Top 15 Theological Issues of Our Day

43 thoughts on “Top 15 Theological Issues of Our Day”

1. I know one of the most talked about issue amongst my peers is the local church. I guess it kind of fits into a lot of the categories listed but for the most part people want to do church the way they want to, not the way that is faithful.

   I also think that most people at least most people I know, just don’t want to talk. They don’t want to think. They don’t want to work to find out answers. They don’t want the discussions. They disdain the idea that something like open theism or what even justification is.

   I think you have a good list, Tim. May the Lord grant good debate from it.

   ~Justin Sok

2. Justin,

   The local church is a very important issue, one I failed to mention. Thanks for bringing it up man.

   In dealing with church planting movements, we have to ask ourselves, “What constitutes a church?” In other words, with the influence of house churches overseas, what separates them from the average bible study in a home? Should there be a constitution, covenant, and statement of faith as prerequisites?

   To take the matter on a demonational level, what is the relationship of the local to its large organizational framework? With the influence of affiliations, allegiances, and networks, will a church’s identity move from denominational distinction to new forms of identity?

   And of course, as I pointed out in the honorable mention section, the church government issue is a hot topic, especially in the SBC. Large churches in the SBC have been divided over the move towards a plurality of elders rather than the deacon body or single elder model.

   Over the course of the next year, I am hoping to direct my blog programming more in the area that serves the interest of the Christian community in hopes that I can shed a little light on the topics and issues that need to be addressed.

   Have a blessed day man.

   tnb

3. don’t you think that some of these are results of others. For example, I would think that the gender-neutral debate is an extension of post-modernism.

4. Timmy, love your post, man. I would have:10(#1), 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 13, 7, 15, 14, 6, 8, 12. Plus I would add “Islam” and “homosexuality.” I realize that these could be included in topics such as “relativism” and “pluralism” but they certainly are controversial these days.

5. Mr. Helms,

   I agree.

   The difficulty I came to when thinking through these issues was separating ethical/social issues from theological/doctrinal issues. Of course, everything ultimately is theological, so matters like homosexuality, cloning, war, etc. are immenently social but ultimately theological. Were I to go to the social/cultural route, I suspect the list would be quite different.

   Upon thinking about that, I wonder where intelligent design fits into the equation. In recent years, it has received considerable press, especially when school systems attempted to endorse textbooks that teach it.

   Given that you put the justification and NPP issue #1, are you read up on the issue? This is one area that I have a lot of work to do!

6. Leslie,

   There is considerable overlap in some of these issues. It is difficult to categorize them in one particular definition since the implications of such issues span across many doctrines of the faith.

   I am not sure, however, that everyone in the gender-neutral debate would say it is an extention of postmodernism (especially in translation theories). Maybe one could argue a closer relationship between the roles of women in ministry with the translation theories of gender-neutrality, since many who affirm the egalitarian position will want to use translations that support their position.

   If you have time, could you elaborate a little on the connection between the gender-neutral issue and postmodernism?

7. Timmy, actually I put your #10 as my #1, Calvinism vs. Arminianism. No, I am not read up on NPP. The topic of justification is certainly one of my top priorites, but this new perspective on Paul is something that has not held any interest for me. I don’t know how much of an impact this has had on the local church or if the average member is even aware of this new perspective. The Calvinism debate, however, has had a tremendous impact on local church members who remain extremely ignorant concerning Calvinism and have been poisoned toward the subject so that they are either not willing to talk about it at all or become very hostile when the subject comes up. How has the New Perspective on Paul effected the local church? Do you have any feedback? If it has had any impact it has to be coming through pastors who are in agreement or disagreement with it. But I haven’t heard anything about it except through my own limited reading on the subject and the book reviews I see posted occasionally.

8. Mr. Helms,

   Your emphasis on the local church makes a good point. Some of these issues are lingering up in the stratospheric high brow’s of academia and is nowhere on the radar screen regarding the local church. In some instances, the phenomena appears in both spheres (the local church and broader culture as well as academia). A good example of this is religious pluralism.

