Academia

, , , , ,

Scripture puzzle about wisdom: Was the biblical Solomon a good or a bad king?

, , , , ,
Scripture puzzle about wisdom: Was the biblical Solomon a good or a bad king?

THE QUESTION:

According to the Bible, was Solomon a good or a bad king?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Both.

With the political challenges afflicting the leaders of Britain, France, Israel, Nigeria, Ukraine, the United States and other nations, it’s interesting to look back to the rulers in the Bible even though their ancient monarchies were radically different.

Among them King Solomon, whose 40-year reign began 2,993 years ago, ranks with his father David in significance.

This ever-fascinating figure, portrayed onscreen by the likes of Yul Brynner (1959) and Ben Cross (1997), led Israel to its zenith of peace, prosperity, cultural sophistication and international stature. And yet a 2011 biography by Wheaton College President Philip Ryken demeans him with the title “King Solomon: The Temptations of Money, Sex, and Power.” Various Jewish legends outside the Bible both exaggerate his magnificence and the opposite, claiming his subjects rejected him and he died penniless.

I Kings 1–11 and parallels in II Chronicles 1–9 are the primary sources on his career (here using the Jewish Publication Society translation). King David and Bathsheba lost their first child, a son, as divine retribution for the adultery, homicide and deceit that led to their marriage. Solomon (whose name meant “peace” or “wholeness,” also named Jedidiah, meaning “beloved of the Lord”) became their oldest son and favorite.

David had prior sons by other polygamous wives and the oldest, Adonijah, had a strong dynastic claim to the throne, but the aging David had instead designated Solomon, who was probably age 14 when he took charge. The young king mastered palace intrigue and eventually executed Adonijah and his key supporters. “Thus the kingdom was secured in Solomon’s hands.”

Despite that turbulent start, Solomon — like his father — was devoted to the one true God and his commandments as the foundation of the regime. A crucial moment occurred several years into Solomon’s reign. God appeared to the king in a dream and asked what gift he desired. Solomon replied that he was “a young lad with no experience in leadership” and therefore needed most “an understanding mind to judge your people, to distinguish between good and bad.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: What happens at Calvin doesn't stay at Calvin. True, so what now for LGBTQ wars?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: What happens at Calvin doesn't stay at Calvin. True, so what now for LGBTQ wars?

Back in the spring, we did a GetReligion podcast that was accompanied by a post with this title: “What parents (and journalists) can learn from LGBTQ debates at Calvin.”

The Big Idea in that podcast was that Calvin University isn’t just another Christian college — it’s the base camp for a kind of Reformed intellectual A-team that punches way, way, way above its weight in the Council For Christian Colleges and Universities (the global network in which I worked and taught for a quarter of a century or so). Thus, I stated: “What happens at Calvin doesn’t stay at Calvin.”

If you have followed Calvin closely in recent decades, you know that a significant chunk of its faculty believes (this is my summary) that those who truly honor and teach the great Reformed Tradition of Calvinism know that it’s time for new Reformers (that would be them) to reform the out-of-date theological conclusions of their ancestors. You can see similar streams of thought among Methodists, Anglicans, Catholics and even (in a few zip codes) the Eastern Orthodox.

With that in mind, it’s time for this week’s “Crossroads” episode (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which offers an update on Calvin and tensions inside its denomination, care of a Religion News Service story with this headline: “Christian Reformed Church codifies homosexual sex as sin in its declaration of faith.” Actually, if you read carefully, the CRC affirmed 2,000 years of Christian teaching that (a) sex outside of marriage is a sin and (b) Christian marriages unite a man and a women. Here is the overture of that RNS story:

(RNS) — The Christian Reformed Church, a small evangelical denomination of U.S. and Canadian churches, voted … at its annual synod to codify its opposition to homosexual sex by elevating it to the status of confession, or deration of faith.

The 123-53 vote at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, caps a process begun in 2016 when a previous synod voted to form a study committee to bring a report on the “biblical theology” of sexuality.

The vote, following a long day of debate, approves a list of what the denomination calls sexual immorality it won’t tolerate, including “adultery, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, polyamory, pornography and homosexual sex.”

“The church must warn its members that those who refuse to repent of these sins — as well as of idolatry, greed, and other such sins — will not inherit the kingdom of God,” the report says. “It must discipline those who refuse to repent of such sins for the sake of their souls.”

