Belief System of Oneness Pentecostalism 3

The "Name," the "concreteness" of Christian salvation, and the assurance of the believer

The late nineteenth and early twentieth century noted a steady movement of mainline Christian denominations toward more modern expressions of religious faith which sought a relevant reassessment of traditional doctrines and practices in the rapidly changing world. Against this trend, revivalists and theological conservatives reaffirmed the inherited values of their traditions and vocally opposed any modifications or revisions for the sake of relevance. The Holiness movement, with its search for tangible evidences of Christian commitment and eventual denominational divisiveness, bears witness to the dividing camps of the liberals and conservatives and the growing attempts by conservatives to define the essentials of the Christian life. In contrast to the doctrinal tests appearing in emerging Fundamentalism, the Holiness believers turned to an experiential test—specifically, the "crisis" experience of sanctification—as the evidence of true Christian commitment. This evangelical search for "evidences" expanded to include Spirit baptism and glossolalia with growing Pentecostalism and found its ultimate expression in the Oneness "Acts 2:38 plan of salvation," a tangible, measurable guideline for assessing Christian commitment. This "plan" provides the basis for the Oneness notions of the "Name," the "concreteness" of Christian salvation, and the assurance of the believer.

The "Acts 2:38 plan" of repentance, water baptism administered by immersion in "Jesus' name," and Spirit baptism evidenced by glossolalia became thoroughly linked with the elements of ritual worship in the Oneness service. Since these rites of initiation are completely measurable and tangible, the church is fully visible. The new convert's commitment is measured by these initial evidences, while the mature Christian displays commitment by full participation in worship. In both cases, the experience of salvation is "concrete," certain, and repeatable. Interestingly, this "concrete" salvation experience limits its accessibility. Oneness Pentecostalism rejects the "easy believism" that came to permeate post-Moody revivalism in favor of these more austere and demanding rites of initiation. But while these rites limit the accessibility of salvation, they also enhance the assurance of the believer. Conversion as a datable, tangible event accompanied by physical actions and a community of witnesses lies beyond the realm of doubt. Continued performance in ritual worship and the appearance of the "divine epiphany" reaffirms these initial evidences. Songs, sermons, and testimonies recount this collective journey; while in the divine confrontation, the journey itself is reenacted and the believer's experience reconfirmed.

Water baptism in the name of Jesus is neither a subjective experience nor a private act, but rather a part of the public worship. Celebrated in the community as part of the normal order of the service, the baptismal ceremony is attended by all the usual elements of Pentecostal worship. In baptism, the community as well as the individual acts in response to grace. Baptism, for the individual, reinforces the experience of forgiveness and concretely represents entrance into the believing community. Whereas baptism in most Pentecostal churches merely symbolizes a work already completed within the believer, Oneness baptism validates the entire initiation process by the application of the divine name to the candidate which foreshadows the abiding of the Holy Spirit within the believer's life following Spirit baptism. Baptism, although symbolic, is far more than symbol alone; in baptism, real initiation occurs—personal experiences of faith and repentance are validated and the seeker becomes a candidate for Spirit baptism. Water baptism—if correctly administered in the saving name "Jesus"—separates the seeker from error and establishes him in the truth of divine revelation. Water baptism, therefore, makes possible not only a passage from sinfulness to Christian salvation, but also from false to true religion.⁶

Again in contrast to the Trinitarian Pentecostal presentation of Spirit baptism as an empowering for Christian service and therefore secondary to the saving experience of faith conversion, the Oneness experience of the living Lord in Spirit baptism brings a personal dimension to the community epiphany. Oneness Spirit baptism elicits notions of the continued presence of God in the believer's life. Paul's imagery of the believer's body as the temple of the Holy Spirit is taken literally to mean that the believer physically houses the abiding Spirit of God. The initiate becomes the community in miniature, the resting place of the divine name and presence. Thus, Spirit baptism is a necessary, normal ingredient in every true Christian's life. Failure to receive this experience restricts participation in the community's "Spirit baptism" of the "divine epiphany" in worship. Reception of this experience, evidenced by glossolalia, insures the initiate's salvation and place within the worshiping community.
_____________________

⁶Kevin Mathers Ranaghan, "Rites of Initiation in Representative Pentecostal Churches in the United States, 1901-1972" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1974), pp. 536-39.
____________________

Next Post: The "Name, the"perfected humanity" of Christ, and the redeemed life of the believer.