   Theologians are most certain that the predominant pluralistic attitudes did not come from the readings of Ernst Troeltsch, John Hick, or Paul Knitter. Rather the source came from an ethos derivative of the socio-political and demographical pressures in our ever-increasing global environment.

   But back to your argument, given that I read a lot of journals and books related to the realm of academia, there are issues that would be more prevalent from a scholarly perspective rather than a pastoral viewpoint. So I suppose in the giving of a list like I have in the post, there needs to be at least a few caveats.

   Regarding the local church, I do see Calvinism as one of the top issues, along with church government, the whole idea of corporate church and the American pragmatic way, the view (and priorites) of the pastorate, and the confessional nature of the church.

   On a purely cultural and social level, the issue of homosexuality, marriage, and abortion are huge. But lest we forget, I believe there are other issues that are issues because they are being ignored by the church at large. For instance, where is our commitment to the poor? The widow and orphan? AIDS victims? It is a tragic that the only people which seem to be pressing these issues are from a liberal theological slant. Conservative evangelicals need to hear more of the voices of Carl F.H. Henry, John Stott, and Ron Sider on these issues.

   Concerning justification and NPP, if Piper decides to release his book, that will definitely heat things up. I remember when JT mentioned it on his blog, and a host of people went off on Piper who had no knowledge of what Piper said! On the subject, you might want to check out Dr. Brian Vickers (prof here at SBTS) latest release: Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Imputation (Crossway, 2006). I listened to a lecture he gave on this topic, and it was excellent. The amazon link is here:

   http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Blood-Righteousness-Theology-Imputation/dp/1581347545/sr=8-1/qid=1164060883/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4113587-0803254?ie=UTF8&s=books

   Anyway, I think the justification and NPP deal will continue for a while, so it would be worthwhile to add some of these books to our reading list. I know I will.

9. Thanks again, Timmy, I do read Piper and love him and will read this book. You are so right about the social issues; why have we passed them along to the liberals? I intend on reading up on the NPP but as you observed, my concern is more with the effect of false teaching on the local church. History has taught us, however, that ideas like those expressed in the NPP can and often do trickle down to the local setting. The Emergent/Emerging movement seems to be making head-way and we can’t forget the lesson learned from how liberalism crept into the SBC. Our culture has a great influence in the lives of our church folk and pluralism is a leading example. Inclusivism is another mind-set that the body of Christ must guard against these days. Thanks, Timmy and I hope you and your wife had a fun trip to watch your team play.

10. Tim,

    I’ll try to elaborate, but I might not do a very good job at it. I think that post-modern thinking of no absolutes extends to the view of the unauthorization of Scripture, which I think leads to elgalitarianism. People don’t see the imporatance of aligning their beliefs with the Bible, and as a result they compromise, the say “well, what Paul really means here is…”
    I think liberal theology is a result of postmodernity, which extends to gender-neutral issues.

    And I hope I’m understanding you correctly by connecting egalitarianism to gender-neutral issues.

11. Is there a place where I can find Vicker’s lecture on justification and NPP?

    visit my blog

12. Timmy:

    I think Anti-Intellectualism needs to move way up to the top… without intellectualism, can we even go to the other issues?

13. Leslie,

    I checked the Audio Resource page for Southern and couldn’t find the lecture audio online. If I can remember correctly, it was a lecture sponsored by the School of Theology and was given either in Spring or Fall of 2005. If I have opportunity to swing in media services, I will ask about it.

    The book, however, can be found in most any bookstore that carries Christian books. It was released just a few weeks ago, so some may not have it on the shelves yet.

    Concerning liberal theology and pomo, I think you would agree with me that liberal theology existed long before pomo arrived. That said, I do agree that there is a symbiotic relationship between the two. I haven’t found anyone who holds to conservative theology who has bought into the goods pomo has offered.