Just asking: That “what the denomination calls” language is interesting. Doesn’t that kind of imply that these teachings belong to the CRC alone — as opposed to being doctrines affirmed by the world’s largest Christian bodies, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Third World Anglicans and most evangelical and Pentecostal believers.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

What happens after Anaheim '22? That will unfold in pulpits, pews and big SBC institutions

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
What happens after Anaheim '22? That will unfold in pulpits, pews and big SBC institutions

Before the Southern Baptists Convention's strong vote to approve what supporters called "bare minimum" sexual-abuse reforms -- with victims in the crowd weeping with relief -- there was a strategic amendment to the recommendations.

Rather than stay with the independent Guidepost Solutions organization, the Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force would seek to use "best practices in keeping with Southern Baptist church polity," while a "Ministry Check" website tracking those "credibly accused" of abuse would be "established and maintained by an independent contractor."

Activist Rachel Denhollander pleaded, before the vote: "Institutions must be held accountable. It doesn't matter who they are. Justice and truth are always what we should pursue."

Afterwards, the attorney and #ChurchToo abuse survivor posted another challenge on Twitter: "It is the first, most basic steps. But it is a testament to the survivors who fought so long and so hard. I am grateful. Now let's keep working."

That work will depend on the cooperation of pastors and church leaders in the SBC's 47,000 local churches, as well as the administrators and trustees of agencies, boards, seminaries and other institutions at the state and national levels.

The bottom line: In Southern Baptist "polity" -- with sprawling structures of autonomous congregations that, to varying degrees, fund state, national and global ministries -- there are no leadership structures resembling local Presbyterian presbyteries, regional annual conferences among United Methodists or the powerful diocesan structures of Catholics, Episcopalians and others. Local churches ordain, hire and fire clergy.

Outsiders often struggle to understand the theological and practical implications of Baptist polity, said Thomas Kidd, who teaches church history at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Baylor University.

"Many people continue to think that the SBC can make its churches do this or that or the other and that simply isn't true," he said.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Once again, secular science commends a religious instinct and outlook (think compassion)

, , , , , , , , ,
Once again, secular science commends a religious instinct and outlook (think compassion)

Here’s new secular social science research that’s drenched with religious significance just waiting for examination by journalists.

Over the years, a substantial body of evidence from blue-ribbon universities and medical schools has demonstrated the physical and psychological benefits of regular religious involvement. A January Guy Memo here at GetReligion featured one such new study and then there’s that pioneering Mayo Clinic report from 2001 (.pdf here).

Note to journalists: The impact on life outcomes of youths who are raised in religious homes is especially striking.

Consider the 2019 book “Compassionomics: The Revolutionary Scientific Evidence That Caring Makes a Difference” by physicians Anthony Mazzarelli and Stephen Trzeciak, who are administrators and researchers at New Jersey’s Cooper University Health Care and Cooper Medical School. They reported evidence that health care staffers’ compassion toward patients has a powerful impact on improving both patient outcomes and the workers’ own well-being.

No kidding.

A new book by the same co-authors, going on sale June 21, dramatically extends the concept: “Wonder Drug: 7 Scientifically Proven Ways That Serving Others is the Best Medicine for Yourself” (St. Martin’s Essentials; contact publicity@stmartins.com). The Guy has not read the book but the news potential is obvious from a CNN interview with Mazzarelli last Saturday (click here for transcript).

Think of it as doing well by doing good.

From biblical times to the present, people have been urged to be helpful to others because (1) your Creator requires it and (2) it’s the right thing to do. The two clinicians tell us that a consistent commitment to helping other people is great for you in all kinds of medically provable ways and is thus the “wonder drug” of their title.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nowhere to hide: Los Angeles Times hit job focuses on one side of Biola University tensions

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Nowhere to hide: Los Angeles Times hit job focuses on one side of Biola University tensions

If you have followed trends in academic and student life at Biola University over the past 25 years or so — I have spoken there about 10 times in that period — you know that this is a complex campus, with all kinds of divisions on theological, moral, political and cultural issues.

As a rule, campus administrators there are just as uncomfortable with strong conservative voices as they are with candid evangelical progressives. Thus, all kinds of Biola believers have learned to state radically different convictions in language that can be called “evangelical” to one degree or another. The goal is to keep painful fights out of publications read by parents, donors and even trustees.

