What shall we make of God's oneness?

Todd,

Whenever I read John 17, I always wonder what a Bible-loving pastor like you thinks about verses 20-22:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

In the never-ending debates over the nature of God, arguments about what is meant by the "oneness" of God abound. The LDS theology is often criticized by trinitarians for not taking the oneness of God seriously enough (or perhaps not literally enough). In one sense, this is a fair characterization since traditional formulations of the doctrine of the trinity make some claims about the oneness of God which are rejected by traditional mormon theology.

However, when I read John 17 and consider the doctrine of deification, I find a sense in which mormon theology takes the oneness of God more seriously than traditional christian theology. In the intercessory prayer quoted above, we find the most important statements about the oneness of God in the scriptures. But, the emphasis in these verses is on a doctrine rejected by traditional Christians--the doctrine that we can eventually be at one with God in the very same way that Jesus is one with God.

This idea (that we can be one with God in the exact same way that Jesus is one with God) has far reaching implications. Firstly, it tells us that if we are not capable of being one with God in some sense, then this is not a sense in which Jesus is one with God. Secondly, it tells us that the doctrine of God's oneness is meant to be shared, indeed, that sharing this oneness is at the heart of Jesus' plan for us. These ideas fit nicely in a mormon theology, but seems to have very little to do with the concept of oneness insisted upon by the trinitarians.

One of the main reasons mormons are not considered "Christians" by evangelicals is that we do not accept a traditional formulation of the trinity. This idea of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being one is obviously very important to them. But what are we to make of John 17? Do you agree that this is the primary text from which we should interpret the meaning of God's oneness? What do you make of its emphasis on our potential to be brought into the very same oneness currently shared by the Father and the Son?

Do your two eyes expose your disbelief in the Bible?

I have been meaning to post on Biblical literalness for some time, but I was finally inspired to do so when I read Todd's recent post fuming about the LDS supposed irreverence for the Bible. After ranting about the LDS "sly agenda" (I am still not sure what the sly agenda is after reading carefully) toward the scriptures, he quotes the following paragraph from this recent press release on lds.org about the LDS view of the Bible:

There is a broad range of approaches within the vast mosaic of biblical interpretation. For example, biblical inerrancy maintains that the Bible is without error and contradiction; biblical infallibility holds that the Bible is free from errors regarding faith and practice but not necessarily science or history; biblical literalism requires a literal interpretation of events and teachings in the Bible and generally discounts allegory and metaphor; and the “Bible as literature” educational approach extols the literary qualities of the Bible but disregards its miraculous elements.

Todd follows this with some preaching, but I am honestly not sure which parts he is taking issue with. At any rate, this paragraph seems pretty benign to me and serves as a good launching pad for my questions about literalness and inerrancy. It seems to me from talking to Todd (a committed inerrant), that the literalness of the Bible becomes a fundamental componenet of his view of the Bible as inerrant.

When it comes to a story like Noah and his ark, I would argue that a person may legitimately claim to believe in the Bible even if the absolute literalness of the story is in question. Did all animals have to fit on an ark 6 thousand years ago in order for the Bible to be God's word? I say no, since I believe in the Bible and yet maintain that the Noah story is absurd if taken in absolute literalness. However, it seems that the whole point of claiming inerrancy is to say that the story is literally true in every aspect. If inerrants allow for other interpretations, they lose the concreteness that is at the heart of their view of the Bible.

So, it seems to me that inerrancy requires strict literalness. But this is where my questions start to pile up. What are we to make of a scripture like this one from our Lord Jesus Christ:

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (Matt 5:29)

If you really take the Bible so literally, why haven't you plucked even a single eye out of its socket? Am I to believe you've never been offended by thine right eye? Or do you simply lack the faith to follow the teachings of Jesus?

How did Judas die?

Todd, I know you are fully committed to Biblical inerrancy. As a person who was raised in a tradition that does not accept Biblical inerrancy, I am a bit stupid about it. I wanted to kick this topic off with the easiest and most simple issue. How do you deal with the miriad of obvious conflicts in the narratives of the Bible? There are a whole slew of them, which I am sure you are very familiar with, but for an example, I picked this one at random (well, not quite random, I wanted one without any important theological implications):

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and
went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his
bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

So, how did Judas die? In one account he hanged himself, and in another he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. How do you explain/approach these kinds of disagreements between different accounts in the Bible?

Todd, which is it, NOMA or POMA?

