There are moments when I am proud to be an Evangelical. This is not one of them.
I was listening to a discussion between two gentleman at the Credo House this afternoon. The conversation started as one man introduced another man to a guest scholar we have invited to the Credo House for our “Coffee and Scholars” in two weeks: Mike Licona. He will be here speaking about the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. His recent work The Resurrection of Jesus hit the stands last year and I was glad to get this resource in my hands and glad to have Licona get it into the public stream of scholarship. Proud. Maybe that is not a good word for someone like me to use of someone like Mike Licona. But ever since I was introduced to Mike a few years back, he has made me proud. Proud to be an evangelical. Proud to be a Christian. But most of all, today, proud to have such a resource that defends the resurrection of my savior with such persuasiveness.
My ears perked up to the conversation between the two gentlemen at the Credo House. Hoping against hope that I would not hear what I thought I might hear, longing for the conversation to dignify truth, justice, and the evangelical way, I tuned in to see how this invite to hear Mike tell his testimony might play out. From behind the bar, this peaceful coffee barista’s countenance turned red-nosed in anger as I heard how Licona was introduced. “You know Mike Licona,” the one man told the other, “the guy who Norman Geisler called on to repent because of his view of the dead saints that rose in Matthew. He believes . . .” I told the guy to stop. I took over and told about the Mike Licona who just produced what might be the best historic defense of the resurrection that an evangelical has ever had his thumb print on. I told about the Mike Licona who is traveling all over the world in the power of the Spirit persuading people that the Christ is alive right now. I told about the Mike Licona who is out on the front lines debating atheists with grace, kindness, and resolve. I told about the Mike Licona who reaches out to those who are doubting their faith with mercy, gently giving hope back to them one gentle spoonful at a time. The Mike Licona that Norman Geisler has created should be nothing more than a parenthetical afterthought.
(Warning: Anger laden satire forthcoming with multiple mixed metaphors. Cover your ears and allow me to vent.)
Unfortunately, the Mike Licona that Norm Geisler has created is in the spotlight. With gloves on and mouthpiece in, Mike’s image and priorities have been changed. He is on the defense as his own blood relatives with Jesus DNA and tiger’s blood are tag-teaming with one purpose: to bring Mike to repentance. “In this corner,” the announcer screams, “‘Team Inerrancy’: Norman Geisler and Alber Mohler.” The stands behind them, filled with life-long followers, scream and cheer. “In the other corner, ‘Team Resurrection’: Mike Licona.” The stands behind him have just a few brave souls. The empty seats have personal letters to Mike expressing their support and sorrow that they could not attend to give public support. Mike came to this ring expecting discussion, dialogue, or maybe (God forbid) a pat on the back and invitation to join the team. But as he arrived he found only a tribunal. His new book was laid on the table. The men point to the book and say, “Did you write this?” Mike says, “That’s my name on the cov . . .” They responded before he was finished, “Are you ready to recant!” Taken aback, Mike said “Of what am I to recant? My belief in resurrection of Jesus?” “No,” they responded, “Of your denial of inerrancy.” “But I don’t deny inerrancy,” Mike said. “Yes, you do,” Geisler’s voice become distinct, “I wrote the book on inerrancy. I say who denies it and who does not. And you, sir, deny inerrancy due to your faulty interpretation of Matthew 27:52-53.” “No, I don’t. I just said that it might be apocalyptic, the same as many others evangelicals have said.” “Well, I don’t accept your interpretation as being a valid option. If you will turn to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, page 4, you will see . . .”
“Let’s just hold him until he recants.”
“Wait, wait . . . the prisoner wishes to say a word . . .”
“Freeeeeeeedooooooooommmmm”
(Satire over…I hope)
For those of you who don’t know, Christian apologist and New Testament scholar, Mike Licona, has been publicly called to repentance by theologian and author Norman Geisler and the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler. The accusation is that he has denied inerrancy (the doctrine that the Bible contains no errors, historic or scientific) because he suggested in his book The Resurrection of Jesus that the account of the dead saints rising in Matthew 27:52-53 might be apocalyptic. One statement in this 718 page book that Craig Keener says is “the most thorough treatment on the resurrection and historiography to date [building] a coherent case showing that the best explanation for our evidence involves Jesus’ historical resurrection” has caused Geisler to issue a personal call to repentance followed by three open letters and five public reprimands for Licona’s interpretation. So prominent is this issue that Norman Geisler’s website has a section on the front page devoted to this issue called the “Licona Letters” (source). Albert Mohler followed Geisler’s call to repentance with one of his own making a shocking statement that “Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon” (source).
