Are Christianity and science opposed to each other? Is religion just a myth? Does modern scholarship actually debunk the Bible? On this edition of
White Horse Inn, Mike Horton talks with Jeffrey Burton Russell, professor of history at University of California, Santa Barbara, and author of
Exposing Myths about Christianity: A Guide to Answering 145 Viral Lies and Legends. Hear audio
13 comments:
How ironic that Horton is asking this question since Horton thinks the Bible is "inspired" myth.
The Continuing Saga
Charlie,
You might want to point out to readers where the particular theological views to which you refer are discernible in Michael Horton's interview with Jeffrey Burton Russell.
Robin, I don't need to read the interview with Russell since I'm judging from Horton's remarks in his Systematic Theology:
We do not have to say that Christianity is a metanarrative to affirm that it is true. C. S. Lewis pointed out that Christianity is the true myth--the myth that actually became fact. "It happens--at a particular, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth." 7 In other words, it is still a story, even though it is true. Not even the resurrection is a metanarrative; its meaning cannot be read off of the surface of historical events but is defined by its intratextual context as part of an unfolding plot. Mike Horton. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011). Page 18.
Inspired Myth
Charlie,
My concern is the extent Horton's views are reflected in the interview. Do they inform the questions that he asks Russell? Is he using the interview as a platform for disseminating his own ideas?
Horton may view the Bible as "inspired myth." However, the use of "myth" in the title of Russell's book does not necessarily mean that this view of the Bible is the subject of the book.
The term "myth" can be used a number of ways. Look at the Merriam-Webster definition of the term:
1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
b: parable, allegory
2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially: one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society
b: an unfounded or false notion
3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4: the whole body of myths
Russell appears to be using the term in the sense of popular misconceptions about Christianity.
Because Horton recommends a book or interviews its author, it does not necessarily follow that the book is suspect or that the author's theological views are problematic.
Russell's book should be judged on its own merits, not on the views of the theologian who is interviewing its author.
This does not rule out the possibility that Horton selected the book because its author shares his theological views. However, I don't believe that we can assume that Russell does and therefore we must give him the benefit of the doubt.
The clear implication of saying that "evolution" is a viable view from the Scriptural point of view is to endorse neo-orthodoxy, which is clearly unbiblical.
See: Genesis 1-11
Everything about the topic of this polemical essay is wrong. There is absolutely no reason to set Genesis 1-11 off from the rest of Genesis, the rest of the Old Testament, and the rest of the Bible as a special, indeed dubious, kind of writing. There is no question whether Genesis 1-11 is historical. There may be no question about the historicity of Genesis 1-11. Merely to allow for the possibility that Genesis 1-11 is mythical is unbelief. Seriously to pose the question about Genesis 1-11, "Myth or History?" is to do exactly what Eve did when she entertained the speaking serpent's opening question, "Yea, hath God said?" (Gen. 3:1). Tolerance of doubt concerning the truthfulness of God's Word is revolt against Him and apostasy from Him.
Nevertheless, the topic is forced upon us by the controversy of the present day. And it serves well to sharpen the issue: Genesis 1-11 is either myth or history. That section of Scripture is not, and cannot be, a third thing: mythical history, or historical myth.
The topic is not seriously intended, as though it were an open question to the writer, and may be an open question to the reader, whether Genesis 1-11 is myth or history. Genesis 1-11 is history, not myth. This must be the presupposition, proposition, and conclusion of this article. Genesis 1-11 demands it.
David Engelsma
Robin, since Horton invited a person to his program who seems to think that theistic evolution is a viable option for Christians, it logically follows that Horton is indirectly pushing this view whether his denomination "officially" agrees with it or not. Also, in the interview Horton never challenges the idea that theistic evolution is somehow biblical and acceptable. Scripture nowhere endorses evolution in any shape, form, or fashion. The Bible is not an inspired myth! That is neo-orthodoxy, not biblical teaching. The short answer is that either Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative OR it is a myth. Calling a myth "inspired" fact does not remove the implications of calling the inerrant Bible a "story" or a "myth" or even "saga". Those are ideas perpetuated by Gerhard Von Rad and Walther Eichrodt in the Old Testament.
So-called "Evangelicals" who believe in theistic evolution are only short steps away from outright liberalism. The only option is to reject evolution as a violation of the distinction between general revelation and special revelation. Since Scripture teaches creation by fiat or perhaps a day/age creation by fiat then it follows that "theistic" evolution is not even an option. Once again Horton reveals his true colors.
He did the same thing in his interview with David Virtue a couple or three years ago when he endorsed the ACNA as an "Evangelical" province of the Anglican Communion. It is surely not Evangelical by any stretch of the imagination but is rather an Anglo-Catholic denomination.
Charlie,
At the same time there are many misconceptions in regard to Christianity held by non-Christians and a book that addressed these misconceptions would be a useful resource. In light of what you have said, readers may wish to check out what a number of reviewers have to say about this book and its author.
I personally read a wide range of books including those of authors whose theological views I do not share and with which I strongly disagree. They may otherwise prove useful.
Robin, the real issue here is that Horton is pushing evolution on his program. That's as clear as day. I no longer endorse The White Horse Inn. I do link to these other sites as resources but with disclaimers. Horton is a liberal as far as I'm concerned. His systematic theology as much as says that the Bible is not "really" God's Word since at no single point is God's knowledge and our knowledge in contact. It's another way of saying that all "knowledge" of God is merely existential experience and that real knowledge of God is impossible--even in the special revelation of Holy Scripture. Thanks to Cornelius Van Til scores of Evangelicals are headed toward skepticism.
Charlie,
I understand your concerns. However, I think that we need to shift the focus back to Russell's book. We need to be examining the strengths and weaknesses of the book itself. This is why I recommend that readers check out reviews of the book and decide for themselves if the book is worth reading.
If we should hold Robin personally accountable for the views expressed in every article he publishes, he would be in big trouble in my book. But we don't hold him responsible for the views of others. Thankfully, we only hold him responsible only for his own words. I myself have found Whitehorse Inn to be always entertaining, but not always edifying. Let's leave it at that. Notwithstanding Horton's words, I'm a bit surprised that Charlie is so sure of what Horton believes (and how he believes it) concerning Genesis 1-11, historical narrative or 'historical myth'. The trouble with people who communicate a lot is that there is a lot of material to synthesize. None of us do it well.
Hudson, I'm surprised that you beg ignorance to justify false teaching. I guess it's perfectly ok with you if someone is an Arminian or a Mormon or a Pentecostal since you can't judge what they believe.
Post a Comment