought that the distinction was necessary). This traditional demarcation has been challenged on some fronts in light of the postmodern recognition that there is no real objective, value-neutral study of religion (or any other subject for that matter), and thus the only differences between the disciplines are the rules agreed upon by those working within them — the rules of the game, so to speak.

(For an interesting discussion of postmodern theories of religious studies, see the interaction between Garrett Green, “Challenging the Religious Studies Canon: Karl Barth’s Theory of Religion,” Journal of Religion 75 [1995] 473-86; Russell T. McCutcheon, “My Theory of the Brontosaurus: Postmodernism and ‘Theory’ of Religion,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 26/1 [1997] 3-23, and William E. Arnal, “What if I Don’t Want to Play Tennis?: A Rejoinder to Russell McCutcheon on Postmodernism and Theory of Religion,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 27/1 [1998] 61-68; see also McCutcheon’s response, “Returning the Volley to William E. Arnal” on pp. 67-68 of the same issue).

In practice, religious studies (and biblical studies) in the Canadian public university context tends to be the scientific study of religion which does not privilege one religious discourse above another. Theology, on the other hand, is typically defined as the study of one religion from a confessional standpoint. So in this sense, I agree with Fox that there is a valid difference between faith-based scholarship and secular scholarship. But the question remains “what rules are we going to play by?” While I appreciate Fox’s point, I am skeptical about whether there is any scholarship that is truly “objective” and “value-neutral.” And any scholar who suggests that their work is “objective” and “value-neutral” would perhaps be more at home in the 19th century! I for one live in both worlds and produce scholarship for a variety of contexts. Some of my research is for the broader academy and employs methods appropriate for such work, while some of my study is for the community of faith to which I belong and employs a slightly different approach. I hope, however, that all of my research may stand up under the scrutiny of scholars who take different approaches and have different presuppositions than I.

Let me end with the final exchange between David and his Rebbe from Chaim Potok’s masterful book In the Beginning (Ballantine, 1997; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com).

  • Rebbe: “… Are you telling me you will not be an observer of the commandments?”
  • David: “I am not telling the Rebbe that.”
  • Rebbe: “What are you telling me?”
  • David: “I will go wherever the truth leads me. It is secular scholarship, Rebbe; it is not the scholarship of tradition. In secular scholarship there are no boundaries and no permanently fixed views.”
  • Rebbe: “Lurie, if the Torah cannont go out into your world of scholarship and return stronger, then we are all fools and charlatans. I have faith in the Torah. I am not afraid of truth.”

Cancer, John Piper, and the Falleness of Creation

Posted on by

John Piper has posted on his website an article entitled “Don’t Waste Your Cancer” (HT BlogWatch). He wrote the short reflection yesterday (15 February) before having prostate surgery (his surgery reportedly went well). I too have been thinking a lot about cancer recently. My father-in-law was diagnosed with cancer two days before Christmas, a close friend was diagnosed with breast cancer early in the new year, and some of my students have family members who were recently diagnosed. In addition, this upcoming Sunday will mark the fifth anniversary of my father’s death from cancer.

In his article, Piper produces a series of ten statements that begin, “You will waste your cancer if you….” Now most of the statements are meant to encourage believers to remain positive and hopeful when struggling with cancer (e.g., “You will waste your cancer if you seek comfort from your odds rather than from God”; “You will waste your cancer if you let it drive you into solitude instead of deepen your relationships with manifest affection”; etc.). I have no issues with the vast majority of his points.

That being said, I do take issue with his first two statements:

  1. You will waste your cancer if you do not believe it is designed for you by God.
    It will not do to say that God only uses our cancer but does not design it. What God permits, he permits for a reason. And that reason is his design. If God foresees molecular developments becoming cancer, he can stop it or not. If he does not, he has a purpose. Since he is infinitely wise, it is right to call this purpose a design. Satan is real and causes many pleasures and pains. But he is not ultimate. So when he strikes Job with boils (Job 2:7), Job attributes it ultimately to God (2:10) and the inspired writer agrees: “They… comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him” (Job 42:11). If you don’t believe your cancer is designed for you by God, you will waste it.
  2. You will waste your cancer if you believe it is a curse and not a gift.
    “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). “There is no enchantment against Jacob, no divination against Israel” (Numbers 23:23). “The Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord bestows favor and honor. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly” (Psalm 84:11).

Now, perhaps I am just coming from a different place theologically than Piper (actually, I know I am), but I find the notions that God “designs” people’s cancer and that cancer is a “gift from God” to be offensive. What is more, I find that Piper’s proof-texting of Scripture to be troubling. In the book of Job, God does allow “the adversary” (הַשָּׂטָ֖ן, hasatan) to inflict Job, and his so-called friends did see his suffering as from the hands of God and due to his own sin. But, in the same way it is fallaciouss to see all suffering as the result of sin, so it is not the point of the book of Job to then attribute all suffering to the direct agency of God. Similarly, his series of proof-texts for his second point are perhaps relevant to part of his point that cancer is not a “curse.” But saying that cancer is not a “curse” is not the same as saying it is a gift.

All good things are a gift from God (James 1:17) but in my books cancer is not a good thing. Cancer is an all too frequent reminder that this world is radically fallen, that things are manifestly not the way they are supposed to be — they are hebel (הֶבֶל). I do think there is a subtle, yet theologically important distinction to be made between talking about cancer (or any sickness or tragedy) as being used by God over against cancer being caused or designed by God.

Perhaps I am wrong, or at least biased by my own personal experiences. Whether or not you agree with my perspective (which I would readily admit I have not developed in any detail in this post), one thing we can all agree on is that we should pray. We should pray for John Piper and all who are struggling with cancer. I covet your prayers for my father-in-law and my friend, as well as for the others I have mentioned.

In addition, I encourage you to consider supporting one of the many agencies or foundations who work towards cures and more effective cancer treatments, such as the Canadian Cancer Society or the American Cancer Society.