First, let me say this: I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Geisler and Mohler. Geisler’s A General Introduction to the Bible was instrumental for me early in my studies. I have just about everything he has ever written and have loved and benefited greatly from most of it. Mohler deserves no less a commendation as he has contributed greatly to the cause of Christ. Both will forever be heroes of mine. However, I can’t think of anything else in the last ten years that has disturbed me as much as this controversy. A few months ago, I avoided interaction at all costs. While Licona’s first response to Norm Geisler was placed on our blog, I did so reluctantly for two reasons: 1) I did not and do not want Credo House Ministries to be involved in controversial issues involving specific personalities if at all possible. 2) I did not like to give “air time” to an issue creating dirty laundry where none really exists. After all, I thought (hoped), Norm Geisler’s open letters are not very accessible as his website gets very little traffic. And he is only one person involved and most “insiders” already call him “Stormin’ Norman” due to his slight theological temper. I just thought (hoped) that it would die.
However, I think I have stood by and watched my friend Mike Licona take enough shots. Not that there is anything personally I can do or that my voice is that loud or deep. And it is not as if I am the only one coming to his defense. But when Albert Mohler joined the tribunal, I knew that this controversy would go viral and have terrible effects on many levels. Now that this controversy makes up the first point of contact on Mike’s Wikipedia legacy (sigh . . . can someone please edit that out?) and Google’s search engine produces the suggested query “Mike Licona Norm Geisler” when “Mike Licona” is all I am searching for, it is time to realize that the cat is out of the bag and making a spectacle of evangelical theology. But most importantly, as I reluctantly caught up on all that has been written about last Saturday, I came to morn greatly when I found out that Mike’s recent job transitions out of the North American Mission Board and Southern Evangelical Seminary were not coincidental. This great apologist’s life and family is being deeply affected by the unrelenting crusade of very few, but powerful, evangelical brothers. It is a spectacle and a travesty.
Three points of concern:
1. I don’t agree with Mike Licona about the possibility that Matthew 27:52-53 is apocalyptic imagery rather than describing historical events. Let me make that clear. I have read his defense and dug into it just enough to say that I think that the raising of the dead saints, while odd, is meant to be understood as historical. However, this is an issue of interpretation, not inerrancy. I believe in inerrancy, but I also believe that we have to separate inerrancy from particular interpretations. Just about anything could be tied to inerrancy when disagreement about interpretation is at issue. I have seen people say that those who deny that Revelation 20 is speaking of a literal thousand year future millennium are denying inerrancy. While I believe it is a literal thousand years, I don’t say that inerrancy says you can’t interpret it any other way than literal. There is symbolism in the Scripture, even in historic narrative. However, even if one completely thinks someone else has lost their interpretive marbles when they spiritualize some passage through appeals to apocalyptic, symbolic, or, even, allegorical interpretation, the issue is one of hermeneutics, not inerrancy. In other words, you cannot tie inerrancy to a particular interpretation.
As well, Geisler believes in an old earth. In other words, he does not take the narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 literally. Even though it is embedded in a historical genre, he gives himself liberty to see symbolism in the creation account (probably due to the testimony of modern science). Why does his view of inerrancy allow him this freedom, but when Licona suggests something similar, he is called to public reprimand and repentance? When someone professes inerrancy, our interpretation and hermeneutic cannot be the judge as to whether they really believe in it or not. There has to be academic freedom, even in tighter circles of Protestant theology such as evangelicalism, especially when the discovery of truth is the issue.
2. Norm Geisler and Albert Mohler both call on Mike to reaffirm biblical inerrancy by changing his interpretive position. Their banner flag is inerrancy and they fly it high. But it is not just inerrancy that is written on their banner, it is inerrancy as defined by the International Council for Biblical Inerrancy codified in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) of 1978. In fact, as I read through both of their critiques of Licona, I believe they quote from the CSBI more than any other source, even Scripture. The issue, for them, seems to be not whether Mike’s interpretation was valid or even the need to counter his interpretation with their own, but whether or not Licona had violated this 1978 creedal statement. How did the CSBI become the premier standard to orthodoxy? Don’t get me wrong, the last time I read it, I agreed with it all (except for one statement). But as much as I respect the history and personalities behind the CSBI, it is neither infallible nor the norma normans sed non normata norm (Lat. “norm which norms which is not normed”—a statement of faith about the supreme authority of Scripture, not about “Norm” Geisler!). In the end, Geisler and Mohler are not calling on Licona to repent and return to the orthodoxy of this historic Christian faith, but to repent and return to their interpretation of the CSBI.
Now, last time I checked, the doctrine of sola Scriptura is much more a distinctive of Protestant orthodoxy than is inerrancy. Sola Scriptura is one of the two primary battle cries of the Great Reformation (the other is sola fide “justification by faith alone”). As a matter of fact, a few years ago, after the Francis Beckwith issue I suggested an amendment to change the defining characteristic of Evangelical Theological Society from inerrancy to sola Scriptura. The doctrine of sola Scriptura says that the Scripture is our final and only infallible source of revelation. The Scripture, not any council (much less a 1978 Evangelical council), is the norm that norms which is not normed. I think that Geisler (and possibly Mohler) are in more danger of violating the more central doctrine of sola Scriptura than Licona is of violating inerrancy.
