I think after this post I will quit engaging with Leighton Flowers and crew (but maybe not, that all depends). I just came across a video where he and his friend, Brian (a PhD in NT, not theology, clearly), respond to a critique post of mine directed at Flowers’ approach to interpreting Holy Scripture. Here is the blurb I quickly wrote up as I shared this video to my FB and Twitter feeds:
Leighton Flowers responds to a critique post of mine starting at 7:44 and running through 21:00. He and his friend just talk around what I was getting at. Ironically, they end up illustrating my critique of their approach by reverting to their sort of rationalist traditioned reading of Scripture. It is really strange to engage with folks who are not self-perceptive enough to see their own foibles, esp. when those are being pointed out to them. But then they deflect those back onto their critics (me) Lol. Flowers’ friend, a PhD in NT (not theology, clearly) calls my approach postmodern (very strange). But this is what you get when you engage with low church evangelicals who have no clue about the Christian Dogmatic tradition, and how that has taken form in the Church catholic. They dispense with catholicity in favor of re-inventing the wheel based on their own reconstruction (interpretation) of the Christian faith and Holy Scripture. But, again, this is what you get when you start with a turn-to-the-subject hyper individualism out of touch with the confessional nature of the Christian faith. And this is why I find folks like Flowers and his friend so dangerous to the Christian faith; they are the epitome of what has been dangerous to my own faith in the past. So, when I come across it I seek to alert others to its errors, and hope to provide a way forward that is more in tune with a reality contingent upon a source (Jesus Christ and the triune God) outside of themselves.
You can watch Leighton’s and Brian’s response to me here (it starts at 7:44 and runs approx. through the 21-minute mark). I want to expand a little more on their response to me; more than what I just shared in the aforementioned blurb.
Brian was really hung up on my language of all humanity being ENSLAVED to our interpretative traditions. But as Steve Holmes rightly underscores (Stephen R. Holmes, Listening to the Past: The Place of Tradition in Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 6-8):
This is not something that can simply be swiped away, as Brian and Leighton attempt to do, unless of course the person is appealing to their people. Ironically, as I alluded to earlier, Brian and Leighton fall right into this point, even as they attempt to criticize my underscoring of it, by going back to “their tradition of biblical theology and soteriology.” This is ironic, indeed, because it is the very point of my criticism of them. The fact that they cannot see that, and then by not seeing it, appeal to their own particular traditioned way of reading Scripture should alert people to how imperceptive their educators are; viz. if they are looking to people like Leighton, and his friend Brian et al., as their teachers.
Further, Dr. Brian calls my approach, that is my approach to focusing on a Christ concentrated hermeneutic: Postmodern. He claims that I end up deconstructing all other traditions, and then presume that my own ‘christological’ approach is the only viable way forward. In a sense, this is true; but it isn’t just true for me, but for Leighton and Brian et al. I would imagine all sentient people have arrived at particular convictions and conclusions in regard to the way that they engage with reality in general, and the Christian reality (for Christians) in particular. There is nothing inherently “postmodern” about that. Indeed, and ironically, this is simply an attempt to “boogeyman” me into a straw-box that Leighton and his friend think they can easily dispense of once they have placed me therein. Unlike these fellas, I am not averse to labels, indeed, labeling is just as inherent to being human as traditioning is. In other words, labeling positions (you know like Leighton’s self-described provisionism) is a shorthand, precision way of engaging with a complex or basket of ideas as those are held within a sort of systematic frame of reference. But the point is here: my approach is not inherently postmodern, instead it works from a Christian confessional background that is grounded in the Christian Dogmatic tradition of the Church catholic.
But this is the point, which I also alluded to previously: Flowers and company, are situated in the Fundamentalist/Evangelical individualist tradition that starts, by way of theological or hermeneutical methodology, in an abstract rationality that is idiosyncratic and original to the individual knowers. This was my point of critique, which Leighton attempted to respond to, when he pushed back against my claim that his approach is: anthropocentric or as he calls it ‘from-below.” Both Leighton and Brian need to do more reading on problems associated with what has been called: solo Scriptura or nuda Scriptura. They both are proponents of this approach, and as such, they communicate this to the people looking up to them as faithful guides into the world of Holy Scripture and systematic theology.
Further, Flowers takes issue with me saying that he speaks from a ‘resurrected voice of Pelagius.’ He cannot stand this charge. But anyone familiar with what he teaches on so-called ‘total inability’ (or more commonly understood in the history: total depravity, and its noetic and moral implications) knows that he is in line, let’s say, rather than with Pelagius full-blown, with someone like John Cassian. Again, because of Leighton’s non-Dogmatic orientation, he cannot fathom where this charge comes from. He believes that he can simply assert away that this charge just is not true; while at the same time advocating for a position that correlates almost exactly with Pelagius’ in regard to the neutrality of the moral agency latent within a broken, but not completely “inable” orientation towards God. I’ve already spilled enough e-ink in other posts, in regard to Leighton’s inchoate Pelagianism, that I will not belabor that further here. He simply does not understand the broad contours and moods that makeup the landscape of ecclesial historical ideas vis-à-vis their ideational categorizations (i.e. the dreaded “labeling” again).
