J.P. Moreland, who blogs here at Scriptorium Daily, is under attack. There is nothing new in that since Moreland has long served as one of this generations leading defenders of Christianity, especially in the American and Protestant context. What is different is that Moreland is drawing “friendly fire” this time.
In late 2007, at a meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Moreland delivered a paper which has attracted a wide response, both positive and negative. Any scholar enjoys being taken seriously enough to merit criticism, but sadly some of the reaction to Moreland’s paper has been grossly unfair and intemperate.
Academic discussion of Moreland’s paper is not appropriate to this medium, but it is appropriate to discuss more fringe responses informally since they have mostly been found in the new media. In fact, the alarmingly unfair attacks on Moreland threaten to obscure better questions. For example, I have some questions about our ability to extrapolate from singular personal spiritual experiences to more general theological claims, but it is not obvious that Moreland could not address those concerns.
While fair minded criticism is one thing, and the paper proposes several highly speculative but interesting ideas that need further “fleshing out,” some critics of Moreland sound as if he is an obvious heretic, has made a major theological shift, or is out of the Evangelical mainstream of his own Christian university.
These criticisms are false and can easily be shown to be false.
Many respondents do not seem able to read past Moreland’s (admittedly) provocative title. Moreland’s thesis is amazingly modest: all knowledge, including theological knowledge, is not in the Holy Bible. He clarifies that Biblical revelation is precious and unique in its importance. The bizarre reaction to Moreland’s almost self-evident claim shows that it needs to be made.
Why would Moreland choose to focus on this issue?
Moreland has been frank about his own struggles with depression and ultimate victory in it. He has also been brave enough to admit that he has received help from psychological perspectives that do not contradict Sacred Scripture, but are not found in it. Any person wearing contact lenses (as do I) or wearing a pace maker knows that extra-Biblical medical knowledge is precious and not to be despised!
Anyone who has done speaking in traditional Christian circles know that there is a narrow fringe, but a very loud fringe, that hates any use of psychological categories. One need look no farther than that real world experience to see why Moreland’s pastoral heart would turn towards this issue.
How can a Christian develop an epistemology that accounts for both metaphysical and physical knowledge? Must we become effective naturalists or irrational supernaturalists? Moreland’s entire career (beginning with his seminal Christianity and the Nature of Science) can be seen as a thoughtful attempt to develop a coherent way of accounting for both.
Moreland wants a science open to personal and Personal agency (human and Divine). He also wants a theology open to information gained from the book of nature. In theology, he does not make the book of nature primary (God forbid!), but he does not ignore it either. In science, Moreland does not limit knowledge to impersonal causation, but is open to a broad variety of personal causation.
This position is not new to Moreland or to Biola. It is the position he held when hired and when he was named a Distinguished Professor (the highest rank at the University). The only difference is a change of focus from an assault on the over narrowness of philosophical naturalists (who will not allow Agency) to an attack on those who cut theology totally off from non-Biblical knowledge (miraculous and scientific).
Our new president, Barry Corey, as his inaugural remarks to the University attest, represents the moderate, conservative, but open attitude toward the physical and metaphysical world that is Biola’s historic heritage. I see no substantial differences between his position (as I understand it) and Moreland’s. They might (for all I know) disagree on details or implications (as academics do), but they are part of a diverse team poised to be a center for Christian thought in the twenty-first century.
Biola University has long had an informal “open but cautious” approach to modern day miracles. A constant minority of faculty during my decade at Biola have been “third wave,” charistmatic, or Pentecostal.
Moreland’s view could be described as “open, cautious, but decidedly hopeful.” He is eager to find evidence for miracles, but has not stopped using his analytically trained mind about them. While this view may represent more openness than most faculty have toward signs and wonders, Moreland strongly affirms all the central and formally stated positions of the University. He represents one of the most conservative and high views of Scriptural authority found amongst Evangelical faculty on campus and nationally. I have personally seen him defend this view at some personal cost.
Attacks on Moreland’s commitment to the centrality of Scripture, especially based on what can only be described as an incompetent reading of this paper, are bizarre. Moreland does not claim that any theological experience should be placed on par or allowed to contradict Scripture. He does not encourage wild speculation on the nature of the supernatural world, but a cautious summary of what our actual experience (in the light of Revelation) shows.
Moreland has moved closer to a “third wave” church affiliation, but his position is not substantially different on signs and wonders from that he presented to me when I first met him over a decade ago. There is little in Moreland’s paper he would not have argued (and did argue) in the 1990’s. For that tiny minority of Christendom that believes that all signs and wonders ended in the New Testament era (nobody now living on this planet need pray for a miracle), Moreland’s paper is obviously a non-starter.
However, such theologians should use this as a chance to argue for their position and not just proclaim it as if its truth were obvious. One need not be a charismatic to agree with the substance of Moreland’s paper. I have heard such expressions in traditional Protestant and Evangelical communities all my life.
Finally, the power of being able to publish or say anything in the new media seems to have cost some their judgment about what they should say. One need not be a superhero to know that with great power comes great responsibility. The bigger the potential audience, the more careful the attacker should be in making hurtful accusations. A mature person does not level serious accusations without evidence. The more serious the charge the greater the necessary evidence.
Read the paper yourself. Read the responses to it. Even if you don’t agree with everything in the paper, the tone of the title, or some of the more speculative suggestions in it about miracles, is the tone of some at the Christianity Today blog warranted? For a Christian the charge that someone does not love the precious Word of God is very serious. Does the paper show evidence of this fault?
Finally, remember that Moreland is a person, not a position. He is a person who has brought thousands to faith in Christ. Does the critic treat him as he would wish to be treated? If not, then pray for the soul of the critic that he would, like Christ, be courageous and charitable.
A passion for attention that the new media can encourage may drive the imprudent or immodest to make ever more extreme statements and charges. Jesus was willing to withdraw from attention when it became inappropriate. Too often those of us in the new media (Lord have mercy on me!) are not.
Moreland accepts the sufficiency of Scripture (the Bible tells us what we must know and all we must know) of the Reformation. He does not think it tells us all we can know. What precisely is wrong with this point of view?
The bloggers on Scriptorium attend four different churches. We do not agree with each on everything (even important things). We know however to leave both personal disagreements and theological disagreements aside to unite in the places where we can unite. Hopefully this ecumenical, conservative, and evangelical model can be a good example for others. Where we fail in charity, we pray forgiveness. Where we fail to be bold out of cowardice, then we pray for courage to take hard stands. May our courage be always charitable and our love always strong.
——
A personal note:
I hesitated to defend Moreland since I am a theological guest at Biola University, unlike Moreland. As an evangelical member of the Orthodox Church, my views on some issues are not mainstream at my own University though I fully agree with the doctrinal statement. However, one advantage of my “guest status” is that it has forced me to become very clear about what the mainstream is.
Moreland is in it.
Because Moreland graciously has never been public with his pointed theological differences with me (though he often has made plain he is a traditional Protestant), he is sometimes lumped in with my own ideas. That is unfair.
To the degree I am a traditional evangelical, he agrees with me. Where I have adopted positions eccentric to traditional evangelical ideas, we part company. He has always done this graciously, but frankly.