A month ago, Todd put up a post addressing the interplay between science and scripture. He included a quote from McGrath discussing Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of the NOMA (nonoverlapping magisteria). Basically, Gould says the magesteria (i.e. the domain of teaching authority) of science and religion do not overlap. Religion has no say about the things investigated by science, and science has no say about ultimate meaning. To quote Gould:

The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.

Gould goes on to talk at length about how the NOMA principle permits Catholics to believe in evolution so long as they accept the divine infusion of the soul. In other words, the NOMA principle (according to Gould) tells religion that scientific theories are none of its business and to keep its big mouth shut about them.

McGrath, to his credit, rejects this NOMA nonsense and suggests the POMA (partially overlapping magisterial) principle, “reflecting a realization that science and religion offer possibilities of cross-fertilization on account of the interpretation of their subjects and methods.”

Todd makes two comments in his post which raise big questions for me. First, he wonders if “McGrath, Beckwith, and Ostler all believe in POMA, whereas some conservative evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists believe in nonoverlapping magisteria of Scripture.” Really? Christian fundamentalists believe in NOMA?!? I asked a question about this in the comments at Todd’s blog, but it went unanswered. Reading more closely, I decided my confusion here may be cleared up by a final statement by Todd in which he says that:

I believe that God uses Scripture as the final magisteria for evangelicals.

This leads me to wonder if what Todd really means is that science and religion do overlap (POMA) but the Bible has the final say on everything. This would be the opposite of the Dawkins position, which is that science and religion overlap, but that science has the final say on everything. If I’m correct, then what Todd means by NOMA is not what Gould means by NOMA. Of course, rather than debating overlapping vs. non-overlapping, perhaps the critical question is about what the magisterium of science really is. If you argue that science never has teaching authority, that is another way to get to a non-overlapping model, but a very different non-overlapping model than the one suggested by Gould.

So, Todd, I have lots of follow up questions about your views on the interplay between science and religion, but let’s start by answering this simple bedrock question about NOMA and POMA. Have I understood you correctly? When you say evangelicals believe in NOMA, do you mean that they believe the Bible trumps science in all matters in which they may overlap? When we talk about an issue like, say, the age of the Earth, is science subordinate to the Bible which says the Earth is only a few thousand years old?

Todd, are Mormons Christian?

Let's kick things off with some cardio. I'd like to know where you come down on this one Todd. Are Mormons Christians in your opinion? Please give your reasons one way or the other.

Over at HI4LDS, a commenter posting under the alias AAT referred to Mormons as non-Christians and I took issue with it. Todd stayed out of fray, so I don't know what his opinion is, but I assume he holds the standard evangelical view that Mormons are not Christians. As I said on that thread, I think this view is problematic. There are a whole bunch of possible explanations an evangelical might give for why Mormons don't qualify as Christians, but knowning Todd, and knowing that his allegience is to the Bible, I am guessing that his reasons will revolve around the Bible. To rework (slightly) my comment from that post, I think that this hypothetical position requires one of the following:

1. Mormons are not really sincere believers in the Bible, which we can tell by the fact that they don't interpret the Bible like evangelicals do. In other words, the Bible is so clear in its doctrine about God that disagreement with evangelicals is evidence of insincerity on the part of the person disagreeing.
2. Mormons are simply too stupid to be Christians. In other words, the Bible is so clear in its doctrine about God that disagreement with evangelicals is due to the the person disagreeing being too stupid to read the words and comprehend their clear and unambiguous meaning.
3. The Bible must be interpreted according to non-Biblical creeds and that the title “Christian” is fundamentally defined by those non-Biblical creeds. Interpretations that do not follow those creeds are non-Christian by definition.

I'm not sure what other options there are if our non-Christian status is to be justified based on our differing understandings of the Bible. Help me out here Todd.

♥ issues for Todd

Todd Wood sprang onto the blogging sceen a little over a year ago with his blog Heart Issues for LDS and the bloggernacle started getting input from a Baptist pastor. Over at New Cool Thang I blog about Mormon philosophy and theology (mostly) and over the last year I've had a number of exchanges with Todd. Lately, I have been realizing I have a lot of questions for Todd, but I don't really want to clutter up NCT with them, so I thought I would devot a new blog to interacting with my e-friend Pastor Todd.

I am not especially qualified to interact with Evangelical theology, but I do have genuine questions and I feel confident that Todd can set me straight given his M.A. in Theology and his Master of Divinity degree.