    The gender-neutral issue is a complex cookie, especially when it comes to translation theories. Now on the whole women in ministry thing and gender equality in ministry, I do believe that only theologically liberal folks hold to that position. But I don’t believe that it is that cut-and-dry regarding the gender-neutrality in Bible translation theory. D.A. Carson (if I can remember correctly) took Wayne Grudem to task on that issue and Carson is no liberal.

    So I guess the two need to be addressed separately: gender-neutrality in Bible translation and gender-equality in ecclesiology. The latter wants the former (for legitimacy), but the former does not necessarily have a relationship with the latter. Does this make sense?

14. Nick,

    Yeah, I make anti-intellectualism a big deal, but I didn’t want to put it way up because I didn’t want to load the top five with my subjective bias. I know that’s a lame excuse, but you are right–if people aren’t willing to think, critique, and respond, then what’s the point?

    As some of the other folks have mentioned, it appears that many in the local church simply don’t care about these issues and won’t until it is too late. That reminds me of what Schaeffer once said: “You tell me what the world is saying and doing today, and I will tell you what the church will do and say seven years from now.”

    We are way too reactionary.

15. Mr. Helms,

    Thanks for the correspondence. Unfortunately, our team lost – again (for the fifth time). The ribs were great, though.

    Concerning inclusivism, if you are interested in the topic, I will be blogging on this quite a bit in the near future. I am currently working on a major paper in which I deal with five leading inclusivists and their understanding of saving faith to show how it carries sweeping soteriological consequences. This is an important, first-order matter, and we need to be talking about these things more.

16. I kinda wish evangelism (or the lack of it) was on this list. Or even, for that matter, the lack of ministry to various disabilities and ethnicities. Some black folks, for example, are fond of saying they “don’t need a white man’s Jesus,” and many Deaf are quite emphatic about not needing a “hearing Jesus.”

17. Wow! Your list, brother, certainly has generated some excitement. Yeah, I knew your team lost and I almost didn’t mention it. My son-in-law and I kept switching back and forth between Ohio/Michigan and your game. Glad you enjoyed the ribs. I look forward to your future posts. See ya later.

18. Timmy,

    Excellent list, and I believe it bo very thorough. The only “beef” I would have (if you could even call it that) is that it seems that your original 15 are so clear and to the point that they encompass many of your HOnorable mentions. For example, ECT falls under number one, Pluralism and Ecumenism, no?

    Now, can we expect a 15 part series on how we confront each of these? 🙂

    In Him,
    Jeff

19. Jeff,

    Yeah. After looking at the list and the honorable mentions, I see where my thoughts were quite redundant in some areas. This post was mainly my random thoughts on current issues as I see it and weren’t well organized (or as organized as I would like to have made them).

    I can’t promise a 15-part series on each on of these (though that would be a noble exercise) mainly because I do not feel that I am competent and knowledgable enough in some of them. My strongest areas include Open Theism, Anti-intellectualism, Religious Pluralism, Postmodern Epistemology, Doctrine of Hell, and Calvinism (of course). My weaker areas include NPP and justification, gender-neutrality/equality, cessationism/continuationism, hermeneutical issues, and Christianity in the Public Square. I know I left some out, but that kind of gives you an idea where I am right now. In the upcoming year, a couple of main areas where I want to develop a better understanding include hermeneutics, justification and NPP, and the atonement theories.

    In the meantime, expect to find more blogposts on religious pluralism, evangelicalism, hell, emerging church movement, and postmodernism.

    As a student, desiring to learn and grow in my faith, I am always looking for places and books where there is an ongoing discussion on these matters. While I realize that I can only specialize in a few certain areas, I really want to at least be conversant with the key arguments in all of the leading theological issues of our day.

20. Oh, and one more note, one of the chief goals I have for 2007 with P&P is to interview a leading theologian and scholar who is addressing one (or more) of these important issues in our day. I hope to have one a month.

    Over the next 6-8 weeks, I will be thinking about how I better serve the Christian community with my blog and also provide a platform for good dicussion. If you have any thoughts on how I can bring these issues to bear on a more popular and public scale, please let me know.