3. But there is something that looms much larger than both of these concerns in my opinion. It is the blatant violation of evangelical theological propriety that this issue has raised. Grace is absent. Mike Licona has just written what both men recognize is a (if not the) premiere defense of the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Licona is not only an evangelical in every sense of the word, he is a rising apologetic leader whose central focus of his life is the risen Jesus. His work on the subject is surpassed by none, even the great N.T. Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God. It is fine that these two men had concerns with Licona’s interpretation of Matthew 27. It might even be fine that they felt that these concerns could have some significant “slippery slope” repercussions. But their concerns should have been drowned out by the commendation that they gave Licona for his monumental work. Geisler, an apologist of the “old school,” should have written twenty open letters of commendation and praise before he ever even thought of writing his first open letter of criticism which eventually left Mike out of a job. Though I have talked to Mike briefly about this over the phone and he did not seem too discouraged, what a deflation of purpose, drive, and ambition this must be for him. To contribute so significantly to the defense of the core of Christianity only to find his greatest battle coming not from unbelievers, but from his very own kin whose commendations serve only as a prelude to calls to repentance, recantation, and reform must be more than difficult.
Geisler and Mohler should have thrown Mike Licona a parade but instead they have paraded a spectacle of shame and dishonor, elevating a non-essential issue of interpretation to the very test of orthodoxy. Mohler said that “Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon.” I am beginning to think that just the opposite is true. Mohler and Geisler (and anyone else who has defined Licona accordingly) are presently giving the enemies of Christ a powerful weapon. Illegitimate weapon, yes. But powerful nonetheless. (Not to mention embarrassing.)
“We have met the enemy and it is us.” This comic strip phrase captures the essence of how evangelicals often eat their young. I have met the enemy and it is not Mike Licona.
Mike, for what it is worth, I stand behind you even understanding that my ministry could suffer indirectly due to my support. I commend you as I did on your Facebook page right after I got your book on the resurrection. I commend you as I did after I handed out your Evidences for God book on the airplane to a grateful gentleman. I commend you as you, four years ago, patiently came on our “Converse with Scholars” program and settled people’s fears about the Talpiot tomb. I commend you as you are open and brave to express your understanding, doubts, and struggles yet glorify God in defending the faith. I pray that the stands are full in your corner during this battle. There are so many of us who appreciate what you are doing and are praying for you.
I think that Max Andrews said it best when he brought Wormwood into the mix:
“My Dearest Wormwood,
Whenever you find an expert defense of the enemy’s resurrection marshall the forces of the fundamentalists to marginalize it by ceaseless debates over ‘inerrancy’ in minor, inconsequential details.”
There are moments when I am proud to be an Evangelical. This is not one of them.
Mike’s site: http://risenjesus.com/, Support him.
181 replies to "Mike Licona, Norman Geisler, Albert Mohler, and the Evangelical Circus"
[…] Dustup over Inerrancy Got this in an email this evening: Mike Licona, Norman Geisler, Albert Mohler, and the Evangelical Circus | Parchment and Pen Was unaware of the dustup between Licona and Gesiler. After reading Geisler's open letters at his […]
This is what happens when error is allowed in the name of orthodoxy. Geisler needs to be soundly reprimanded for denying literal Genesis. Licona needs to be set straight about Mt. 27. And how is it that erring men like Gary DeMar are allowed to chime in? It’s time to stop worshiping Reformed theology – replacing the Word of God with the opinions of man. Stop quoting Augustine and the Reformers and submit your prideful opinions to Scripture. Hypocrits! God has sovereignly elected national Israel and preserving the people for a future generation in which the prophecies will literally be fulfilled. Biblical eschatology is premillennial. Period. There is no other millennial view derived from the exegetical exposition of the biblical text. That’s what happens when degree programs created by men, filled with critiques of other men’s opinions, are allowed to undermine a proper understanding of Scripture. And give up on “evangelical” too. As MacArthur has correctly observed the term has become meaningless. “Evangelicals” are all over the map, with the average lay believer having little sound understanding of the Word. My observation some 25 years ago stands – it’s not the believers don’t know the Word; it’s that they don’t know that they don’t know the Word. Thankfully Christ is building his Church despite the splintered churchianity.
Since when did inerrancy come to mean “can’t contain embellishments”? A purposeful embellishment is not an error. I embellish all the time! (No, not literally. When I say “all the time”, I am purposefully embellishing. The statement is nonetheless true.)
Both overstatement and understatement are legitimate figures of speech used in human language. If God is the author of our mind, then surely He would not refuse the use of rather common figures of speech.
The problem is that some people have a naive approach to inerrancy and abuse the text by forcing post-Enlightenment assumptions on a pre-Enlightenment writing.
If there is no apocalyptic imagery in Matthew, then I suppose we have to believe in reincarnation. After all, Jesus *did* say that John is Elijah (Matt 11:14), and we all know that John was born to Elizabeth (see Luke). Not to mention Jesus claimed he would in a mere three days finish the Temple that been under construction for forty-six years. That can’t be talking about his body, because that would be apocalyptic.
He couldn’t have seen the Spirit descending like a dove, either, because that’s apocalyptic.
