The trip does come with two drawbacks:

1. I’m only there as an observer. So I don’t get to participate in the discussions themselves.
2. This is considered a private meeting, so I’m not allowed to blog, tweet, or otherwise publicize what’s going on in the meetings. (It’s kind of like not tweeting what’s happening in an elders meeting.)

Those are both unfortunate, especially since I like to update you all about the best parts of the conferences I attend. I may still be able to offer some overall observations from the experience, but we’ll have to see.

Nonetheless, it should be a great opportunity to see how the Gospel Coalition functions, what things they’re interested in, and how they process important issues. And, of course, I also get to hang out with some great people (which is the main reason people go to conferences anyway).

And, by the way, if you happen to live in Louisville, send me an email and let me know. I don’t know the schedule for the week, but maybe I can swing some time for coffee while I’m there.

Annette Peploe

Congratulations Annette! Send me an email with your contact information and I’ll get that shipped over to you.

HT Tim Challies

Good Read

• Homosexuality and the Quest to Be the New Normal: This is such an epidemic in evangelicalism; we aim to justify the church and sanctify the world. The world is not going to keep the Ten Commandments, walk in the Spirit, or glorify Christ…they can’t! They are unbelievers and they will act like it. This should not surprise us.

• Robust Christianity in a Post-Christendom World: The great project of our generation is to reclaim biblical Christianity as the Church.  (Please re-read the last sentence about three times before going on).  This will inevitably involve standing up and articulating with far more precision exactly what Christianity actually is.

• Is It Biblical To Ask Jesus into Your Heart?: A younger generation of pastors look out at the state of evangelicalism and are rightly concerned that many people with cultural Christianity in their background cling to assurance they are saved despite an overwhelming lack of evidence of genuine conversion. It’s no surprise that some pastors are blaming the methods and terms that became prevalent in the previous generation.

• A Divine Way to Resist Temptation (WSJ): Thinking of God helps people to assert self-control—even if they’re atheists.

Other Info

• Are East Germans the World’s Most Godless People?

• Here’s the text of Mitt Romney’s commencement address at Liberty University

• Here are some good ebooks on sale at Amazon.

 Just for Fun     

• A high school student I know put together the following PSA with some friends on why we need to get more exercise. I think it makes a good point.

What exactly is the relationship between theology and philosophy?

I don’t know if philosophers wrestle with the question too much, but theologians certainly do. And we have a really hard time coming up with a good answer. One of the reasons that we struggle with with this so much is that we’re actually not sure how theology and philosophy are different. Until you know what makes two things distinct, it’s almost impossible to figure out how they’re related.

So let’s lead with this question: What makes theology and philosophy different? In the next post, we can tackle the question of how they are related.

Imagine that you have two tables: the “theology” table and the “philosophy” table. Sitting around the theology table, you have a bunch of people wrestling with questions about who we are, why we’re here, what we’re supposed to be doing, and what this goofy universe is all about. But over at the philosophy table, you have a different group of people wrestling with exactly the same questions. What makes the two tables, the two groups of people, and the two conversations different?

Theology Is/Isn’t Like Philosophy Because…

1. Nerds vs. Geeks

Maybe the two are different just because they involve different groups of people. They’re like two cliques at lunch. They may do many of the same things, but they sit at different tables simply because they are distinct groups.

This was probably the most common way of drawing the distinction in the early church. Early thinkers did not distinguish between theology and philosophy as disciplines. For them, the real distinction was between Christians and non-Christians. A pagan philosopher may be asking the same questions as a Christian theologian, and she may even be trying to reach answers in much the same way, but she is still different from the theologian simply because she isn’t Christian. If it’s not Christian, it’s not really theology. simple as that.

That probably explains much of Tertullian’s famous “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” question. He wasn’t denying that Christians often think philosophically (as we use the term). But he was saying that those two cities represent two radically different groups of people. And that’s what distinguishes theology from philosophy.

There is something about this approach that I like. In many ways, philosophers and theologians are like two distinct cliques sitting at separate tables. But that alone isn’t enough. We’re trying to figure out why they are different groups. Or, more precisely, why we think that they are different. And unfortunately, we can’t draw the line as simply as they used to. Today we have Christian philosophers and non-Christian theologians. So there must be something else going on.

2. Christiany Things vs. Not Christiany Things

I realize that “Christiany” isn’t the most precise term. But what I’m getting at here is that maybe the two conversations are different because of what the people are talking about. Their subject matter is different. Theologians talk about things of relevance to Christians; philosophers talk about other stuff (whatever that might be).