Finally (although I think I’ve missed some of their response to me), Leighton, in general, hides behind this idea that if someone is going to critique him, they need to provide concrete examples or he doesn’t know how to engage with the critique. I think the article he and his buddy are responding to, of mine, offers all kinds of concrete examples that he could respond to; but it, again, this would require that he is versed in the realm of Christian Dogmatics (which he discounts out of hand; for reasons already alluded to). I give plenty of examples, in regard to the way he interprets and approaches Scripture; in regard to the way he approaches history of ideas; in regard to the way that his approach to soteriology is not grounded in a dogmatic ordering of things. I don’t feel compelled to offer exact examples (although I have done that in some other posts in reference to Flowers) all the time, because I figure that anyone who reads something like an article on Flowers, is already aware of a whole stable of examples that Flowers hits upon, thematically, seemingly everyday in his vlogcasts.
Oh, one more thing: Brian (and Leighton) almost seemed dumbfounded by the idea that I said we should think our theologies, and exegetical conclusions, from Jesus. Brian, in particular, couldn’t fathom how that would be possible apart from Holy Scripture. But this, again, illustrates the absolute rationalist approach he (and Leighton), are ENSLAVED to. They don’t think of Scripture, as John Webster rightly does, as if it has an ontology. In other words, they cannot even imagine how we might think Scripture from within a Christian Dogmatic ordering of things (a taxis). As such, just like with soteriology, they think Scripture in terms of an abstraction that only has value insofar as they can mine its data, as if archeologists trying to make sense of an artifact, and construct an understanding of it that fits within the realm of what they have determined biblical theology to entail. But you see who is regulative in this sort of interpretive and value-enriching process, right? It isn’t contingent upon Scripture’s res (reality) being regulated by the catholic Jesus (think the ‘Chalcedonian pattern’ that has served regulative for most of Church history when it comes to interpreting Holy Writ cf. Jn 5.39). No, it is contingent, instead, upon some sort of abstract realm of positivism that abstract wits have the capacity to manage and manipulate, with greater or lesser outcomes, based upon the interpreter’s disposition, training, and aptitude to approach Scripture with a minimal amount of presuppositions and pre-understandings. Because Brain (and Leighton) seemingly are critically unaware of the history and development of modern bible reading practices, as those developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, and the naturalist bed those were consummated in, they simply cannot imagine what I mean when I refer to: thinking our theologies and exegetical conclusions from Jesus.
My point doesn’t pivot on a competition between Scripture and Jesus—this is the false dilemma and premise Brian critiques me from—but instead, it is grounded in the idea, as John Calvin, Karl Barth, TF Torrance, John Webster, and other luminaries propound, that Scripture is the signum (sign) that points beyond itself to its res (reality) who is the, Christ. In other words, Brian and Leighton fail, in regard to their doctrine of Scripture, and thus hermeneutics, because they essentalize Scripture to the point that it ends in their interpretation of it, instead of being understood as the instrument whereby Christians come to encounter the living God in the risen Christ. I see Scripture from an instrumentalist vantage point, as most Christians have in history, versus, the Leightonian and Brianian approach, that absolutizes Scripture as an epistemological end in itself; and end that has no idea that there is a theological ontology that stands antecedent to Scripture’s reality as a created medium that serves the instrumental purpose of pointing beyond itself and its many interpreters. Essentially, Brian’s and Leighton’s response to me fails, on this front, because, for at least one reason, they have an inadequate doctrine (and no ontology) of Holy Scripture. This is why Brian (and Leighton) seem so perplexed by my point on ‘from Jesus.’
Again, I would caution folks who are looking to Leighton and company for a healthy theological education. They, in my view, have not done enough homework, particularly in the area of Christian ideas, and the development of Reformed theology in particular, to be of any service to the would-be learner. I know this sounds harsh: but it is my considered opinion after listening to Leighton for about a year and a half now. My reason for saying this about Leighton should be illustrated by the themes I touched upon throughout this post. If someone wants to marginalize the history of Christian ideas, the history of theological grammar, and displace that with their reconstruction of the Christian faith, without engagement with the conciliar faith of historic Christian reality, then you know you are in a hazardous harbor. That’s what I think we get with the ministry of Leighton Flowers. Is he a nice guy? Clearly. Does this necessarily make him a trustworthy guide into the realm of theological and biblical studies? Nein.
Thanks for this post Bobby. Allows me to get a good grasp on whats actually happening out there on the internet and how people are approaching their arguments.