Belief System of Oneness Pentecostalism 2

The "Name" and the Presence of God in the Community

Oneness Pentecostalism began with a new understanding of the name of God and its significance and function in the life of the believer and the church. From this new perspective of the divine name arose the Oneness redefinition of Christian monotheism, the reassessment of Christ's person as the quantitative incarnation of God, and the reevaluation of water and Spirit baptism as rites of Christian initiation. In response to this new understanding, Trinitarian Pentecostal hostility excluded Oneness believers, pronouncing the new doctrine as heterodox and its followers deluded. From this, the Oneness notion of community—the remnant community of the "Name" which stands boldly in the face of such opposition and suffering to proclaim the great revival of the end time and the impending separation of true and false Christians—emerged. "To name the name of Christ," in baptism and doctrinal reassessment, became the watchword of Oneness worship and belief.

The most pronounced impact of the new theology of the "Name" came to be felt in Oneness notions of the "Name" and the presence of God in the worshiping community. The Oneness Pentecostal lives in a world crowded with spirits, both divine and demonic. Men are tossed between these moral extremes, free to choose the good, but always weak before temptation. The church, the worshiping community, provides a bastion of protection and support in this maelstrom of spirits. Here, the believer directly confronts God and from this confrontation derives strength for moral victory. The recurring image of the church as the "filling station"—a place for recovering strength and preparing for daily spiritual battles—permeates Oneness testimonies and sermons.

But the God confronted in Oneness worship is not merely a portion of the divine, nor some far removed spiritual force which does not and cannot feel compassion for human infirmity. Rather, the God confronted in community worship is the risen Christ, the quantitative whole of the divine being incarnate in humanity. This "humanity of God" overcomes that "infinite qualitative" distance between God and man in the most practical terms (terms accessible to the layman's understanding), without denying divine transcendence. Rather than heterodox, this understanding offers a thoroughly "Christian," albeit simplistic, interpretation of the presence of God—his accessibility and providence—in worship. It is this "humanity of God," the divine capacity for identification with and compassion for human frailty, which undergirds the Oneness "theology of experience" and resounds again and again in the recounting of spiritual biographies in songs, testimonies, and sermons.

Such an understanding recognizes the worship service as the arena of the miraculous. The real presence of Christ, the great miracle worker, infuses the service with receptiveness to healing, deliverance, and salvation. Oneness Pentecostalism, in many ways, approximates the experience of the resurrected Christ in the primitive Christian communities by recognizing the "open-endedness" of the divine voice which reveals God directly to individuals and the community. Such directness in the risen Lord's activity supplants the accepted voices of authority: clergy, tradition, and scripture. Because of the power of God perceived present in the invoking of the divine name "Jesus," its public use elicits expectation of the miraculous, a key ingredient leading to the spiritual "overflow" and demonstrative worship of the "divine epiphany." This use of the divine name, contrary to any connotations of magic asserted by Oneness detractors, parallels the theophanic function of the divine name in the Deuteronomistic traditions of the Hebrew scriptures: the church is the place where the divine name rests, prayers are effectual when the divine presence is invoked through this name, and all worship—songs, sermons, and testimonies—are performed under the auspices of this name.