No, no apocalyptic imagery here, folks. No angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man. No talking with Moses and Elijah and experiencing a face-glow transformation. No seeing the Son of Man coming on the clouds or seated at the right hand of Power. No disciples vying for positions of authority in a Coming Kingdom. Certainly not.
____
You can’t “dehistoricize” a text unless it was historical to begin with. Matthew 5-7 is a rather lengthy speech. Speech is not narrative. Matthew starts with a genealogy, which is also not narrative. Luke has two songs in the early chapters of that Gospel, which — you guessed it — are poetry rather than narrative, per se.
Acts contains Stephen’s speech with a mostly-but-not-perfectly accurate (from a “historical” standpoint) retelling of the history of Israel. And the real kicker? Stephen gave that speech empowered by the Holy Spirit. That’s right. The Holy Spirit inspired Stephen to proclaim the embellishment that God called Abram in the land of Ur *before* coming to Haran.
The Hebrew text does not support this, although some [evangelical] translations of Gen 12:1 seem to pretend that the vayyiqtol form can be a pluperfect in this singular instance.
My point is simple: even narrative contains embedded genres, some of which are not narrative. Besides, a writer is completely allowed to cross the line between one genre and another at will, thus allowing for some apocalyptic imagery set within an otherwise-mostly-historical framework.
Mike doesn’t need to be tarred and feathered for simply considering a possibility. Sheesh. There’s enough apocalyptic material within the Gospels to leave one reasonably open to the possibility, and it is not disingenuous for an author to embed apocalyptic imagery within narrative, despite our Modern sensibilities saying otherwise.
CMP, good job trying to defend your friend. If he has made a mistake, it seems that he has made some amends (comment #31) and leaves open the possiblity of an update in a new edition. I’m not in a position to judge his accusers, especially since I don’t know the details about the situation, but I feel distressed like in Matthew 18:31.
I read most of the article, and I have one thing to say, to many christians are trying to convert others to believe like them. It does not work. Sometimes it takes a simple mind to see the truth. Sometimes to much knowledge confuses people. I have seen people drugged through the mud just because they do not see things eye to eye. The most important thing is to show God’s love by forgiving even when others do not, and to keep on our mission for our purpose. unfortanely christians have lost what God is telling us. Love one another. To many nick pick, shun and act like small little children. We all who are christians need to love and let God do the rest. Stop judging. I have had preachers say we all judge, but the kind of judging when you put one of God’s worker down and destroy there lifes is the work of Satan. Christians fighting. WHY? For the sake that they are right. Let God show them the truth,and remember there are lost souls out there who just need to see God’s love plain and simple.
This whole sorry episode proves what many of us have always known, that Christian fundamentalists in Calvinist clothing (euphemistically called “Evangelicals”) would eat their own children if the thought that they were straying even a little out of their narrow predefined doctrinal boundaries.
Belligerent, intolerant, narrow-minded and completely lacking in Christ’s love, mercy and grace. Brick bats.
A word from across the pond – The assumption of theological authority and the exercise of legalised violence to sustain it has slain more poor Christian souls than many wars. “Recant” was always the demand of authority, burning the fate of the victim. In England (Old England that is) we know it only too well.
Burning at the stake may not be an option but the mind set remains.
I will have to order that Book – many thanks for the reccomendations cmp. I’m also curious as to what Gisler would make of N.T.Wright who is big in apocalypising (away!) much of Jesus’ teaching about his second coming … if I have understood some of the issues (which I may not have & don’t claim to have read up on what he said just the concerns expressed by evangelical friends of Wrights)
I’m a little confused as to what problem people have with selected individuals being resussitated from the dead by God as additional rather emphatic witnesses of the fact that the Messiah had come and the saints in Hades/Sheol would now be able to enter heaven.
The vail separating perfect God and sinful humans is torn in two. The Holy of Holies is for the first time since eden … accessible. Que Problema?
Perhaps a more critical issue beneath this is an obsurity over the faith of those who awaited the Messiah’s coming? or an understanding of what happened during the three days between death and ressurection? Scritpure does not support a “Jesus had a nice 3 days sleep” view but generally it just isn’t talked about … at least in my very limited exposure to stuff.
J Sidlow Baxter’s book the other side of death is worth reading in this respect. Also one might wish to familiarise oneself with the early church’s Fathers belief of Jesus preaching the gospel in hades …(yeah yeah … another pandoras box of interpretations … but that IS what THEY asserted!) 1 Peter 3:19, 1 Peter 4:6, Eph 4:8-10, Rom 10: 6-7; http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd5.html for more
For a defense of Jesus preaching being actually preaching with a possiblity of repentance … i.e. post mortum evangelisation see:
http://www.thesecretofeternallife.com/bill_turner_studies/22a_The_Issues_of_Death_and_Eternal_Judgement.doc
and more quotes of chuch fathers on pages 9 & 10
ps I am NOT a universalist and consider that the idea of those who would willfully reject God’s grace and truth and light and love here (i.e. pharisees and saducees who simply wnated to kill Jesus and hated him more the more of God’s grace and power he displayed) … is a little silly!
regards,
Keith
regards,
Keith
I will have to order that Book – many thanks for the reccomendations cmp. I’m also curious as to what Gisler would make of N.T.Wright who is big in apocalypising (away!) much of Jesus’ teaching about his second coming … if I have understood some of the issues (which I may not have & don’t claim to have read up on what he said just the concerns expressed by evangelical friends of Wrights)
I’m a little confused as to what problem people have with selected individuals being resussitated from the dead by God as additional rather emphatic witnesses of the fact that the Messiah had come and the saints in Hades/Sheol would now be able to enter heaven.