For sure. It’s not a very encouraging world at all. You should read the comment threads under Flowers’ YouTube videos. Oh dear.
Some considering this particular posting may find the following a helpful read:
Comical Doctrine: An Epistemology of New Testament Hermeneutics
by Selby, Rosalind M.
This book argues that the gospel breaks through postmodernity’s critique of truth and the referential possibilities of textuality with its gift of grace. With a rigorous, philosophical challenge to modernist and postmodernist assumptions, Selby offers an alternative epistemology to all who would still read with faith and with academic credibility.
Selby, Rosalind M., Comical Doctrine: An Epistemology of New Testament Hermeneutics, Milton Keynes, Paternoster, 2006, text.monograph
https://biblia.com/books/comcldoct
Shared from Logos Bible Software https://www.logos.com
That’s what Barth does contra Kant et al.
Bobby – you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
Leighton is not the most articulate of men (not unlike some rag-tag fishermen of old) – and he would be the first to admit it. (I can’t tell you how many times I have rolled my eyes at his infamous yet hallmark mispronunciations). You, on the other hand, are gifted with a sharp and incisive mind – and years of deep theological study which spills out through your articulate “digital” pen…
But part of the dangerous “tradition” of Augustine, Luther and Calvin (all men of uncontested brilliance) is to fall into the trap of harsh criticisms that over-play the errors of enemies, casting them in the worst possible light in order to demonstrate the clear correctness of their own positions… but this led (at least in part) Augustine to his own perennial Calvinism, Luther to his antisemitism, and Calvin to become complicit in the burning of Servitus…
Only those who have studied themselves into a theological bubble would fail to see the good that Leighton has done. Sure he misses on some of the finer points and nuances that only someone of your caliber would recognize; but how many have at least been given serious pause to question the “Calvinism” (of whatever sort) that I was mislead into nearly 40 years ago….
“It is really strange to engage with folks who are not self-perceptive enough to see their own foibles…” – Take a look in the mirror, Bobby, while I gaze into my own…
I’ve read many of your posts over the years – and it’s pretty clear to me that Scripture is not your final authority – but the interpretations (and “systematic”) placed on them by Barth, Torrance and Calvin… While the rest of us still “see through a glass darkly…” you at times appear to be one of the privileged few who has at last got it figured out…
For instance, in citing Holmes above – do you not see that at the last he smuggles in the Augustinian conception of “depravity” – which runs counter to the explicit teaching of many of the Fathers and was never articulated (to my knowledge [or sheer ignorance]) as such by most councils or creeds? And, I would contend, this is the case because Scripture ***on the whole*** does not give us such a binary, two dimensional perspective when it comes to anthropology… or, as the great theologian, Rich Mullins once stated, “with our hells and our heavens so few inches apart… We are frail, we are fearfully and wonderfully made”.
Okay – got that off my chest – now you can categorize and dismiss me as a mere rationalistic “troll” – then delete this comment and block me from your blog. But I truly hope what I have said will “bother” you in the best sort of way – and not drive you deeper into theological entrenchment.
You have a lot to offer dummies like me – you just need to tone down your critical spirit – and give us the best (and most accessible) of your insights from your in-depth study of Barth and Torrance (and, yes, I say begrudgingly – even Calvin). They (especially Torrance, in my uneducated opinion) have so much to offer.. But beware the reactive path of Augustine, who in his later years went astray by over-reacting to Pelagius – and gave us in its place the worst ideas of “Calvinism”….
God bless and keep you, Bobby – I really mean that!
Wayne wrote:
You show me how you take Scripture to be your final authority in a way that I don’t. If you can do that I’ll discuss this point further. But of course, this is the whole point of my response to Leighton and his academic PhDd friend, Brian. And I already know, up front, that you can’t show me how you take Scripture to be your final authority in a way that I don’t. This is the whole point orbiting around the “hermeneutical dilemma” that all fallen creatures are faced with; not to mention redeemed ones. We all work, think, and interpret from interpretive traditions (doesn’t sound like you’ve come to terms with this anymore than Brian or Leighton has). But yes, show me how you take Scripture as your final authority in a way that I don’t, and we can talk further on this.
Wayne wrote:
This whole trope is post hoc, so I’m going to dismiss it out of hand. But let me say this, on the first part of your comment (in re. ‘trap of harsh criticisms’). You do realize this whole post was an attempt to respond to a public critique that Leighton and Brian engaged in of my critique of them, right??? And are you really saying that because I’m potentially “smarter”, better read, and more theologically developed than Leighton that I should refrain from engaging with and criticizing the theology he is disseminating for the masses? That is an insult to him, on the one hand, and an insult to me on the other. Leighton is responsible for what he propounds in the public sphere. Where he errs, in my considered opinion, he needs to be called out. But in this particular case, both Leighton and Brian (who is an academic with a PhD) thoroughly misrepresent almost everything I wrote in critique of him. And this is Leighton’s typical mode: to hide behind the good ole’ boy sentimentality, and pretend like he’s just a simpleton who is just giving people the “biblical truth.” Are you seriously supporting that? No, I won’t take you seriously on this.