I could be wrong, but I think this is one of the main ways that the two disciplines are distinguished at the popular level. People aren’t really sure how the two are different, but surely they at least talk about different things.

The problem is that this doesn’t appear to be the case. Both theology and philosophy spend much of their time wrestling with precisely the same issues: nature of humanity, nature of God, what’s wrong with the world, how it should get fixed, etc. Granted, it sure sounds like they’re talking about different things at times. For example, when philosophers discuss concepts like “supervenience” and “the principle of identity,” it doesn’t sound like they’re talking about anything of interest to theologians. But once you realize that those concepts are directly relevant to issues like relationship of the soul to the body and the continuity of a person through death and resurrection, then you begin to see that theologians and philosophers are wrestling with many of the same things.

Different language, same issues.

3. Faith vs. Reason

Another way of drawing the line is to say that the conversations taking place at the two tables begin at very different places. At the philosophy table, the conversation begins with what we can work out by the power of our intellect. I don’t start with the Bible or any other faith proposition; I begin with what I know or can work out on the basis of what I know. At the theology table, on the other hand, I begin with faith: the incarnation, the Trinity, the authority of the Bible, etc. My reason can kick in after that, but the conversation starts with what I believe, not what I can demonstrate rationally.

But philosophers actually begin with faith just as much as theologians do. After all, they didn’t derive everything that they know through the power of their own reason. They take much (most?) of it on faith as knowledge received from others (family, philosophical community, etc.). They may come to question some of that eventually, but that doesn’t change the fact that their starting point includes quite a few faith elements. And theologians use a lot of reason, even at the beginning. To the extent that they understand anything about what they believe, their faith is “rational.”

So it would seem that both philosophers and theologians begin with faith and move forward with reason. That is Anselm’s famous “faith seeking understanding.” But, since they both operate this way, it’s difficult to see how this can serve as a way of distinguishing them.

4. Book vs. Brain

So maybe we need to draw the line somewhat differently. Maybe it’s that theologians refer to the Bible as their source of authority in the conversation, whereas authority for the philosopher is grounded primarily in their own reason. If I want to “win” an argument as a theologian, I simply demonstrate that the Bible is on my side. But, as a philosopher, I have to demonstrate that my argument fits better with the standards of rationality. So the distinction isn’t so much about the starting point (#2 above) as it is about authority.

Anyone who has participated in theological discussion, though, knows that this is too simple. If theological discussions could be resolved simply by pointing to some verse in the Bible, we would have far fewer theological discussions. The real work in theology involves issues that defy such easy resolution. Theologians will still see the Bible as their ultimate authority (hopefully!), but their arguments will actually appeal to the standards of rationality in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from philosophy.

And I’m not convinced that philosophy should get off the hook so easily either. Listening to philosophers argue, it seems clear to me that they have their own authoritative texts. Otherwise, why refer to Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas as much as they do? Granted, those texts may function as authorities in a different way than the Bible does for theologians, but it still means that philosophers have some kind of authoritative texts.

5. Me vs. Them

This is possibly the least satisfying of all the options. People often view philosophy as something done primarily by the individual person. As a philosopher, I don’t have to worry too much about what other people think. I just need to satisfy the demands of my own inquiring mind. If others don’t agree with me, tough.

Theology, on the other hand, is usually viewed as something done within a particular community. (Granted, modern theology has tweaked this a bit. But I think the basic idea still holds.) So theologians have to work within, and answer to, their religious communities.

The problem with this one, of course, is that both theologians and philosophers operate in community. If philosophers were truly concerned only with satisfying the demands of their own minds, they wouldn’t bother writing, teaching, and arguing as much as they do. Every philosopher operates within some community (historical and present). And philosophical conversations are guided by the needs and standards of that community.

No philosopher is an island.

5. My Peeps vs. Your Peeps

One of the things that makes differentiating philosophy and theology difficult is that we focus exclusively on what is happening at the two tables, forgetting the rest of the cafeteria. Keep in mind that no teenager sits at a table in a cafeteria without being aware of the broader “audience.” They know full well that people are watching. So their “performance” at the table has as much to do with this broader group as it does with the others at the table.