21. Timmy,
    Could we also call Anti-intellectualism by another name, like Fundamentalism? I, like some of the others who have commented here, believe that several on your list converge into one general area. I think your #15 is one of those. Things like Open Theism, Postmodernism, the New Perspective on Paul, and the Jesus Seminar add fuel to the Fundamentalist fire, because they tend to say “See what intellectualism gets you?” On the other hand, Fundamentalists tends to take a very wooden, literal approach to scripture, thus tying Calvinism, Spiritual Gifts,Justification, the Atonement, and many other things together.

    I heard something from Southern, not too long ago, that had a Fundamentalist flavor to it. I was a bit surprised by it, thinking Southern was a Calvinistic enclave. You are on location. What do you think?

22. Wayne,

    It’s funny that you say that because there is a legitimate question to the new rise in fundamentalism in the SBC. And just the other week I was in a conversation with another student who shared his concern that our school is bearing some of its marks.

    So to answer your question about Southern: our school has (I believe) some of the best scholars and theologians evangelicals have to offer. There is no question that Dr. Mohler has done an excellent job in putting SBTS in a class of its own. So from a scholarly standpoint, I would say that we are NOT fundamental. However, on a cultural side, I would say there are some real concerns. For instance, this year chapel services became an “academic requirement” for students, thus forcing them to attend. In other words, if students don’t want to attend voluntarily, we’ll penalize them with the grades. That’s fundamental to me. But even before that, the forum on alcohol really took a blow because the arguments were weak and like you said, very uncharacteristic of solid biblical thinking that usually comes from our school. There are other instances which I will refrain from mentioning that futher increase my concern in this area. God forbid that our SBC seminaries become the 21st century Bob Jones! Perish the thought.

    Anyway, the dogged fundamentalism of early 20th century is still alive and well, especially in the popular and cultural standpoint. It’s the, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” mentality. And you are correct that anti-intellectualism found its breeding ground in such an ethos. I could go off on this point, but I will spare you the essay. 🙂

23. Shouldn’t the dispensational/CT/NCT debate be on the list?

24. Timmy,

    Thank you for the response. I hope you did not take my earlier comment as a criticism – it was not. Just an observation. I apologize if this did not come through clearly. I do appreciate the humility in your responding comment though, and I look forward to the posts on those issues with which you have the most familiarity, as well as the prospective interview in 2007!

    In Him,
    Jeff

25. Wayne,

    I don’t think that Fundamentalism and Anti-intellectualism are necessary bedfellows and need a direct association. Warfield and Machen were both Fundamentalists in the original sense, and you could scarcely label them, or any of the other Princeton theologians for that matter, as anti-intellectual. Some of them were the finest minds of our century.

    That is not to say that there are not some fundamentalists of the Pensacola/Bob Jones stripe who have perverted the early roots of Fundamentalism and given it a bad name. That is true of almost any theological persuasion. I am a dispensationalist, though I would not identify with all those who claim dispensationalism in any form. I am a Calvinist, but there are Calvinists who have tarnished that label. And so on it goes.

    My point is simply this: don’t throw the Fundamentalism baby out with the Anti-Intllectualism bath water.

    In Him,
    Jeff

26. Andrew,

    The dispy/CT/NCT is a big issue and one that I left out. I don’t know where it fits in the list, however. I probably wouldn’t consider it in the top 10.

27. Fundamentalism can be understood broadly or narrowly, depending on the person’s definition. Like Calvinism, the term needs to be qualified definitionally lest we be speaking of two separate things.

    A couple of books which I would recommend that speak about the relationship of anti-intellectualism and fundamentalism include Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-intellectualism in American Life and Mark Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. These two books give considerable historical background to the phenomena.

    On another note, George Marsden has a very thorough and excellent treatment on the subject matter. You might want to check out the following of his works:

    Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925 (good historical stuff here) – a new edition has just been released this year.

    Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism – attention to Machen is given here as well as the varied relationship between the two camps

28. Jeff,
    Point taken. I failed to qualify my terms, and as Timmy pointed out, Fundamentalism can be understood broadly or narrowly. I was thinking along the lines of the Bob Jones type of definition, or maybe something even beyond that. I apologize for not being specific.