The vail separating perfect God and sinful humans is torn in two. The Holy of Holies is for the first time since eden … accessible. Que Problema?
Perhaps a more critical issue beneath this is an obsurity over the faith of those who awaited the Messiah’s coming? or an understanding of what happened during the three days between death and ressurection? Scritpure does not support a “Jesus had a nice 3 days sleep” view but generally it just isn’t talked about … at least in my very limited exposure to stuff.
J Sidlow Baxter’s book the other side of death is worth reading in this respect. Also one might wish to familiarise oneself with the early church’s Fathers belief of Jesus preaching the gospel in hades …(yeah yeah … another pandoras box of interpretations … but that IS what THEY asserted!) 1 Peter 3:19, 1 Peter 4:6, Eph 4:8-10, Rom 10: 6-7; http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd5.html for more
For a defense of Jesus preaching being actually preaching with a possiblity of repentance … i.e. post mortum evangelisation see:
http://www.thesecretofeternallife.com/bill_turner_studies/22a_The_Issues_of_Death_and_Eternal_Judgement.doc
and more quotes of chuch fathers on pages 9 & 10
ps I am NOT a universalist and consider that the idea of those who would willfully reject God’s grace and truth and light and love here (i.e. pharisees and saducees who simply wnated to kill Jesus and hated him more the more of God’s grace and power he displayed) … is a little silly!
regards,
Keith
Firstly, may I say that I find myself in unequivocal agreement with the belief that our Bible is inerrant in its autographs. Secondly, I agree with the view that Matthew 27 is a historic account, rather than being tinged with “apocalyptic” interpretation. That said and having read Norman Geisler’s lengthy “article” attacking Dr. Mike Licona, this Christian is greatly dismayed with the mean-spirited tone Dr. Geisler adopted. In his zeal to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, Dr. Geisler’s critique of Dr. Licona’s monumental work, The Resurrection of Christ, smacks of gnat-straining comments laced with vituperative condescension and unadulterated arrogance. For the author of Chosen But Free to pontificate on the scholarship methodology Dr. Licona utilized in writing his masterpiece is cause enough to question the assertions, or even the underlying motives, of Dr. Geisler. Furthermore, Dr. Geisler’s demand that Dr. Licona “recant” is ludicrous on its face and a classic example of audacity at its worst. Finally, it is a sad day to see the once gentle and cogent Christian apologist, Dr. Geisler, descend into the morass of bitter ecclesiastical politics and legalistic judgmentalism.
Here’s a quote from John Stott that may be applicable to this discussion: “On Theological enquiry: We need to encourage Christian scholars to go to the frontiers and engage in the debate, while at the same time
retaining their active participation in the community of
faith. I know this is a delicate issue, and it is not easy
to define the right relations between free enquiry and
settled faith. Yet I have often been disturbed by the
loneliness of some Christian scholars. Whether it is they
who have drifted away from the fellowship, or the
fellowship which has allowed them to drift, in either case
their isolation is an unhealthy and dangerous condition.
As part of their own integrity Christian scholars need both to preserve the tension between openness and commitment, and to accept some measure of accountability to one another and responsibility for one another in the body of Christ. In such a caring fellowship I think we might witness fewer casualties on the one hand and more theological creativity on the other.
From Authentic Christianity © 1995 John Stott and Timothy Dudley-Smith.
Where on earth does Geisler and Mohler receive the authority to be Grand Inquisitors? I am so glad to be part of an independent group rather than one controlled by councils, conventions, or national offices!
I am also part of a non-creedal group. I recognize the value of the early ancient creeds–but this is an illustration of how divisive creed making can truly be!
Quoting Roger from Australia: “This whole sorry episode proves what many of us have always known, that Christian fundamentalists in Calvinist clothing (euphemistically called “Evangelicals”) would eat their own children if the thought that they were straying even a little out of their narrow predefined doctrinal boundaries.
Belligerent, intolerant, narrow-minded and completely lacking in Christ’s love, mercy and grace. Brick bats.”
Since Dr. Geisler is the proto-typical Anti-Calvinist (see Chosen but Free) I’m not sure this fits into your ad-hominem there….
All in all, I would say that Geisler has shown his true color (arrogance), and Mike has shown his (humility). At the end of the day, humility under-girded by love for God and his Word wins. Arrogance reveals little or no love for God, but it only displays our own pettiness.
