Keller in the dock

Some questions have arisen about Tim Keller’s view of women in church ministry. There are both simply and complex aspects to this issue. I’m going to briefly block out the issues.

I. Male headship

I think this aspect of the issue is simple in the sense that I think a pretty solid, straightforward case can be made for the general principle of male headship in Scripture.

I’m not going to argue the point, in part because this is well-trodden ground. Among the more able and reliable complementarian writers are Vern Poythress, Tom Schreiner, Jim Hamilton, and Andreas Köstenberger.

A lot of their stuff is available for free:

http://www.cbmw.org/Articles

http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Archives

http://www.cbmw.org/Book-Reviews

http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/category/my-publications/gender-issues-my-publications

http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/6.2_review.pdf

http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1990TheChurch.htm

http://jimhamilton.info/category/women-ministry-and-the-gospel/

II. Factual issues

There’s the factual question of what Tim Keller has actually said and done in terms of women in church ministry. I don’t have an informed opinion on that question, because I haven’t bothered to monitor that debate. I merely mention it because that’s a relevant consideration.

III. Procedural issues

i) A denomination like the PCA has a policy on the women in church ministry. Even if (arguendo) Keller disagreed with the policy, he has some responsibility to uphold the policy as long as he’s a PCA pastor. If he’s irreconcilably opposed to the PCA policy, then he should transfer to a different denomination.

I’m not saying for a fact tha this is the case. The procedural issue piggybacks on the factual issue. I’m just stating another relevant consideration.

ii) At the same time, it’s not quite as simple as (i). Presbyterianism has an appellate system. In that respect, one of the official channels in revising denominational policy is to challenge the policy, then let that challenge be adjudicated.

From what I understand, dissent, per se, is not out-of-bounds, for one of the structural means to establish or revise denominational policy is to raise an issue, then let the appellate process run its course.

iii) In case of a preexisting policy, I assume the most responsible way to do that would be to express a respectful dissent, continue to uphold the policy while the issue is adjudicated, then, if the status quo is reaffirmed, either submit to the policy or leave the denomination.

IV. Exegetical issues

The debate over women in church ministry frequently oversimplifies the Biblical data. Here’s a treatment that draws attention to the kinds of distinctions we must consider:

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/50/50-4/JETS_50-4_761-771_Hoehner.pdf

V. Cross-contextual issues

Roman Catholic epologists have a bad habit of making a straight-line correlation from Biblical categories to Roman Catholic church orders. This highlights a tempting anachronism that evangelicals need to resist.

i) You can’t just take a Biblical category like “pastor,” “elder,” “bishop,” “deacon,” then map that directly onto church officers who go by that name in your own denomination (or independent church).

Rather, you must first determine the functions of the Biblical category, how these categories relate to each other (i.e. are they sometimes synonymous?), then consider the degree to which Biblical categories correspond to the polity of a particular denomination.

ii) Apropos (i), different denominations, theological traditions, and independent churches assign different duties and prerogatives to the clergy. Consider congregationalism, Presbyterianism, episcopacy, Pentecostalism, &c.

iii) Likewise, a small-town pastor may do it all whereas a megachurch may have a specialized division of labor.

VI. Authority

The question of women in church ministry is frequently bound up with the question of authority. But what do we mean by authority?

i) This is sometimes cast in terms of teaching authority. But that’s ambiguous.

a) Does that mean church office (i.e. ordination) confers a degree of authority on the teaching over and above the quality of the teaching itself?

b) Or does it mean the pastor has the “authority” of an expert witness, due to his formal training in theology?

ii) Put another way, is the teaching of a pastor more inherently authoritative than the teaching of a layman, or does authority reside in truth?

Does the authoritative character of authoritative teaching derive from church office, or from the authority of Scripture, assuming a pastor accurately teaches what Scripture teaches? In other words, is the locus of authoritative teaching the Bible (i.e. Biblical teaching) or church office?

Scriptural teaching is authoritative. If a pastor’s exegesis is sound, and his application is sound, then, to that extent, his teaching shares the divine authority of the original source.

iii) Or does authority have reference, not to doctrinal authority, but to enforcing doctrine? Put another way, does this have reference to church discipline?

iv) In the high-church tradition, it’s sacramental authority, which is grounded in church office (i.e. holy orders, valid ordination, apostolic succession). 

Rise of the machines

So Microsoft recently acquired Skype:

I predict:

Don't say I didn't warn you!