    Wayne

29. Piper needs to be careful before publishing that book on the NPP. His sermon on Luke 18 demonstrated that he doesn’t clearly understand Wright. Piper’s own exegesis of Luke 18 was miserable. Ardel Caneday, a seminary professor who attends Piper’s church, stated on his blog that Piper is shaky on this and needs to do some more study before attacking a top-notch Biblical scholar like N.T. Wright.

30. Timmy,

    Thank you for this post. I haven’t posted on your blog since May of this year.

    Reading through this post and the comments, I have a few questions to ask of you.

    Since we have now 15 Theological Issues and Controversies, how should we defend the faith (Jude 3) against the errors of these doctrines and the false teachers who present them in light of sound biblical doctrine?

    How should we train Godly men who desire to be elders against these errors in our local church?

    How do we deal with the relativism that we have in these doctrines, for there can’t be more than one truth? Few examples of this comes from the Counterpoint Series by Zondervan Publishing. Using your list:
    1. Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World.
    7. Four Views on Hell
    8. Two Views on Women in Ministry
    10. Four Views on Eternal Security
    12. Four views on Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?

    Thank you for responding,
    Paul Schafer

31. Daniel,

    It is evident (by reading your comment) that you are a big fan of Wright. I am also a big fan of Piper. Be that as it may, it is necessary to be fair and reasonable with those whom you disagree. Your uncharitable comments towards Piper and his scholarship carry a high level of illigitimacy when presented without warrant.

    Futhermore, when Piper first mentioned in his Taste and See article about the draft of this book, he opened admitted his reservations and acknowledged the high level scrutiny it would receive (this was attested on JT’s blog where several folks ranted against Piper without reading a shred of his book!). Therefore, it was his own desire to have his work read and critiqued by other scholars who also are keenly aware of Wright’s position and NPP. I feel quite comfortable saying that, if and when the book is published, it will have been filtered down through some of the most astute and critical scholars around today.

    Finally, Piper has never backed down from a controversial issue. Whether it was open theism, abortion, inclusivism, annihilationalism, or Calvinism, he has a proven record of being humble yet full of conviction. As was shown in his own national conference, Piper also is open to correction which he publicly confessed. With all that said, your concerns can be laid to rest about Piper’s competency to address the issue. On the other hand, the outcome might cause many to become restless – especially if he biblically dismantles the arguments of Wright and his view of justification. In that case, I believe that is the most loving thing he could do.

32. Paul,

    How we address these issues is a great question and one that I would like to answer more fully in a blogpost in the near future.

    I will say that we need to dispel the notion that theology is not practical. In our day of hyper-pragmatism, church leaders are only investing themselves in enterprises that will bring them immediate and maximum results. The answer does not lie in getting more church leaders in seminaries but turning local churches into their own seminaries. The most natural and helpful place to study and do the work of theology is in the local church, and it is there where we need to see a revival of interest take place. As mentioned earlier, we are battling against a long history of anti-intellectualism where pastors have often prided themselves on how little they knew (and yet God still used them anyway). The theological erosion and cultural captivity is largely result of the church’s inability to address the ideas which carry significant consequences in how we think, believe, and live.

    These issues and others should not be relegated to the intellectual elite, but I long for the day where we can go in a pastor’s study and find him not in another business meeting or drafting a debt-retirement plan for the last building the didn’t need, but rather find him laboring in the word with a defense for the faith for the purpose of carrying for the flock which God has placed him as an overseer.

    Anyway, I have many thoughts on this subject, and as I said, I would like to address them more in the form of a post rather than comment, so be looking for that sometime soon.

33. Timmy,
    I’ll be watching those future posts on my Google homepage. Will you address my three questions at some point in the future?

    I desire to want to be an elder in a local church someday. I wish we had seminary in our local church, but it won’t happen. There isn’t a formal program to train people to become leaders in our church.

