Once upon a time, I nailed 35 theses to the Patheos wall. That was almost exactly six years ago, so perhaps a lot has changed. The other day, on nearly the anniversary of the Reformation, while perusing the Patheos site I noticed front and center was a set of 95 theses from a Baptist blogger named Layne Wallace. I clicked on it, read the list, and immediately had a few questions and comments for this gentleman. And before I begin, I mean no disrespect by my line of questioning. I am sincerely curious, and at times, quite perplexed. But I also agree from time to time, and will admit as much. Lastly, I won’t be commenting on all 95, but instead, just the ones that stood out to me.
(Wallace’s theses in bold.)
I. The Bible is the final authority of faith and practice. All religious ideas and traditions are subject to correction by the Scriptures.
Is it really the final authority of faith and practice? Where does the Bible say this? Instead, doesn’t the Bible say that the Logos (Christ) is the Word of God? And further, which Scriptures are we even talking about? Which canon? Why choose the Protestant one over all the others? Can we not find any valid religious ideas outside the critique of the Protestant canon of Scripture? How is this concluded?
II. With the Bible as the final authority, pastors and theologians should be conversant in the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Augustine, Boethius, Clement, Calvin, Luther, and many others. Yes, the Bible does have final authority, but listening to ancient sources enriches our reading of the Bible. Knowing these sources does not mean building the faith on a foundation other than Scripture.
Can we add some women to this list? I mean, I like some of Anselm and much of Gregory of Nyssa (Augustine and Calvin not so much), but this list is a bit male-heavy, isn’t it?
III. Placing Paul against Jesus is a significant mistake and should be completely rejected. It is a misuse of the “Jesus Criterion” of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message. When someone says, “Jesus said nothing about _____…” Rest assured they are trying to baptize a behavior the Bible has defined as sin.
I am of the belief that Paul gets a bad rap within many Christian circles (perhaps because they don’t know what prosopopoeia is and where he uses it). That said, when folks utter phrases like, “Jesus said nothing about _____”, often they are trying to protect an already oppressed group of people Christians all too often sling mud at (i.e., the LGBTQ+ community and women first come to mind). It’s not that they are trying to “baptize a behavior” already defined as sin. Frankly, this thesis is just more mud slinging without actually trying to understand one’s theological opponent.
IV. “Unhitching” the Old Testament from the New Testament is to fail to understand either. It borders on the Marcionite heresy rejected by the Early Church. The Old Testament is a treasure once read correctly. Understanding the Old Testament enlightens the New Testament.
I actually sort of agree with this, though perhaps not for the same reasons as Mr. Wallace. I’m of the belief that both Jesus and Paul fit within their Jewish tradition of being super-creative with their approach to their faith. I’ve commented on their distinct hermeneutics many times, including in my book Heretic! So, like them, I see the New Testament as a continuation of the Old Testament, which itself is both a “text in travail” (to quote Rene Girard), and the offspring of a people continually trying to grasp at the question, “How does God relate to us now?”
V. Unhitching is not even possible. The New Testament quotes, alludes to, or echoes the Old Testament on virtually every page.
Agreed. Fully. The question for us, then, is “how is it quoted?” For both Jesus and Paul, it is often quoted “out of context,” and quite creatively. As the old joke goes, Paul would have failed seminary. I’m guessing Jesus would have, too. The reason, I believe, is that both Jesus and Paul remove much of the violent imagery of God. I point to a litany of examples in the aforementioned Heretic!
X. What is natural is not necessarily good. Hemlock is natural. Rats eat their young. Male lions murder cubs when they take over a pride. Saying something occurs in nature and it is good for that reason is the Naturalistic Fallacy.
Okay, great. Then calling something “unnatural” and deeming it sinful also falls for a similar fallacy. Which means, perhaps Christians can stop calling LGBTQ+ “unnatural?” Further, who cares if something is “natural” or “unnatural?” What does that even mean? I’m typing words onto a computer screen which nearly instantly beams the data onto a server owned by Patheos/BN Media, and then when I decide, it is uploaded onto a “cloud” so anyone in the world with a device and the internet can read it. Talk about unnatural!
XII. As Calvin notes, the human mind is an idol factory.
Talk about irony, given what Calvin’s theology has led to.
XIII. Humans tend to make God in our own image, after our own likeness.
No wonder the God of Christianity often looks so violent.
XIV. Among many modern thinkers, the concept of God’s wrath is strangely missing. God’s wrath is the negative side of God’s love (Karl Barth).
This would make for a great conversation. Here, I’ll simply say that from my experience, God’s wrath is overemphasized, if anything.
XXIII. God is not just good. God is The Good, goodness itself.
I actually love this. No notes.
XXXIV. Seminary education takes too long and costs too much.
Agreed. No notes.
XXXIX. Honorary doctorates should never be used as a qualification on a resume. One should not refer to himself as a doctor if he has only been awarded an honorary doctorate. John MacArthur is an example of one who has done this in the past.
Preach!
XLII. The abuse scandal in the Southern Baptist Convention is horrendous. Also horrendous is that those in power could have done more.
Now you’re on a roll!
LIX. Biblical justice is often at variance with modern theories of justice. Reading modern theories of justice back into the Biblical text is not only anachronistic, it is an abuse of the Scripture.
Well, we were on a roll! On the surface, perhaps this is true. But I feel as if this thesis, along with the rest in this section, are just feeble attempts to discredit anyone attempting to bring about social justice in the modern world, especially Black folks in America. Mr. Wallace will go on to attack or critique communism, socialism/socialist theology, liberation theology, and oppressor/oppressed dichotomies, but only critiques capitalism by denouncing the “liberal, democratic” version. But then, he also goes after Christian nationalism, which I applaud him for. So, I’m kind of confused by where he’s at. To my mind, any Gospel not attempting to bring about the social-justice-y things listed in Luke 4/Isaiah 61 is already dead on arrival.
LXXII. One cannot hold the Bible as the final authority of faith and practice and reject the Bible’s teachings on human sexuality.
Okay, so let me get this straight: All the social justice stuff Mr. Wallace denounces is because modern progressives are being anachronistic, and he doesn’t like that, but all of a sudden it’s not anachronistic to suggest the Bible has anything to say about the entirely modern concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality? Well, according to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, it is. And I would generally have much more to say about this, but as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I’m tired of having to defend myself against people who cherry pick the Bible in such obviously hurtful ways.
LXXVI. While it is difficult to imagine eternal separation from God, the Bible teaches it.
Eternal separation from God is a metaphysical absurdity if God is omnipotent. Unless, of course, you take the Orthodox route and describe the separation as relational separation. But it doesn’t sound like that is what Mr. Wallace is talking about. Regardless, I believe I’ve done a decent job debunking this notion here and here.
LXXIX. Human will is not entirely free. It is limited by genetics, moods, upbringing, and other factors. It is, however, important to hold to some form of freedom of the will because if not, God is the cause of evil.
I wish more Christians understood this. Libertarian free will, the type of will described by Kant, is a bit of a misnomer if you are actually paying attention to human behavior. Having and making choices is not synonymous with a free will. A free will raises the questions: free from what and free to do what?
More comments could have been made, but I feel this is a good conversation starter. Maybe Mr. Wallace would like to respond to some of my criticisms. I’m not sure. But if he does, then I hope we can have a good dialogue.
Also, if you’ve been digging my work on here, and want to see me be able to continue writing as close to full-time as humanly possible, please take a look at my Patreon page at www.patreon.com/mjdistefano. Even $1 a month helps bigly!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In