12AR17-40
( - previous issue - )
Apologia Report 17:40 (1,132)
November 21, 2012
Subject: Joel Osteen's "Gospel of Affirmation Without Salvation"
In this issue:
EVANGELICALISM - how *not* to correct the movement
NEW TESTAMENT RELIABILITY - comparing the number and date of ancient New Testament and non-Christian manuscripts
OSTEEN, JOEL - agreement with Deepak Chopra on CNN to affirm New Thought concepts of positive confession
------
EVANGELICALISM
The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age, by Randall J. Stephens and Karl W. Giberson [1] -- Richard Weikart, professor of history at California State University, Stanislau, helps us understand why Stephens and Giberson's assault on evangelicals is so offensive. First, there is the problem of argument. "Their entire book rests on repeated appeals to authority, rather than providing cogent reasons for their positions. ...
"Ironically, one accusation against their more conservative evangelical foes is that the conservatives are combative and prone to divisiveness. ... This seems to me a rather hypocritical stance, since The Anointed is one of the most polemical, combative books I have read in quite a while. ...
"Stephens and Giberson advertised their book with a scathing article in the New York Times entitled 'The Evangelical Rejection of Reason.' [www.ow.ly/fqnT7] It accused those disagreeing with evolution or climate change of embracing 'red-state fundamentalism' that demonstrates 'unyielding ignorance.' They suggest that evangelicals inhabit a 'parallel culture' that embraces 'discredited, ridiculous, and even dangerous ideas' (such as opposing homosexuality)." Stephens and Giberson also "regularly downplay" the Bible and the Holy Spirit as sources of guidance and knowledge.
The authors "continually affirm the necessity of evangelicals embracing 'secular knowledge.' For them this means that we should affirm biological evolution (including evolutionary psychology), and reject outmoded ideas like Satan, demons, hell, end-time prophecies (of all kinds), spanking children because they are sinful, and the sinfulness of homosexuality and abortion. They state, 'Often an evangelical 'crisis of faith' is resolved with a simple liberalizing, whereby specific beliefs - biblical literalism, young earth creationism, homosexuality as perversion, eternal torment of the damned in a literal hell, the sinfulness of abortion - are abandoned and other beliefs - the Bible as literature, concern for the environment, racial and cultural equality for oppressed groups, universality of salvation, an emphasis on social justice, tolerance of diversity - move to the center as animating ethical and theological concerns. The evangelical spectrum encompasses both of these camps.' They clearly hope that evangelicals will discard the former more conservative set of evangelical beliefs and replace them with the more liberal ones.
"The authors also reject at least some biblical miracles, such as the sun standing still for Joshua or an axehead floating, and while admitting the possibility of some miracles, they redefine the miraculous as follows: 'More analytical evangelicals would hasten to point out that a 'miracle' does not entail breaking the laws of nature. A miracle is simply an act of God that can be accomplished by working through rather than against the natural order.' ...
"On the other hand, Stephens and Giberson continue to self-identify as evangelical Christians, and in most chapters they point out one or two other evangelical intellectuals who agree with their positions. Thus, they apparently do not always embrace 'secular knowledge.' However, they provide no criteria to tell us when we should listen to secular intellectuals. Why should we listen to secular intellectuals when they tell us we should reject certain biblical miracles, deny Satan and hell, and accept homosexuality, but then not listen to them when they tell us that Jesus did not rise from the dead, or when they argue that adultery is morally permissible or killing the disabled is compassionate? How do Stephens and Giberson decide in their own lives which elements of 'secular knowledge' to accept and which to reject? I searched their book for an answer, but never found one.' ...
"One final irony: Stephens and Giberson continually challenge other evangelicals by impugning their expertise. ... However, ironically many of the topics covered in their book lie far afield from the expertise of Stephens, a historian, and Giberson, a physicist. If we should only listen to 'experts,' why do they think we should value their opinions on everything from biology to psychology to child training to ethics to biblical prophecy?"