To lump Mohler’s congenial analysis of the cultural impact in with Geisler’s hit piece is to construct a straw man out of poopy. It is irresponsible at best.
Separate the two and address each of their concerns individually; otherwise this will turn into a mud-slinging contest that will embarrass even the Republican presidential candidates.
Mohler may be a less sounding “prefect of doctrine”, but his position theologically (so-called) is the same as Geisler! This is hardly a “straw man”, they both know what their seeking to do! It is still “shame” on both for Christian leaders!
I think the fair thing for the two fudamentalists to do is take the time to call out the rest of the evangelical scholars who hold to the same interpretation as Licona – i.e. most of the Matthew and Gospels scholars (myself included). Let’s be consistent, and help people recognize that most experts on the Gospel of Matthew hold to the same position as Licona. If you’re going to be a poor example and bad witness for the Gospel, at least go the whole way to polarize the Christian community instead of trying to make it look like Licona stands alone – he doesn’t.
Amen there Danny! My point about NT Wright, who American Evangelicals seem to read in great voraciousness! And he certainly ain’t so-called historical on Matt. 27: 52-53. 😉
Very much in favor of Mike’s book overall; and of Mike’s side on this dispute. Good article, CMP.
JRP
@Randall.
To begin with, Inerrancy is a conclusion. It is not a presupposition. Of course Inerrancy is not presupposed. Otherwise, Mike would have just written “The Bible is Inerrant and it says Jesus rose. Therefore, Jesus rose.”
As for embellishments, do you know what Mike means by the term and do you have a source for this?
As for repentance, how many times has Geisler been threatening Mike with talk about Gundry and ETS and saying he needs to change his mind on this issue? If you’re looking for the exact word. No. If you mean is Geisler pushing Mike as if he’s a threat to the Kingdom, then yes.
In reality, I don’t think either Geisler or Mohler are that “creedal”, they both don’t appear to understand the spiritual reality of our Lord’s teaching about Jonah’s “three days and three nights in the belly of the earth”? (Matt. 12:39-42)…The “sign” of Jonah! And this certainly applies to Christ’s death, and burial…the state of the dead Christ is the mystery of the tomb and descent into hades! This is not so much a literal order of events, as a spiritual reality of both Christ’s death and His resurrection, which is certainly historical but also spiritual, (1 Peter 3:18-22). Here we can certainly note the Apostles Creed! It very clearly states the essentials about belief in Jesus Christ. And certainly, the Apocalyptic is seen here, in the ultimate destruction of evil and the triumph of good, as we can see in the Book of Revelation, itself!
I am reminded that Paul got it right when he taught that truth must be spoken in charity, or don’t bother (my paraphrase!). I liken this situation to an irate librarian beating bad spellers over the head with a dictionary: it will reduce misspelling, and also will empty the library.
Would that the scholars involved should deliver well-framed debate regarding the apocalyptic issue, and avoid the “ad hominem” debacle!
I believe that this was a historical event retold by Matthew as well.
My secondary question is why didn’t the Sadducees promptly abandon their their disbelief in a bodily resurrection given the eyewitness testimony (which might have included Sadducees themselves) of the risen saints?
Of course only faith can see and believe in the Resurrection of Christ, and only regeneration & calling can give faith! Note the so-called, ‘ordo salutis’.
One of the main reasons I walked away from fundamentalism and the “church” in general after 17 years; doctrine over love and know it all attitudes. Every Christian and his/her beliefs are right and the other persons are wrong. I sought out love for many years and found it in a peculiar place, non Christians. I had enough of fake smiles and bloated heads thank you. Can someone please quote me some verses that justify a theologian? Read Pagan Christianity, explains most everything wrong in the Church today. Norm was wrong period.
*full disclosure* i did not read all of the comments,i just read the first round of comments…
im no mohler apologist.. i appreciate much of his work and stances, but he does drive me crazy sometimes. i say that first hoping to dispel any notions that i feel the need to rush to his defense.
here is a link
[ http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/09/14/the-devil-is-in-the-details-biblical-inerrancy-and-the-licona-controversy/ ]
to mohler’s article regarding licona’s book, where he spends *** six paragraphs*** at the beginning singing the praises of licona’s book, scholarship, writing, etc.
he then closes with:
“Michael Licona is a gifted and courageous defender of the Christian faith and a bold apologist of Christian truth. Our shared hope must be that he will offer a full correction on this crucial question of the Bible’s full truthfulness and trustworthiness. I will be praying for him with the full knowledge that I have been one who has been gifted and assisted by needed correction. Leaving his argument where it now stands will not only diminish the influence of Michael Licona — it will present those who affirm the inerrancy of the Bible with yet another test of resolve.”
one might disagree w/ mohler re: the cause/effect of the stance of the passage in question, i would hardly call mohler’s position and handling of it something to be embarrassed of – whether its content or demeanor. (at least in this article… granted i didnt hear the discussion you spoke of).
geisler on the other hand…
please lord come back now my head hurts
I think that the issue now is that Licona is suffering so much from this without a peep from either Geisler or Mohler calling to account their followers who are keeping him from getting his jobs back. Three jobs were lost as a direct effect of Mohler and Geisler. I can’t imagine that neither know (especially since Geisler is proactively trying to warn individual places about hiring Mike).