Ministering in Gotham

Some corners of the Reformed world consistently criticize Timothy Keller for his ministry practices. Having attended Redeemer, I find some of these criticisms to be unfair.

This is especially the case for those that suggest or state Keller compromises the Gospel in order to coddle and appease the expectations of unbelievers. Keller often commits the only secular sin of unapologetically asserting that belief in Jesus Christ is superior to all other religions and belief systems. That's far from accommodating.

Keller isn't beyond critique, of course, but sometimes it seems like his faultfinders are clueless as to what's involved in ministering in New York City. Their cultural expectations, which they improperly universalize in evaluations of other ministries, seem generated from Southern and/or heavily Christianized environments. What's appropriate in a nominal Christian culture isn't necessarily appropriate in a post-Christian environment.

I think Keller has his finger on the cultural pulse of New York City and effectively dismantles the postmodern foundation upon which all manner of sinful lifestyles are built, offering instead a life built on Christ. Criticisms of his failure to speak to some specific sins are misguided insofar as they fail to appreciate that there's more than one way to diminish sinful behavior. Sometimes one sin is produced by another sin, or several sins are symptoms of a greater, underlying sin. If you dig up the roots, you kill the tree and its fruit.

This is especially relevant given the transitory nature of New York City. You don't have a lot of time to speak to surface manifestations of deeper idols. You need to attack the heart of the secular lifestyle before its too late. It's not like a small town in rural Georgia where you can expect the same congregants to faithfully attend church for ten, twenty or thirty years.

This also means I disagree with some of the attempts to repeat the Redeemer model elsewhere. New York isn't Boston or LA.

There's also a lot of work to be done. Christians are underrepresented in urban areas in general, and New York is no exception. Given the number of lost souls and the enormous influence cities have on society at large, someone like Keller has an obligation to draw a wide net.

I'm also reproducing some relevant remarks I left on a comment thread containing criticisms of Keller and Redeemer:

Brad said:

I’m given to reckless oversimplification. Here I go again: The Redeemerites/transfos are basically “U2 church.” Their deepest desire is to see Bono join a hipster PCA church. For Bono to sign up of course he’d need to like us and feel comfortable. The whole movement is about building a “space” that Bono would like and about doing things he would largely approve of.

I came to Christ listening to Keller preach during my undergraduate years at New York University, after which I spent a few years attending Redeemer.

What Keller preaches is viewed as radically intolerant and utterly absurd by the secular world in NYC, to say nothing of how ridiculous Keller and fellow evangelicals look within the university context (I was a Religious Studies major). He’s just another contemptible Evangelical as far as many are concerned, as Redeemer’s preaching ministry is unapologetic in its clear declaration that Christ alone is the path to salvation and fulfillment.

You can criticize his approach to homosexuality, and there’s probably a better way for Keller to address the issue (I suspect he frames it the way he does because some, or many, gay people in NYC listening to an Evangelical on these issues will automatically associate him with the “God hates f—” movement unless he’s exceptionally careful with his words). But please avoid these kinds of simplifications about how Redeemer simply wants hip celebrities to “need to like us and feel comfortable.” Maybe you simply need to live and work in the city to appreciate the utter contempt its inhabitants have for any exclusive truth claims; neither I nor my friends in the city felt that Redeemer was seeking to make others “feel comfortable” like you might find at some theologically liberal church. Simply by proclaiming Jesus as exclusive Lord and Savior and taking the Bible seriously as God’s inspired/inerrant Word you are creating a deeply uncomfortable, even offensive, environment (to say nothing of Keller’s consistently pointed critiques of the postmodern, relativistic understanding of truth and fulfillment).

Phillip Mayberry said:

Dear Matthew,

Your point about oversimplification is well taken.

I am glad you are in the faith, my brother. There IS a better way to address homosexuality, and it is to say what the Bible says. The way something is viewed by a God-hating culture is irrelevent to the message itself. We have no liberty to change the message. Period. I rejoice where Pastor Keller gets it right, I lament where he gets it wrong. Whether or not we will speak what Jesus spoke openly is a serious matter according to Mark 8:38: check it out. With prestige comes great temptation to compromise.

I remember a man whose message was also rejected, and yet the message was not altered at all. This man calls his disciples to do the same… nothing less, for any reason, and no matter where they live, and no matter what the consequences- even death or loss.

Hope you will consider this: it is written in love. I have spoken personally to Pastor Keller along the same lines, and exhorted him to stick with the Bible, and proclaim it openly on every topic, not just what we deem to be the “main” ones. We are heralds, speaking the message of the King, not politicians, keeping some parts of the message quiet so as not to offend. The gospel is offensive: and as you point out, people already think we are crazy anyway- why not declare the whole counsel of God?