Wayne wrote:
He doesn’t “smuggle” anything in. He is simply stating what the Tradition has maintained as the most faithful understanding on the noetic and ontological effects of the Fall (that is in the Western trad). The burden still remains on Leighton et al to demonstrate that theological Pelagianism isn’t a real evil that the cross of Jesus Christ (and all the theological ontology that stands behind that) confronts and puts to death in His death on the cross. All Leighton does is assert it away; as I noted. I have another post that directly deals with this vis a vis Leighton, so I won’t go further into this.
Wayne wrote:
I don’t have a “critical spirit.” Instead, I have a discerning spirit who operates as a fallen yet redeemed person (simul justus et peccator). My response to people, and critiques, are filled with humanity, passion, and yet hopefully, with some modicum of constructivity.
Wayne wrote:
This is so filled with historical and theological misunderstanding I don’t even know where to start. And this is the sort of stuff, when I do respond to people like Leighton, that I hope to disabuse people of. Augustine, post-Pelagius, actually developed his positive doctrine of sin which he identified as concupiscence (i.e. not simply the negaitve privatio). If you want to study that further you can read my mentor’s published dissertation on this topic in his book: A Spreading Goodness. This is the sort of silly rhetoric that needs to be destroyed. And yet Leighton et al forward it to the popular masses. And so this illustrates, to a T, why I will continue to challenge Leighton and folks in his ilk (and “level”). I have received multiple emails from people who have followed Leighton, and aren’t sure what to think of him, who have thanked me for giving them a different way to think about these things contra Leighton’s misguided and misinformed attempts at critiquing Calvinism.
The most ironic thing about Leighton, to me, is that he spends ALL his YouTube time supposedly critiquing Calvinism, and yet he evinces no knowledge of its actual historical development. I’ve tried to point him in directions that would help him fill that lacuna (when I was corresponding with him), and yet nothing. He continues critiquing most caricatures, straw mans, and historically erroneous pictures of what Reformed theology actually entails. That is to his 34K (and counting) followers loss (and for some: destruction and disillusionment).
Thanks for your response, Bobby.
“This is so filled with historical and theological misunderstanding I don’t even know where to start.” Do you have the “corner” on “historical and theological” understanding?
Apparently you completely dismiss the work of Ken Wilson (with a mere PhD in theology from that degree mill, Oxford). I know that fact alone obviously doesn’t prove him right – but evidently it doesn’t give you even a pause to take him with any degree of seriousness.
(BTW – I spent hours preparing a reply to your criticisms of D.B. Hart’s “That All Shall Be Saved” [which, alas, you can probably be thankful that I never sent your way 🙂 ] – but it boils down to the same kind of dismissiveness after you admittedly had listened to only one lecture….. Again, Bobby, perhaps you too are “enslaved” to a degree more than you can objectively “see”…)
Oh well – I will bother you no longer, but I sincerely appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond to my rant (and that you didn’t “block” my comment!). That takes guts and theological backbone – one of the things I do admire you for!
I wish you only the best and overflowing blessings, Bobby!
Wayne,
The problem with Wilson is that he is myopic. My mentor’s PhD is from University of London, King’s College. He does specific work on the issue of Pelagius and Augustine in regard to theological anthropology and a doctrine of sin. Frost’s work is in line with the trad on Augustine, but works beyond it; identifying a key move in Aug’s doctrine of sin pre to post-Pelagius–so there’s that. Also, Wilson is very limited in the historical range he is looking at. He is also working from a Zane Hodge’s Free Grace motivation. Anyway, I know Wilson is the go to guy for you all on this, but he isn’t the final, the greatest, or the last word; that is not how scholarship works, per se.
You should have sent your comment on Hart; I didn’t realize you were also a universalist. I openly said I had only listened to a lecture from him explaining the main themes and premises of his book; I offered a review of that, not the book. You can attempt to make that seem disingenuous, but it wasn’t. My thesis in that post stands though; I even made an argument, in its beginning stages contra Hart in that post. It has, of course, to do with the role of tradition and how that works for Hart in his Orthodox context. As a Protestant I am committed to the Scripture Principle, something that you don’t really seem familiar with; given your earlier comments about the Protestant understanding of sola Scriptura or the way historic Protestantism conceives the relationship of Scripture to Tradition, to Theologoumena etc. Flowers, his friend, Brian clearly don’t get this either.
I’m not enslaved to a “degree,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. I am appealing to the merits of material reality, and theo-logic that is present in the text of Scripture. You need to come stronger.