I doubt either of them would treat a beggar on the road the way that they are treating Mike. Is this the type of reward someone deserves for producing something as monumental as what Mike has done just because of a minor detail?
When one has a big plateform, they need to be careful about what they say about someone else. There are actually some people out there that are gullible enough to listen and ruin someone elses life.
Geiser needs to retire and go way. The man holds a whole host of beliefs that most heavyweight theologians disagree with, and after his defense of the Caner scandal he has no room to accuse anyone of anything. Pride run amok.
CMP,
I agree with you 100%. Mike Licona is a first-rate resurrection scholar, following in the footsteps of Gary Habermas. I hope that Al Mohler and Norm Geisler don’t miss the forest for the trees here.
Thanks for this great post!
Jonathan Perreault
I agree with John. Mohler seemed quite respectful, though obviously concerned. CMP’s article and the comments seem quite immoderate in suggesting that is a witch hunt by fundies.
C. Michael: I am actually amazed that this situation has run this far along, I mean in Mike Licona’s world with his fellow scholars, this is an open question, so in reality the likes of both a Norm Geisler and Al Mohler, really matter little. Neither one of these two are in the central world of Christian academia. Even Geisler has never been in the centre of this world. So I am somewhat baffled that he can have so much pull? But I understand myself political religious personalities, which Geisler certainly seems to maintain, but the bottom line is always the real depth of biblical, theological and spiritual authority. And in this “centre” Mike Licona simply holds the high ground! One has but to read those people who have written with high regard for Licona’s book: The Resurrection of Jesus, etc. It is my prayer that some if not many of them would come forward, and say no witch hunt here!
But we always must be critical here also, as CS Lewis said: Theology/Truth is not “adjustable to contemporary thought,” etc., as some theologians seem to believe – as if we were trying to make rather than learn. And also we cannot sit on the truth, and build a fence around it, but must seek it, live it, and thirst for it!
Fr. Robert – There you folks go quoting CS Lewis again. While I was joking in a previous post about him being a heretic, some of his views would certainly be frowned upon by most posting on this board.
So the question really is: Why do Geisler and Mohler seem to be picking on Licona? My usual answer is “follow the money.” I still contend that they are doing it because it gets them more attention that simply praising the book.
It may have even by CMP that posted about Ron? Bell and Lewis. I’m having difficulty finding where I read the comparison. I believe I commented about the comparison between Bell and Lewis, that Lewis in his writings promoted God while Bell tends to promote man and himself. That is why Lewis is so universally accepted and respected despite his non-orthodox views on some items. Licona was not promoting his views on Matt. 27 in this book, from what I read here it was almost an aside that could easily have been left out without affecting the book. So why all the hubbub? Follow the money.
BlueCat,
As an Anglican priest/presbyter, and now semi-retired at 62, I am well aware of “religion” and money. And by the grace of God I will and have never sold my soul for any of it! I have a real respect for certain conservative American Evangelicals, certainly mostly in the past, but God has His men and people there today, as still a few Brits in my homeland. The memory and work of CS Lewis included! In reality the true church is always “Catholic” (universal)!
Reading Michael Licona’s book: The Resurrection of Jesus, etc., was a real theological and even spiritual treat! I pray he has many years to come and give, as God enables him! God Bless Mike and C. Michael and friends, all! 🙂
*Perhaps the Lord has a few good years left for this old Anglican! soli Deo gloria!
And btw, something worse than religion and money, is religion and power, and a so-called name for yourself! Lord deliver us from such in the Visible Body of Christ, at least let us “see” them for what they are!
Interesting post. Michael you say “I am beginning to think that just the opposite is true. Mohler and Geisler (and anyone else who has defined Licona accordingly) are presently giving the enemies of Christ a powerful weapon. Illegitimate weapon, yes. But powerful nonetheless….” I don’t think of citing the controversy like use of a weapon, personally.
But I do think this kind of response by Geisler and Mohler, like many other similar ones by many Evangelical leaders at various times IS germane to an evaluation of a number of claims of Evangelical Christianity, most notably the supposed transformation that brings the grace of God into the heart of anyone trusting Christ for salvation. Without expecting perfection by any means, it seems reasonable to expect Christian leaders, scholars and defenders of the faith of the status of these men, and others, to have real transformation evidenced by love and grace. That is, if the content of that trust in Christ really is important (e.g., belief in his deity, “finished work,” etc.)
A couple of thoughts:
1. Nick, I assume Mike is using the term “embellishment” in the normal sense, to enhance a story or narrative with fictitious additions. Also, what I meant by “presuppose” is that if Mike believed the text was without error – he would not entertain the idea that the text had embellishments.