    I see the anti-intellectualism alot in my home church. I see that we feed the new babes in Christ, the young’ins and the lost through the discipleship classes and home groups, but we do not offer anything for the maturing saint. The leadership says the maturing saint already has too much knowledge and needs to serve the body and the community. The leadership sees this as a plague of consumerism. It’s true to a certain degree. My thought is why cant you feed the maturing saint and serve the body and community at the same time, not one for the other.

    What books or articles or sermons speak to the issue of anti-intellectualism?

34. My comments were directed primarily toward Piper’s sermon on Luke 18 and his “Taste and See” article. Piper wrote in that article,

    “My motivation in writing it is that I think his understanding of Paul is wrong and his view of justification is harmful to the church and to the human soul.”

    Harmful to the soul? That sounds less than charitable by Piper. Ironically, Piper adopted E.D. Sanders’ analysis of Judaism in his sermon on Luke 18 when he said that the Pharisee is neither semi-peligian or peligian. Clearly that sermon was supposed to target Wright yet by adopting the NPP’s view of Judaism he misses his target.

35. Paul,

    Yes I will address your three questions (specifically) and a few others that come to my mind in the future.

    Concerning books and articles, I have a fairly detailed list of books and articles extant directly addressing the issue of anti-intellecutlism in bibliogrpahic form on my blog. While on my main page, check the right side of the toolbar under “bibliographies” and click on “anti-intellectualism” to go to the page, or copy and paste this url:

    http://provocationsandpantings.blogspot.com/2005/11/bibliography-anti-intellectualism_07.html

    For starters I would check out the following books first:

    Mark Nolls’ The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (most well known on the subject)

    Os Guiness’ Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to Do About It

    J.P. Moreland Love God With All Your Mind

    and a small booklet by John Stott might be helpful to get a number of and pass out to the leadership, called Your Mind Matters. This was a series of lectures given by Stott at an InterVarsity Conference back in 1972.

    If there is anything else I can do to assist in your desire to help reverse the trend of anti-intellectualism, let me know (or anything else for that matter).

36. Daniel,

    At this moment, I do not think I am prepared to address whether Piper adopted E.D.(P?) Sanders’ analysis of Judaism. I do believe Piper was wanting to address Wright’s understanding of justification since that was the meaning of the story and the main point of the sermon.

    BTW, have you read Piper’s book on justification, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? As I seek to focus more directly on this subject matter, this book will be near the top of my reading list (as will be Wright of course). If you have, I would be interested in your review and analysis of the book and his treatment on the subject matter.

37. Daniel,

    My bad. The book I mentioned was on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness which is what I meant. However, Piper also has a book on justification (The Justification of God) which, if you have read, I would be interested in know your response to as well. 🙂

38. For anyone interested in the link to the reaction to Piper’s message on justification on JT’s blog, here’s the links:

    http://theologica.blogspot.com/2006/08/piper-sermon-on-justification.html

    and here:

    http://theologica.blogspot.com/2006/08/report-on-john-pipers-sabbatical.html

    and here:

    http://theologica.blogspot.com/2006/08/back-in-saddle.html

39. Sanders’ initials are E.P. His first name is Ed.

    I’ve glanced over Counted Righteous. It deals with Robert Gundry’s interpretation of Romans 4. I’m not sure that Gundry and Wright are on the same page.

    I have worked with The Justification of God. Ironically, it doesn’t deal with justification by faith as much as Piper’s interpretation of Romans 9. “Is therefore God unjust? There are some good insights in the book on the chapter, but in my opinion its argument fails because he doesn’t go on and interpret Romans 10-11 which are more difficult to the Calvinist.

40. Timmy,

    Have you read Ardel Caneday’s comments on his blog concerning Piper’s Luke 18 sermon?

41. Daniel,

    Are you talking about JT’s blog or Caneday’s? If you have the post before you, could you send me a link?

42. I looked back to Ardel’s old blog to find the post and it looks like he has unfortunately closed his blog and deleted his archives.

    http://woodchipsandmusings.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_woodchipsandmusings_archive.html

43. Pingback: Religion Breeds Hats

Comments are closed.