If this is true, we need to define philosophy and theology at least partly in terms of the two audiences for whom they are performing. And any performance is shaped by its audience. How I speak, what issues I address, the way I shape my arguments, and other issues will all be determined by my audience. And I think this is clearly at work in theology and philosophy. Each uses the kind of discourse, language, and argumentation most meaningful to their audience. And that’s why they can sound so different even when they’re addressing exactly the same issues.

So are they different or not?

As you can see from all of this, distinguishing philosophy from theology is not that easy. Rather than two distinct groups sitting at separate tables having very different conversations, they are more like people at a party who freely mingle with each other and move in and out of various, similar conversations. But each of those conversations will still probably be a little different depending on what things are taken on faith at the outset, which authorities are in view, and who is listening. Although this is not as clear cut as we might like, I think this picture gives us enough to recognize some of the important differences, even while realizing that philosophy and theology overlap significantly.

What do you think? Have I missed anything? Are there other factors that help distinguish philosophy from theology? Or would you argue (as some do) that there really is no difference between them at all?

First, a confession. I like languages. I always have. There’s something fun about unraveling a new language, pulling the pieces apart, learning how it works, and then trying to put it back together again. It’s like a puzzle just waiting to be solved. It’s not easy, and like most puzzles it can be pretty frustrating. But I still enjoy it.

Not everyone agrees.

For many, learning a new language is an exhausting, frustrating, and spirit-killing endeavor, one that has been scientifically proven to cause premature hair loss, marital discord, excess book throwing, and, in small rodents, cancer. So it should come as no surprise that many wonder if it’s really worth it. Should I really invest that much time and that many brain cells in learning these languages? Isn’t that why we have translations in the first place?

Read the rest here.

Good Read

• Seven Things in the Church That Will Not Change: I can tell you seven things in the church that will not change. In the fast pace of change in local congregations, these seven constants are good reminders of what really matters.

• A Critical Mind vs. a Critical Spirit:I wonder at what point our appreciation for insightful analysis turns into a celebration of critique that leads to an unhealthy elevation of the critic.

• Should Cultural Expectations Shape Christian Views of Masculinity?: The point is that we have to live out our gender roles in the culture that we find ourselves in. The apostle Paul probably never wore trousers. But that doesn’t mean that he was less masculine for wearing something that would probably have looked more like a dress to us. His own culture informed the way he obeyed God, even though the creation norm remained an ever-fixed mark. He had an eye to his culture’s impressions about masculinity and femininity. I don’t think we can do any different.

• Seven Key Ideas from C.S. Lewis: I have heard it said that many well-known thinkers have only two or three key ideas that they develop from various angles throughout their lives. It might be asked: What are C.S. Lewis’s key ideas? I have chosen seven to summarize in this essay.

Other Info

• Unions That Divide: Churches Split Over Gay Marriage (NYT)

• Give Millennials a Break: 5 reasons to be hopeful despite recent studies suggesting that millennials are pretty self-centered.

• The Eight Times the Vice President Did Something That Mattered

• Romney Tells Evangelicals Their Values Are His, Too (NYT)

 Just for Fun     

• I can’t decide if this is funny or just terribly, terribly disturbing. But either way it’s worth passing along.

Lord our God, we praise you and thank you that you, in your dear Son, in mercy beyond understanding, would humble yourself so much for our sakes, in order that in him we may be so highly exalted for your sake. We praise you and thank you for his mighty decision regarding your people Israel and the pagan nations from which you called our ancestors. We praise you and thank you for all of your gracious election and calling, that you are also the God of the rejected and the uncalled, and that you never cease to deal with each one of us in a fatherly and righteous manner. Let us never tire of recognizing you and praying to you in all of these mysteries, that we may in faith lay hold of your Word, through which you magnify your honor and give us, with eternal blessing, peace and joy, even in this life. We pray for your church here and in all nations, for the sleeping church, that it may awaken; for the persecuted church, that it may continually rejoice and be assured of what it has in you; and for the confessing church, that it may live not for its own sake, but for your glory.

We pray for the rulers and the authorities all over the world: for the good ones, that you may preserve them; and for the bad ones, that you may either turn their hearts or put an end to their power, all according to your will; and for everyone, that you may advise them that they are and must remain your servants.

We pray that all tyranny and disorder may be fended off, and that all oppressed nations and people may be granted justice.

We pray for the poor, the sick, the prisoners, the helpless, and the troubled, for all who suffer – perhaps from something only you know – that you yourself may comfort them with the hope of your kingdom. Amen’.