2. Gary S., you say a purposeful embelleshment is not an error. I agree, overstatements are used in the human language. However, this is different than an embellishment. A narrative such as John 18:4-6 describes the scene when the Roman cohort came to arrest Jesus. Either John descibes reality correctly or he errors by adding fictitious details. If John adds fictitious details the text then is not inerrant.
Also, Dr. Richard Howe has also weighed in on this contorversy:
http://quodlibetalblog.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/breaking-my-internet-silence-on-mike-licona-and-inerrancy/
Wow! Thanks for letting me know about what looks like being a great resource. 🙂 Just bought it for my Kindle and as soon as I can I’ll post a review.
As for the brothers squaring off against a brother, there’s nothing but shame in that. We all disagree about some things, and we are all precisely where God has us in our journey following Jesus. We have no business attacking one another over this sort of minor doctrinal point. Even if it were a major point, it would better be handled in love and privacy.
I know that Mike has had some invitations revoked and it is my hope that Norm Geisler has not been involved in the cancellation of those events through any direct contact as there is a federal law against “Interference” with a persons ability to make a living. Interference in labor and employment law is ruled by the courts to be any activity to prevent a person from making a living that involves direct correspondence. If Norm Geisler called to interfere in an invitation that Mike received than Norm Geisler has violated a federal law and should be charged. As I said, I hope this is not true but if it is he should confess and pay the consequences.
[…] the he denies the inerrancy of the bible. For a discussion of this ugly dispute, see http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/12/mike-licona-norman-geisler-albert-mohler-and-the-evang… and the references to the articles by Geisler and Mohler contained on Michael Patton’s […]
[…] […]
@Randall. Then you’re simply mistaken about embellishments. I know this because I did something unusual. I asked Mike. He says he holds to Inerrancy. I believe him. So I ask him how his view fits. (I tell you, it’s quite amazing when you go up to someone and first ask them questions about their view instead of shooting out accusations) Embellishments is a difficult word really, but what I get is that it describes the historical event, but it uses powerful and dramatic language to paint a picture of what’s going on.
Yes. I know Richard Howe has weighed in. The problem is I give more credence to the NT scholars who have weighed in and so far on Geisler’s side I’ve seen zero, while on Mike’s I’ve seen a plethora.
I also see no reason why Inerrancy can’t be simple. It can just be “All the Bible teaches is true.” I’ve seen the Geisler side quote ICBI more than Scripture. Isn’t that interesting?
CMP, I somehow missed the part about Licona losing jobs and having trouble getting a job because of this. Something is seriously wrong in a system where one or two people can have such a dramatic effect on one man’s livelihood. I would NOT want to be in their “industry”.
Fr. Robert – I did not mean for that comment to in any way be directed at you personally. I just haven’t figured out how to reply directly to a post.
I was also not intending to denigrate Lewis, but to:
a. Be a bit snarky, which is hard to do in short comments
b. Point out that many, many prominent Theologians and Apologists have what would be considered by most heretical views yet they are generally overlooked because their main body of work adds value and that the “heretical” views are not the focus of their ministry.
It was Michael Patton and published an article titled “Why do we love C.S. Lewis and hate Rob Bell.” Surprisingly I haven’t seen mention of that article in these comments, yet it discusses a related issue.
A minor point, shouldn’t “Catholic” be lower case “c” in the way you are using it?
Finally, power and money are, I believe, the issue here, not Matt 27. That is unfortunate and of course I have no intimate knowledge that would prove my point. That said, we can only “judge” by what we see and I see a struggle for power that will lead to money for those that win. And that, IMHO, is part of the nature of man.
And I wonder how Geisler sleeps in the night knowing that he is the instrumental cause for so much pain for Licona, knowing he has lost three jobs now. I mean, seriously I cannot digest this cheap mentality on display, and that too by a Christian towards his own brother. Ver cheap, Geisler!
Leslie, I don’t know much about Geisler, but I’ve never seen evidence self-appointed “doctrine police” worry about the effects of their actions.
Hmmmm, looks like the Tone Police vs. the Doctrine Police.
Tone Police: “Your doctrine is sound, but your tone is offensive! You’re arrested!”
vs.
Doctrine Police: “Your tone is not the concern, but more importantly, your doctrine is egregiously aberrant! You’re arrested!”
And now the so-called ICBI/ICC is called into the situation. Sad, for this is simply a parachurch group. Years back it was somewhat created because of the so-called Neo-Orthodoxy, and then people thought of as a treat, like Karl Barth. But in reality, as Bruce McCormack has shown Barth was not really a ‘Neo-Orthodox’! I myself would agree with some of the ICC positions, but that is not really the issue, I mean how does the conservative Evangelical Church or really churches manage itself, with parachurch groups? I would hope not. In the end, for Licona he should only be seen before the scholastic academy, which is simply where this position should sit. If the Evangelical Churches disagree, that is up to them, but on an individual church basis. Again, it is very sad to watch this whole affair, and see the treatment of Michael Licona. But again my prayer is that many in the academy would come forward and support their fellow scholar & brother in Christ!
*threat