Grace to you,

Phillip

Phillip,

I appreciate the spirit in which your comments are offered.

We need to distinguish between compromise and presentation. I think the question is not whether the message is declared, but where and how it is preached, and in what manner, for, if I recall correctly, Redeemer is undoubtedly clear about this issue on its membership form. I also believe it confronts the issue in small groups.

In NYC (or Manhattan, really) what is the critical issue for its inhabitants? Since Richard Rorty won the question of solidarity at the academy, and logical positivism has suffered its (frankly all too fitting) death, the critical philosophical issue, and thus critical theological concern, is whether objective truth exists, whether there are normative, universal standards binding on all of humanity. Obviously the secular intellectual and cultural leaders of the city say "no," and there is now a belief that the words you choose have the power to create value and meaning. Combine this with a generous heaping of Enlightenment individualism, and you have an edifice, a structural framework, that excuses sins of every kind merely as a matter of personal preference, fulfillment and choice.

Keller attacks and dismantles this edifice on a regular basis. It's one of the stronger points of his preaching that only Christ will satisfy the deepest longings of your heart, not whatever you yourself define and pursue as the means of satisfaction. He attacks the intellectual/philosophical roots that produce virtually all the sins of the secular world, including homosexuality. To focus on this foundation is highly effective in that sense, especially given the intellectual nature of his audience, which will work out the implications of what he teaches a the core level. Certainly this line of attack, this destruction of deep, abiding, foundational patterns and assumptions of sin, worked much more effectively on my heart than if someone had simply preached to the surface manifestations of my sinful behavior. Obviously that's not applicable in all situations, but I don't think we can discount this approach as necessarily false.

People listening to Keller come to see the ravishing beauty of Jesus Christ over against the secular ash heap that is personally defined fulfillment. They then can't help but give up their sinful habits and ask Christ what he demands of their lives--including sexually in the practice of homosexuality, if I am to believe some of the reports I've heard.

While you're certainly correct to say that the "way something is viewed by a God-hating culture is irrelevant to the message itself," this has the potential to paper over an acute issue that all pastors in cultures other than the ANE in which Christ was preaching must address. Sometimes when you say one thing to one culture, it will be misinterpreted as another thing you didn't say. Of course, sometimes this is willful and deliberate on the part of the audience, done in order to distort and create (yet another) excuse for sinful behavior. But since we have some measure of control over how the Gospel is received, to what extent do we have an obligation to change our presentation (not content) so as to be properly understood by the audience hearing our message? The practical outworking of this question is felt in NYC when people hear condemnations of homosexual behavior; the homosexual community and its allies will interpret such language as that of Fred Phelps. Obviously the orthodox position on this matter is nowhere near what Phelps presents, but how do you speak to this issue so that others, conditioned by the media to associate a denial of homosexual "rights" with the language and attitude of "God hates f---," can understand that you are offering the Gospel of hope to sinners who are lost under the wrath of God in their self-destructive ways, rather than a reveling and rejoicing, as Nietzsche and other moderns suspect (not without reason), in the eventual torment and suffering of those "disgusting sinners" over there? This is not an easy question, and its often made out to be almost binary by those who really demonstrate no comprehension of the difficulties of ministering in what is almost accurately called the City of Satan.

Again, I think Keller could be better on this issue, but it's not the kind of deficit it's often made out to be by people (not necessarily you in particular) who strike as both simplistic and unsympathetic in their critique of Redeemer and the work it does in a culture completely and totally alien to the Southern and/or Christianized environment that most of the PCA seems to enjoy.

Stop tipping off the enemy

http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/stop_tipping_off_the_enemy_5LcGB3ajD89cMf0uTZrmTL

Why Kill Bin Laden?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/266795

Results from Mitt Romneycare in Massachusetts

From the WSJ:

The ObamaCare preview that Massachusetts has been conducting for the last several years grows more ominous by the month, not that anyone in Washington is paying attention. So let's check on the Bay State's latest warning, coming soon to a hospital or medical practice near you.

A new survey released yesterday by the Massachusetts Medical Society reveals that fewer than half of the state's primary care practices are accepting new patients, down from 70% in 2007, before former Governor Mitt Romney's health-care plan came online. The average wait time for a routine checkup with an internist is 48 days. It takes 43 days to secure an appointment with a gastroenterologist for chronic heartburn, up from 36 last year, and 41 days to see an OB/GYN, up from 34 last year.