It’s important to keep this in mind while reading the Los Angeles Times morality-tale sermon that ran the other day with this headline: “CRT, Trumpism and doubt roil Biola University. Is this the future of evangelical Christianity?” The headline failed to include the key issue in this story — clashes over the validity of 2,000 years of Christian doctrine on sexuality and marriage.

For additional insights on political and theological diversity found Christian campuses, it will help to read this classic 1995 essay at The Atlantic — “The Warring Visions of the Religious Right” — by the liberal Baptist scholar Harvey Cox of Harvard Divinity School (author of the ‘60s bestseller, “The Secular City”).

Oh, and speaking of liberal Baptist scholars, one of the defining voices in the new Los Angeles Times feature is David Gushee of Mercer University. It was totally valid to include his voice in this story, but it was interesting that he is quoted as a neutral academic expert on these matters, as opposed to being an articulate spokesman for activists on one side of the doctrinal war being covered in this story.

After all, it was Gushee who opened a classic 2016 essay for Religion News Service with these lines:

Middle ground is disappearing on the question of whether LGBT persons should be treated as full equals, without any discrimination in society — and on the related question of whether religious institutions should be allowed to continue discriminating due to their doctrinal beliefs.

It turns out that you are either for full and unequivocal social and legal equality for LGBT people, or you are against it, and your answer will at some point be revealed. This is true both for individuals and for institutions.

Neutrality is not an option. Neither is polite half-acceptance. Nor is avoiding the subject. Hide as you might, the issue will come and find you.

Thus, the Los Angeles Times has come to confront the leaders of Biola University.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thinking, with Aaron Renn, about the 'three worlds' shaping American evangelical debates

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking, with Aaron Renn, about the 'three worlds' shaping American evangelical debates

f you have been paying much attention to evangelical Twitter in the past year or so, you may have noticed quite a few heated arguments involving the word “elite.”

If you doubt this, run a basic Google search for “Tim Keller,” “evangelical” and “elite.” Then try “David French,” “evangelical” and “elite.”

What you’ll find is more evidence of the relevance of this recent GetReligion “Memo” by religion-beat patriarch Richard Ostling: “Is evangelical Protestantism breaking into five factions in the United States of America?”

You may want to click a few of these links if you are planning to read, write or report about the upcoming Southern Baptist Convention, which is June 12-15 in Anaheim, Calif.

There is a very good chance that, at some point, one or more Baptists taking part in speeches or in floor debates will use one or more of these terms — “Positive “World,” “Neutral World” and “Negative World.” Most people will “get” the references being made.

However, I think that it would be good — as a weekend “think piece” — to point to the source of those terms as they were used earlier this year in a First Things essay by social-media scribe Aaron M. Renn. The logical title: “The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism.” Here is the overture:

American evangelicalism is deeply divided.

Some evangelicals have embraced the secular turn toward social justice activism, particularly around race and immigration, accusing others of failing to reckon with the church’s racist past. Others charge evangelical elites with going “woke” and having failed their flocks. Some elites are denounced for abandoning historic Christian teachings on sexuality. Others face claims of hypocrisy for supporting the serial adulterer Donald Trump. Old alliances are dissolving.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thinking about that 'Define evangelical' thing, with Andrew Walker, Ryan Burge (and Mark Noll)

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about that 'Define evangelical' thing, with Andrew Walker, Ryan Burge (and Mark Noll)

If you search for “define evangelical” in the 18 years worth of material stored here at GetReligion you will find about four screens worth of information. Here’s what that looks like in a Google search.

Believe it or not, this was a hot topic before the advent of Orange Man Bad and the dreaded “81% of White evangelicals” mantra.

Debates about the meaning of the church-history term “evangelical” are so old that I once asked the Rev. Billy Graham for his take. Here’s some information about his answer, drawn from this “On Religion” column: “Define 'evangelical' – please.”

… You might assume that the world's most famous evangelist has an easy answer for this tricky political question: "What does the word 'evangelical' mean?" If you assumed this, you would be wrong. In fact, Graham once bounced that question right back at me.

"Actually, that's a question I'd like to ask somebody, too," he said, during a 1987 interview in his mountainside home office in Montreat, N.C. This oft-abused term has "become blurred. ... You go all the way from the extreme fundamentalists to the extreme liberals and, somewhere in between, there are the evangelicals."

