No abstract

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) in the United States (US) went through a shift because of the introduction of open theism into theological context of conservative evangelicalism. The response by the society to this new theology was swift and decisive. Not only were the memberships of certain evangelicals (i.e. Clark H. Pinnock and John Sanders), who were responsible for bringing open theism into the ETS, in danger of being revoked, but the ETS formally denounced open theism and changed its constitutional by-laws to safeguard itself against anyone bringing significant theological innovation into the society. It is important to re-examine the cultural ethos of the ETS in the US in terms of the underlying beliefs of the society in order to determine whether or not the changes the ETS made had basis in scripture or were simply motivated by the culture at large. To determine this, this article will begin by generally describing some of the main cultural beliefs of the ETS. Next, the discussion focuses on some of the major historical influences of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which impacted the ETS to conform to an ethos more in line with the Enlightenment. Third, the article will critique these Enlightenment-based cultural beliefs linguistically, culturally and theologically. This article will demonstrate that because the ETS conformed more to the standards of the Enlightenment than to scripture, it is generally much more preoccupied with knowing the truth of scripture rather than walking in the way of Jesus Christ. Finally, this article suggests the way forward for the ETS is to become a more inclusive society by aligning itself with a more historical definition of evangelicalism rather than simply being defined by the evangelicalism of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This article suggests that by making this move, the ETS will reclaim a much more grace-filled attitude towards its current members and give hope to those committed Christ-followers on the outside of the society, showing them they are welcome to be a part of such a prestigious theological group.

A major pursuit of biblical studies, especially since the dawn of the Enlightenment, has been to discover the one, intended, objective meaning of the various biblical texts. Over the last several hundred years, a plethora of methodological paradigms, biblical language and reference tools, historical studies, sociological analyses, comparative linguistic investigations, and anthropological and cultural examinations have all been published through many outlets by a host of people for the purpose of finding THE meaning the biblical authors wished to convey to their respective audiences. Although the results of all these works have positively contributed to our knowledge of scripture in profound ways, the problem is this: none can claim that they have actually discovered this one objective meaning. This is not to say, however, that there are not better understandings of scripture which point more adequately to the originally intended meaning, but simply that the best anyone can do is interpret scripture. The consequence of interpretation, though, is the relativity of meaning. In other words, there are several interpretations of scripture which can validly point to the intended meaning of the biblical authors and texts. One purpose of this article, then, will be to explore why it is not possible to find the one intended meaning of scripture, by defining some key concepts (e.g. tradition and presupposition) in the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer, who is one of the most influential names in the history of philosophical hermeneutics of the twentieth century, as interpreted by Merold Westphal.Some scriptural interpreters, especially evangelicals, are frightened by the idea that biblical meaning is relative because such a pluralistic approach can lead quickly to the demise of biblical infallibility and authority. A second major purpose of this article will be to help ease such fear by offering a biblically grounded theological justification for the interpretative plurality of scripture by looking at the relativity of meaning through the lens of the doctrine of the Trinity. This justification will suggest that the more we rely upon the Holy Spirit and act out our faith in God through Jesus Christ in and outside of the church, the better our interpretation of scripture will become.

shortly before the sectarian battles of 1860. Through a careful reading of this account, Makdisi seeks to demonstrate that As ad's experience informed the "inclusivist message of salvation" (p. 205) that al-Bustani adopted and propagated, notably, in the modern school he developed. Artillery of Heaven is a bold and brilliant intervention in a literature that has, as Makdisi properly argues, remained largely stagnant for decades. The effortlessness with which the book links the local and the transnational, illustrating the bonds between a Maronite convert to evangelicalism, students at Andover, the Cherokees, and the residents of the Sandwich Islands, is both breathtaking and sophisticated. One can only envy the versatility with which the author weaves together these various layers of analysis. There is only one reservation about the book that seems to linger on reflection. Makdisi attacks both missionary and Maronite historians for their use-or, indeed, misuse-of As ad's story to advance particularistic aims. The careful scrutiny allotted to these sectarian histories is, I think, justified given the ways in which Makdisi's transnational analysis undermines their triumphalism. Yet, as one reaches the end of the book, where Makdisi enters upon his discussion of al-Bustani, the level of scrutiny and criticism seems to wane. Indeed, al-Bustani is labeled as nothing less than an "apostle for an ecumenical humanism" (p. 211). Makdisi makes an extremely important point-that al-Bustani represented a departure from the sectarian spirit of missionary and Maronite discourses. However, what sort of departure, exactly? This is a question Artillery of Heaven never entirely confronts despite the laudatory tone adopted vis-à-vis al-Bustani and, indeed, vis-à-vis As ad Shidyaq.