More:

• Emergency room visits jumped 9% between 2004 and 2008, in part due to the lack of routine access to providers.

• Merely 43% of internists and 56% of family physicians accept Commonwealth Care, the heavily subsidized middle-class insurance program. The same respective figures are 53% and 62% for price-controlled Medicaid.

• The Medical Society also finds “a continued deterioration of the practice environment for physicians in Massachusetts.”

The Journal concludes: “Perhaps you should book your checkups now, in advance of the national sequel.”

On the repression of information in the pursuit of an agenda

I grew up during the cold war, during the 60’s and 70’s, when complete and total annihilation could occur at any moment. Such a memory can have a lasting effect on you.

Other things, too, make an impression on the memory. In the Orwell novel, ‘1984’ – in those days, it was still a dystopian future – it was the job of the main character, Winston Smith, “to rewrite historical documents so they match the constantly changing current party line. This involves revising newspaper articles and doctoring photographs — mostly to remove ‘unpersons,’ people who have fallen foul of the party.”

To find real-life precedent for this practice, Orwell had to travel no further than the Roman Catholic Church, which had enshrined such a practice for centuries. In describing how we have come to know about the genuine teachings of Nestorius, for example, Friedrich Loofs wrote, “The church of the ancient Roman Empire did not punish its heretics merely by deposition, condemnation, banishment and various deprivation of rights, but, with the purpose of shielding its believers against poisonous influence, it destroyed all heretical writings ... a similar fortune was prepared for Nestorius.” (Loofs, “Nestorius,” 2-11).

Of course, according to Orwell, “If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.” (Book 1, Chapter 3)

Rome knew well this tactic. In describing the difference between movements that are typically known as the “Catholic Reformation” and the “Counter-Reformation” (and arguing that they were really one and the same thing), Patrick Collinson related this incident:

In 1543 a little book was published in Venice with the title Trattato utilissimo del beneficio di Giesu Christo crocifisso i cristiani (A Most Useful Treatise on the Merits of Jesus Christ Crucified for Christians), written by an elusive Benedictine monk called Benedetto da Mantova (dates of birth and death unknown, but his surname seems to have been fontanino) with some help from the humanist and poet Marcantonio Flaminio (1498-1550), a popular work of piety that was translated into several languages including Croat. At first sight this may appear to be a piece of native Italian Christocentrism, part of a Pauline and Augustinian renaissance known to have been nourished by a Spanish humanist and biblicist, Juan de Valdes (1500-1541), whose pious circle in Naples had included Flaminio. But the Beneficio can be read in more than one way. It proves to have been made up from a number of transalpine Protestant texts, and especially the 1539 edition of Calvin's Institutes. Whether or not Benedetto had come across Calvin in his monastery on the slopes of Mount Etna, which seems unlikely, the Institutes was known to Flaminio.

It is hard to distinguish between the theology of the Beneficio and Protestantism. “Man can never do good works unless he first know himself to be justified by faith.” Other scholars insist, however, that the Beneficio is an expression of Evangelism, a movement that was not generated by Protestantism and should be distinguished from it. What is certain is that the Beneficio was placed on the Index and so successfully repressed by the Roman Inquisition that of the many thousands of copies of the Italian edition that were once in existence only one is known to survive, discovered in the library of a Cambridge college in the nineteenth century. That sort of successful repression was the Counter-Reformation. (“The Reformation, a History”, Patrick Collinson, (c) 2003, New York: The Modern Library (Random House edition), pgs. 105-106.)

So, yesterday, the thing I was lamenting was not so much that the Heidelblog was gone (though I’ve quoted from it many times and found it to be a very fine resource), so much as that it was thought that the act of deletion was some sort of disciplinary measure, by one party or another, thinking that either the “plucking out of an eye,” so to speak, or the excision of some inconvenient form of information, was going to be a solution to a problem.

What's fair?

Scroll down to Note from KBJ at the bottom of the post:

http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2011/05/from-todays-new-york-times-6.html

Are you a heretic?

Of course, the questionnaire reflects the viewpoint of the questioner. But it's still an interesting exercise:

http://quizfarm.com/quizzes/new/svensvensven/are-you-a-heretic/

Timothy McGrew On Bart Ehrman's Recent Book And Other Topics

Brian Auten recently posted a good interview with Timothy McGrew. It covers a lot of topics, including undesigned coincidences and problems with Bart Ehrman's recent book on New Testament authorship. He gives many examples of parallels between the alleged problems with the New Testament and similar characteristics in non-Christian literature.