Weikart contends that "evangelicals have solid reasons to exercise discernment when confronted with 'secular knowledge' and he expends significant effort to spell this out. He concludes: 'None of this means that all 'secular knowledge' is wrong. Of course it isn't, and all evangelicals rely on expert knowledge in many areas of endeavor." (We'll resist taking our lead from the likes of Stephens and Giberson, whose book will likely damage respect for Francis Collins, because he teamed up with Giberson to write The Language of Science and Faith [2]. - RP) Credo, Dec 6 '11, <www.ow.ly/fnhvN>
---
NEW TESTAMENT RELIABILITY
"The Bibliographic Test Updated" by Clay Jones (Associate Professor of Apologetics, Biola) -- "For more than a generation Christian apologists have demonstrated the reliability of New Testament manuscript copies by comparinddddddg their number and dating to those of other well-accepted ancient documents. This 'bibliographical test' remains a good approach, as long as Christians update their data to reflect recent non-Christian manuscript copy finds."
Jones enumerates ten of the best-known classic works of antiquity with a brief description of each, its date of origin, and the number of its oldest extant copies. He follows this with a valuable chart comparing author, work, date written, earliest MSS, time gap, typical numbers cited for out-of-date extant copies, and the latest findings for this number. Next, Jones reviews the NT manuscript copy evidence. The bibliographic test is one of the most powerful items in the Christian apologists' tool box. Jones reminds us that when people "reject the transmissional reliability of the NT ... they must also consider unreliable all other manuscripts of antiquity."
The evidence is substantial. The New Testament, by far, "still has the best-attested manuscript transmission of any ancient document and the bibliographical test still remains a reliable indicator that the New Testament has been accurately transmitted to this day."
We just need to do our part. Many who have used this approach "haven't kept up with the increasing numbers of manuscripts" discovered through ongoing archaeological work. An excellent example of journalistic leadership within the evangelical camp. Christian Research Journal, 35:3 - 2012, pp32-37.
---
OSTEEN, JOEL
"'Staying in His Lane' — Joel Osteen's Gospel of Affirmation Without Salvation" by Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- "Joel Osteen was back on CNN this week, appearing Thursday morning on 'Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien.' [www.ow.ly/fqox8] Osteen's new book, I Declare: 31 Promises to Speak Over Your Life [3], recently hit the nation's bookstores. Osteen's positive-thinking theology was on full display in the interview, as in the book. O'Brien asked if he really believes that speaking declarations out loud can make them come true. Osteen assured her that he does, promising that speaking positive words can bring positive results and warning that speaking negativity will bring negative results. 'I don't think there's anything magic about it, but those words go out and come right back in and affect your own self-image.' ...
"The most enthusiastic response to Osteen's message came from Deepak Chopra, the New Age self-help guru, who was also on the CNN program. He affirmed Osteen's message and added, 'I've believed forever that there's no mental event that doesn't have a brain representation, that every thought actually generates molecules.' The two self-help experts then elaborated on their ideas, with Osteen urging 'activating faith,' because 'faith is what causes God to work.' Later, he even spoke of 'speaking to the seeds of greatness that God's placed in all of us.'
"The appearance of Osteen and Chopra together was a priceless demonstration of the fact that the New Thought positive-thinking philosophy that drives them both can be grafted onto either Christianity or Eastern religion. ...
"O'Brien then shifted the topic to homosexuality, as would be expected. ... "Viewers of CNN saw a display of confusion, evasion, and equivocation coming from one presented as a Christian pastor. What they were really seeing is the total theological bankruptcy of the word of faith movement and the gospel of positive-thinking. Osteen cannot, or at least will not, speak even the simplest word of biblical conviction. He states his intention to stay in his 'lane' of glib affirmation." From Mohler's blog post dated Sep 21 '12, <www.ow.ly/fo4Nk>
-------
SOURCES: Monographs
1 - The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age, by Randall J. Stephens and Karl W. Giberson (Belknap, 2011, hardcover, 384 pages) <www.tinyurl.com/92v5wfj>
2 - The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions, by Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins (IVP, 2011, hardcover, 251 pages) <www.tinyurl.com/9vu92j5>
3 - I Declare: 31 Promises to Speak Over Your Life, by Joel Osteen (FaithWords, 2012, hardcover, 192 pages) <www.ow.ly/fo58b>
------
( - next issue - )