The real presence of Christ in the divine name is also apparent in the sacramental life of Oneness Pentecostalism. Although not formally recognized or theoretically explained, the entire physical arena of Oneness worship is understood in symbolic and sacramental terms. The service itself, brought to life by the invoked name and presence of God, is a sacramental drama of initiation. All the props of this drama—physical posturing, hand-clapping, raised hands, prostration, kneeling, dancing, shouting-play in this obvious symbolism. In these acts—their ritual performance and attendant verbal prayers and proclamations—the believer appropriates the grace of God. This is nowhere more true than in the act of initiation/conversion in water baptism which is performed in a highly structured manner accompanied by a specific verbal formula and the invoking of the divine name and presence. This act, along with the other rites of initiation (repentance, Spirit baptism, the worship service itself), is clearly sacramental despite the Oneness rejection of this term. The infusion of ritual worship with the divine presence redefines the ready accessibility of grace and the sacramental life of the Oneness community.

The Oneness encounter with the divine which separates true Christians from secular society and false Christendom produces an interesting paradox. The Oneness claim of superiority (of experience) rests solely in an act of grace which is freely available to all. Despite this admission, the notion of superior experience necessarily points out the inferiority of non-Oneness belief and experience and often leads to more intense evangelistic activity among "nominal" Christians than among the unconverted. Although Oneness believers seldom deny God's actions among other Christian groups, they do emphasize the partiality, and therefore insufficiency, of these actions—hence, the Oneness designations of their faith as "full," "complete," or "New Testament" salvation.

Accordingly, Oneness theological defensiveness arises not from a desire to rationally explain unique doctrines, but in response to opposition which threatens superior claims. Oneness propositional doctrine always fails to grasp the "positive" dimension of the "theology of experience" in worship due to its reactionary stance. Assuming the categories of their opponents, Oneness thinkers, armed with the common sense hermeneutic, construct "rational" defenses of their distinctives. But volumes of Oneness exegesis and apologetics fail to present even the faintest glimmer of the persuasive power of the divine confrontation in worship. The determination to be "right" marks the Oneness writer as the "guardian" of the faith, the protector of the supreme claim, and in turn, limits the possibility of any positive theological endeavor.
_____________________

Next Post: The "Name," the "concreteness" of Christian salvation, and the assurance of the believer.

Belief System of Oneness Pentecostalism 1

[In the next several posts, I will share a chapter from my dissertation, The People of the Name: Oneness Pentecostalism in the United States (Florida State University, 1985).  Each subsequent post will deal with one of the unique themes of Oneness Pentecostal belief and life listed in the final paragraph of this post.]

Oneness Pentecostal thinking can only result in a "theology of experience." Regrettably, the apologetic and polemic literature produced by Oneness publishers fails to even approximate any positive expression of the belief system apparent in the ritual worship of songs, testimonies, and sermons. This belief system, which arises from the act of worship, demands more than intellectual affirmation or moral obedience; rather it requires a passionate embrace of the Oneness forms of worship and sense of community as the root of Christian identity and the foundation for theological constructions and ethical obligations. The acts of worship become embedded in the emerging belief system and provide a unity for the larger framework of beliefs and meanings shared by Oneness Pentecostals. This belief system, arising from the act of worship—acts back upon Oneness worship—interpreting its significance and impact upon the arena of everyday life.

Peter Berger points out that the acts of religious ritual consist of two parts: "the things which have to be done" and "the things which have to be said” (usually words of interpretation for ritual actions). In these acts and accompanying interpretations, the participant confronts an ultimate reality and is "made contemporary" with the acts and words of the sacred realm. In such interpretations, the believer "recalls" the traditional meanings embodied in the religious society. Succinctly stated, "Religious ideation is grounded in religious activity." For Berger, the acts and interpretations of religious rituals "restore ever again the continuity between the present moment and the societal tradition, placing the experiences of the individual and the various groups of the society in the context of a history which transcends them all."¹ It is precisely in the interpretations given to the acts of ritual worship—most specifically, the song, testimony, and sermon—that the distinctive Oneness belief system most clearly appears.