Bush 44

First there was Bush 41. Then there was Bush 43. It's ironic to see Obama morph into Bush 44:

http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_the_cowboy_SuWMhYCA6IFodCa9s7wvrO

"Justice and the Death of Osama bin Laden"

http://reflectionsbyken.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/justice-and-the-death-of-osama-bin-laden/

Straw Men Burning

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/05/straw-men-burning-tim-mcgrew-on.html

George Eldon Ladd ‘single-handedly reinvigorated’ ‘the Evangelical Mind’

Justin Taylor has picked up a paragraph from Scot McKnight’s brief review of the recently published biography of George Eldon Ladd:

I don’t believe our goal as Bible or theology scholars is to be deemed among the finest of scholars or to find a place at the table, but to be faithful to Jesus Christ and to the gospel and to orthodox theology and to academic rigor. Yes, we are to work to discover and to be creative, but the driving passion to prove ourselves at the feet of others falls short of a true Christian telos. I’d put it this way: we are called to be faithful, whether we are accepted or not.

McKnight summarized: “Ladd single-handedly reinvigorated evangelical scholarship and D’Elia tells that very story…. George Eldon Ladd was a Titan, his work irreplaceable, and his impact incalculable.” I’ve also had the opportunity to read and comment on Ladd’s impact. Here’s a paragraph from Donald Hagner’s Introduction to the Revised Edition of Ladd’s 1974 work:

Without question Ladd’s theology reflects the orientation of a specific interpretive community, that known widely as “Evangelicalism.” It was Ladd who was especially instrumental in helping many fundamentalists to see for the first time not merely the acceptability, but the indispensability, of historical criticicsm. Evangelicals – at least many of them – have become more open to many of the conclusions of critical scholarship (in regard to, for example, the authorship and dating of New Testament writings and the implications for the development of the New Testament) in the twenty years since Ladd wrote (in 1974). They continue, however, to share the basic convictions embodied in Ladd’s approach to biblical theology. For all the actual diversity in the New Testament writings there remains an unforced and genuine unity among them at the same time. For all the historical particularity of these writings they continue to possess a normative authority for the church. And if, as J. Reumann has recently written, “the ultimate test for any biblical theology will be whether it enables faith and obedience to God’s word,” that practical concern was close to the heart of Ladd. Ladd’s interpretive community continues to cherish the goals of faith and obedience. At their best, evangelicals will cultivate openness to all that increases faith and leads to a more effective obedience (pgs 19-20).

Where is Heidelblog?

As a former Roman Catholic, I’m still a bit of a newbie when it comes to being a Protestant. And I have to admit, I’m somewhat puzzled by “church discipline”.

For some Reformed Christians – in some of the Reformed Confessions – there are two marks of the church: that the Gospel is faithfully preached, and that the sacraments are properly administered. For others, there is that “third mark” of “church discipline,” and here is where we face potential train wrecks.

Now, I know that some pastors are very sensitive to the dimension of discipline, and discipline, properly effected, is a good thing. It can save eternal lives. And as a member of a PCA church, I have taken a membership vow that “I submit myself to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace.” I don’t wish to question the concept of church discipline.

But sometimes, it seems as if the concept of “church discipline” can be taken too far.

I’m not going to speculate as to who did what to whom in this case. I know that Clark was frequently controversial. At one point he turned off the comments on his blog because they became too rowdy.

As a freshly-minted non-Roman Catholic in the late 1990’s, I searched the Internet for sources about Reformation theology, and one of the sources I found was a site that was the precursor of Clark’s Heidelblog.

Because of his writings and his blog, I was able to get to interact with and to know the man. Not well, but even during some disputes, I always found him to be accessible and open and a good guide through a number of Reformation-related topics. I referred to, and even quoted his blog a number of times.

And no doubt the same is true for many of his students and readers.

Whether you like(d) Clark or hate(d) him, The Heidleblog, in its entirety, was the culmination of years’-worth of effort from a brilliant and erudite man. And its removal has the feel of a 21st-century book burning.

Edit (3:00 pm EDT): Since I made this initial post, I've learned a bit more about Dr. Clark’s reasons for deleting the blog. What I have to say is that it takes a tremendous amount of work and commitment to continue to write, day after day, on controversial topics. As Christians, we should be grateful for the work of such individuals, especially those who labor mightily for the kingdom -- on all sides of controversies that we have among ourselves -- and we need to be mindful that we work for the ultimate [in this world] controversialist, Jesus Christ.