Wait a minute, I said. If Billy Graham doesn't know what "evangelical" means, then who does? Graham agreed that this is a problem for journalists and historians. One man's "evangelical" is another's "fundamentalist."

That leads us to the topic of this quick, and rather rare, Monday “think piece” (I’m traveling right now and rather unplugged, so I wrote this several days ago).

Thus, at the top of this post you will see a video feature from The Gospel Coalition in which two academics — political scientist Ryan Burge ( a GetReligion contributor) and ethicist-apologist Andrew Walker — debate this topic: “Is ‘Evangelical’ a Political or Theological identity?” (Careful readers may have noticed that, a few lines earlier, I called it a “church-history term” and I’m sticking to that.)

I will let Burge and Walker speak for themselves.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Plug-In: Faith in Uvalde, even as national media attention focuses on police and guns

, , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Faith in Uvalde, even as national media attention focuses on police and guns

In the 10 days since a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, questions about the incompetent police response have dominated the headlines.

So, too, has the political debate over gun violence, specifically the assault-style weapons used in Uvalde as well as recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and — just this week — Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Rightly so.

But faith, too, has emerged as a vital part of the story, as we first highlighted last Friday. Once again this week, that is where we start.

Check out this must-read coverage:

• A church, a gathering place for generations, becomes a hub for Uvalde’s grief (by Rick Rojas, New York Times).

• Funeral after funeral, Uvalde’s only Catholic priest leans on faith (by Teo Armus, Washington Post).

• Meet the first minister of gun violence prevention (by Emily McFarlan Miller, Religion News Service).

• In Uvalde, a ministry of listening and silence (by Addie Michaelian, World).

• ‘This is wailing, weeping, heartfelt grief. This is what this town is feeling’ (by Audrey Jackson, Christian Chronicle).

• The arrow in America’s heart (by Elizabeth Dias, New York Times).

• A former pastor grieves the loss of his great-granddaughter in Uvalde (by John Burnett and Marisa Peñaloza, NPR).

• On Texas shooting, Vatican Academy for Life says just laws ‘protect all citizens’ (by Elise Ann Allen, Crux).


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Should religion influence U.S. public policy? It always has, on both the left and right

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Should religion influence U.S. public policy? It always has, on both the left and right

THE QUESTION:

Should religion influence U.S. public policy? For instance, look at Protestants.

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The media occasionally press this question upon us as, as with a timely May article by Religion News Service columnist Jeffrey Salkin titled “Should religion influence abortion policy?”

He thinks not. Salkin acknowledges that “religious ideas are part of the public discourse” but even so “those ideas cannot determine policy. Public policy must be open to rational discourse, with provable data, and not merely rely on beliefs, however sacred their sources.” (Naturally, pro-lifers would reply that they rely on “rational discourse” and “provable data” from biology.)

He continues, “America does not allow you to turn your own religion’s theological ideas into public policy. ... This way lies chaos, and worse — holy wars between religious groups. This way lies a return to the Middle Ages. It is time for all religious people to call: Time out.” For Salkin, this approach is required by freedom of religion — or perhaps should we say freedom from religion?

Salkin champions the pro-choice public policy advocated by this own faith, Reform Judaism, which puts this among 17 causes on the agenda of its Washington lobby.

The pro-lifers believe laws should protect the tiny human life growing in the womb. Faiths such as Reform Judaism oppose such protection, believing that women must exercise unimpeded abortion choice. To a journalist, religious alliances on both sides seek to impose their belief as public policy.

Whether America’s religious groups should try to influence policy, they’ve in fact done so since Plymouth Rock and will continue to under the Bill of Rights. Reminders. As much as anything it was Christian zeal that led to abolition of slavery — and 620,000 Civil War deaths. Similarly with the colonists’ rebellion against Britain, women’s vote and, in a remarkable demonstration of Protestant power now mostly regretted, nationwide alcohol Prohibition written into the Constitution.

Which brings us to very important but oft-neglected history depicted convincingly in the new book “Before the Religious Right: Liberal Protestants, Human Rights, and the Polarization of the United States” (University of Pennsylvania Press) by University at Buffalo historian Gene Zubovich.


Please respect our Commenting Policy