Dear Normal Geisler & Albert Mohler,
I’m sure that the two of you are busy defending the Christian faith from the onslaught of opponents to the Lord Jesus Christ. I’m thankful that the two of you are passionate for many good things and I hope this open letter doesn’t come across harmful, arrogant, or mean-spirited.
Yet with all of my strength I want to push back against your recent shenanigans against Michael Licona. I believe Michael Patton already pointed out how much of a circus this “controversy” has become. There is nothing I can say that hasn’t been said better by Patton. Yet I continue to read and hear people following up on your “pleas” and “warnings” to avoid Licona as well as continued calls for him to repent and abandon his view. Are we in medieval Europe? Are you two the Pope’s of evangelicalism?
So in the spirit of your previous “warnings” and “pleas,” I would ask that you abandon your previous warnings and pleas. Defending the authority of Scripture is one thing. Defending your interpretation as the only authoritative interpretation is an entirely different issue.
Thanks for reading. I know you probably have been waiting for this post for quite some time. I just can’t stand to hear and read any more silliness again Michael Licona, one of the brightest evangelical NT scholars, apologists, and theologians that we have. He’s one of the good guys, fellas. Really, he is.
Sincerly,
Luke Geraty
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wt9Pn1fBgE]
While you are at it, go and pick up Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. It’s easily in my list of top two books on the Resurrection (N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God is the other).
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
I had not even heard of this, or of Michael Licona. It sounds like Mr/Dr? Licona’s view is theologically novel, even silly. I don’t know (yet) if it’s against inerrancy. I’m sure he’s a smart guy, so he must have some basis for this rather unique interpretation. What has been the witness of Church history on this?
Michael F. Bird also takes this “novel” and “silly” view, so I’m not sure it’s as novel and silly as you might think. In fact, this view has been taken by a few different scholars… 🙂
That being said, I don’t believe it is the best interpretation of the text as I don’t see a dual type of genre happening there. However, that’s different than accusing Licona of denying inerrancy, which he isn’t.
AND THAT is my concern. Dan Wallace nails it on the head. This is actually an assault on the authority of Scripture by Geisler and company!
😉
Thanks Like even though I am little familiar with the controversy you have asked a question I wanted to ask for years of some of these guys. When did evangelicalism have a pope, and are we to be burnt at the stake if we dont agree on everything the deem important?
The problem that needs to be dealt with is arrogance and pride but who among them is going to do that since they seem to sit on the throne of the evangelical movement and for the most part WE! have made them the unquestionable authorities of doctrine
Luke,
I’ve never heard of Michael F. Bird either. If Licona’s view has supporters who are otherwise theologically conservative, then while I still think it’s kind of an odd take on the text, I guess I’ll have to concede that it’s an option.
Sean,
On the one hand I agree that no one scholar/celebrity pastor “sits on the throne of the evangelical movement”, on the other hand SOMEONE has to interpret the Scriptures. I am the last person to bow to the Roman Magisterium, but the chaos that is evangelicalism is partly because that movement (which I am increasingly hesitant to identify with) is so decentralized that everyone’s interpretation is equally valid. Damaging and destructive doctrines often result and evangelicals are laughed at by Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.
It’s funny how the most unforgivable sin in evangelicalism is claiming any amount of certainty of interpretation. I don’t think we should separate from just anyone and everyone we disagree with. I believe in grace, patience, and love. I also believe that one day we will “…all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:13).
Finally, I think this particular case is a case of a “tempest in a teapot”. Michael Licona is not denying inerrancy and it seems to me at this point like Geisler and Mohler are overreacting.