Leaders & curators

A crisis brings out the difference between leaders and curators. For the most part I think the difference is temperamental.

On the one hand you have the curators. The administrators. They maintain the status quo. Their natural element is normalcy. They can function in ordinary times. They are the keepers of the social order. Sentinels of the conventional wisdom.

When the system is good, it’s good to conserve the system. When the law is good, it is good to be law-abiding.

Mind you, curators are also the dutiful bureaucrats who keep the machinery of the totalitarian regime well-oiled. Good or bad, they play by the rules. They never question the rules.

However, the curators can’t function in a crisis. They can’t adjust to something novel or extraordinary. They are vacillating. Or fossilized. Constitutionally unable to rise to the demands of an exigent challenge.

Observing the speed limit is generally a good thing. But if you’re trying to outrun an F-5 tornado, it’s time to floor the accelerator.

In a crisis, natural leaders emerge. They are daring and decisive.  Uncompromising in their objectives, but adaptable in their tactics.. Problem-solvers who do whatever it takes to get the job done. 

They make great generals. They will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by seizing the moment, even if it means disobeying a direct order from a superior officer.

People like this terrify the curators. It’s the difference between Charles de Gaulle and Marshal Pétain, Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain, Jean Calvin and Henri de Navarre.

Conversely, natural leaders should generally retire to a ranch after the crisis has passed and write their memories or take up painting.

George Patton is very useful in wartime, but a bit of a nuisance in peacetime. Once the good status quo has been restored, or a bad status quo has been replaced, you can let the custodians take it from there.

We see this in church history. And politics. We see this in how different Christians and different Christian institutions react to the threat of dhimmitude and global jihad. 

Michael Licona And Stephen Patterson Debating The Resurrection

I just noticed that Michael Licona has posted the audio of his 2010 debate on Jesus' resurrection with Stephen Patterson, a member of the Jesus Seminar.

What Americans Really Believe

Part 3, "Atheism and Irreligion," reveals that rather than belief in God fading fast into oblivion, the percentage of Americans in 2007 who said they did not believe in God (4%) was the same as the percentage of Americans in 1944 who said they did not believe in God. Furthermore, "irreligion is not effectively transmitted from parents to children. Studies show that the majority of children born into an irreligious home end up joining a religious group - most often a conservative denomination" (pp. 117, 205; cf. p. 7). Many who assert no religion say they still pray, and the majority are not "atheist," just unaffiliated (p. 141; cf. pp. 117, 142, 205).

Stark cites complementary evidence that despite enduring nearly a century of brutal government suppression of religion, only 4% of Russians and 14% of Chinese did not believe in God near the turn of the millennium. Also embarrassing for self-described "bright" and "rational" New Atheists are statistics demonstrating that irreligious people are "almost three times as likely" to place "great value" in Tarot, seances, and psychic healing, and also more likely to believe in "real" UFOs (p. 125).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_201012/ai_n56826632/pg_2/?tag=mantle_skin;content

MATTHEW AMONG THE DISPENSATIONALISTS

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_201012/ai_n56826798/?tag=content;col1

Resisting evil

On the one hand:

In other words, Calvinism may be God-centered, but the God at the center is morally ambiguous and unworthy of worship.

Theologian David Bentley Hart expresses it thus: One should consider the price of this God-centeredness:  It is a strange thing indeed to seek [God-centered theology]…at the cost of a God rendered morally loathsome. (The Doors of the Sea [Eerdmans, 2005], p. 99)

 

In this theology, the God at the center is the ultimate narcissist, the greatest egoist who finds glory in displaying his naked power even to the point of consigning millions to hell just to manifest his attribute of justice.

 

Better a man-centered theology than one that revolves around a being hardly distinguishable from the devil.

http://rogereolson.com/2010/11/28/arminianism-is-god-centered-theology/ 

On the other hand:

I don’t see Jesus giving us that “out.” The Sermon on the Mount is clear. We are to love all people equally and never resist evil.

http://rogereolson.com/2011/05/06/the-difference-theologically-between-justifiable-and-just/#comment-14522

Roger Olson clearly thinks the God of Calvinism is evil (viz. “morally ambiguous,” “morally loathsome,” “unworthy of worship,” “hardly distinguishable from the devil”). So why is Olson resisting Reformed theism if the Sermon on the Mount is clear: we are never to resist evil? Where's the out?