These interpretations impose a meaningful order upon the experiences of the individual and the community. This system of meaning, whether created or received, constitutes the basis for order through a consensus of "basic knowledge" within the community—shared interpretive schema, moral maxims, and collections of traditional wisdom. Berger points out that this "knowledge" is "pre-theoretical," that is, it is readily available to all within the community, not just to the scholar or theoretician. To participate in the society is to share this "knowledge," to apprehend and internalize its meaningful ordering. When socialized to the order, the individual can correctly interpret his own biography of experiences. The society, in turn, comes to act as the guardian of this meaningful order, objectively through institutionalizing its values and subjectively by structuring individual perceptions along uniform lines.²

Oneness ritual worship encapsulates in action the beliefs of its participants. Regular church services provide a "routinized framework" around which believers orient their lives. The shared symbols and beliefs of this framework give meaning to the intensity of the divine-human encounter in worship and serve to structure social relationships within the community.³ This framework also sets the community apart from the values of the dominant society (although at many times the two "worldviews" intersect).⁴

From the ritual acts of worship and the interpretations ascribed to them, the entirety of Oneness Pentecostal theological perception, social orientation, and moral direction arises. In testimony, the believer confirms his own experience of overcoming past disorder and despair when embracing the new religious "worldview" and its attendant notions of community. Such individual affirmations edify and encourage the congregation, and, in turn, elicit the communal seal of acceptance upon the individual. In song, the community relives the moment of its collective past: the journey from burdened, misdirected heaviness to joyful, ordered freedom. The stirring gospel message set to music strengthens communal bonds and demonstrates the impact of the "theology of experience" back upon the ritual worship itself. In the sermon, the preacher and the congregation join voices in the proclamation and experience of the divine presence. Here, the message is "fleshed out"—the realm of belief ceases to be abstract and cerebral and becomes real, substantial, and concrete in the experiences of community initiation and renewal.⁵

Several recurring themes emerge from Oneness testimonies, songs, and sermons which function as the central foundations in the Oneness belief system. The themes, although not systematic, to a great extent encompass the whole of Oneness distinctiveness. Focusing on the eschatological "revelation" of the divine name "Jesus" and its centrality in the life of the believer, these themes differentiate Oneness life and worship from other expressions of Pentecostalism. These themes include: (1) the "Name" and the presence of God in the worshiping community; (2) the "Name," the "concreteness" of Christian salvation, and the assurance of the believer; (3) the "Name," the "perfected humanity" of Christ, and the redeemed life of the believer; and (4) the "Name" and the certain vindication of the future.

_____________________

¹Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1969), pp. 40-41.

²Ibid., pp. 19-22.

³Arthur E. Paris, Black Pentecostalism: Southern Religion to an Urban World (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982), pp. 93-99.

⁴See Marion Dearman, "Christ and Conformity: A Study of Pentecostal Values," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13 (1974): 437-53.

⁵For a comparative analysis of these elements in black Pentecostalism, see Paris, Black Pentecostalism, pp. 99-106.

_____________________

Next post: The "Name" and the presence of God in the worshiping community.

Personal Distinctions in the Godhead

Recently in a correspondence with a very sincere lady who is struggling between the non-Trinitarian versus Trinitarian views of Scripture, she asked me to comment on Jn. 1:1-3 and Jn. 17:5. These two passages are problematic for non-Trinitarian Pentecostals, and in her question she pointed out that in older English translations, the pronoun “he” is translated as “it” in Jn. 1:1-3. Such a translation, at least from the non-Trinitarian point-of-view, might suggest that the logos was not personal. Further, she suggested that in later English versions (KJV and after), the use of the word “he” instead of “it” was imposed on the text, implying that this was an inappropriate rendering. In the Jn. 17:5 passage, non-Trinitarian Pentecostals tend to take the words “glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (KJV) to mean something along the lines of “glorify thou me as thine own self…”, thus, once again, removing from the passage any personal distinction between the Father and the Son. Should you be interested in reading over my shoulder, so to speak, here is what I said to her.

...let me briefly address the passages you cited, beginning with the prologue to John's Gospel. You are correct: some of the early English translations of John's Gospel translated the Greek personal pronoun autou and the Greek demonstrative pronoun houtos as "it" in Jn. 1:2-3 (this was true in the Tyndale Version, the Great Bible and the Bishop's Bible), though John Wycliffe, who was earlier than all three, translated the pronoun as "him", not "it".  I doubt that the rendering "it" should be taken to mean that the logos was impersonal, however. Whether it is to be translated as "him"/"he" or "it" is merely a translator's choice. The personal pronouns can be translated either way, and both are grammatically correct. The deeper issue is one of grammatical agreement and contextual meaning. When one uses a word like logos, grammatical agreement might lead one to use the word "it" as a pronoun, since typically we don't think of a "word" as personal. However--and this is quite important--the larger context of the passage indicates that the logos WAS personal. The logos was the one through whom God created the world (Greek dia with the genitive case, which means "through the agency of"). The logos was the light that shined in the darkness but was not understood. The logos was the light that illumines every human person born in the world. This logos, in his incarnation, was "in" the world that he himself had made, but the world did not recognize him. The logos "became" flesh and tented among us, and here, the verb ginomai (= became) is especially important, for it cannot be swept aside as some sort of "dwelling" Christology (which is typical in non-Trinitarian thought) but must be taken as a true incarnation. By the time all three of these early versions cited above (Tyndale, Bishops, Great Bible) reach Jn. 1:10, without exception they all begin to use the pronouns "he" and "him", based on that same Greek pronoun autou. Hence, I don't think one should make too much of the translation "it" as though it favors a non-Trinitarian doctrine. It doesn't. Further, the charge that the idea of pre-existence was "imposed" on the text by later versions, such as the KJV and following, cannot be sustained. The actual Greek text, which twice says the logos was "with" God (Greek proposition pros with the accusative case), directly describes pre-existence and cannot mean anything else.

The language of Jn. 17:5 is described as "the glory that was before the world began". This, if you'll pardon me saying so, is an unfortunate way of phrasing it (and the way non-Trinitarian folks would like to phrase it as they attempt to escape what the passage plainly says). What the text plainly says in Greek is this: "Father...now glorify me with yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world [came] to be." Twice the text uses the preposition para, once in a genitive construction as para seautou (= alongside yourself) and the other in a dative construction as para soi (= by the side of you). This passage is crystal clear in describing Jesus' pre-existence, and grammatically it cannot be taken any other way! The prepositional constructions "alongside yourself" and "by the side of you" are death knells to the modalistic teaching. Non-Trinitarians want to say something like "Father...glorify me as yourself (instead of alongside yourself)", but the preposition para simply cannot be taken in this way. Such an interpretation is not possible in the Greek NT.

Remember the Pit (Sort Of)

I remember sermons from my youth that quoted Isaiah 51:1 and charged me to remember "the pit from whence I was dug"—the sinful depths I had inhabited before God's provision of salvation.

But there is only one problem here. Isaiah 51—part of the larger complex of Isaiah 40-55 sometimes called "Second Isaiah"—is not a call to remembrance of one's prior sinful state OR a statement of judgment OR anything negative at all.

Rather Isaiah 51 is an incredibly hopeful passage. It declares that God's salvation is certain and near. The sins of the past are just that—"past"—and all of God's previous promises are still in effect. Isaiah 51 addresses exiled Israel at the very end of the Babylonian "captivity." Yahweh, through the prophet, promises that restoration of the nation is on the immediate horizon.

Five times in this chapter, the voice of Yahweh calls for exiled Israel's attention: "Listen to me!" (v. 1), "Listen to me!" (v. 4), "Hear me!" (v. 7), "Awake, awake!" (v. 9), and again "Awake, awake!" (v. 17). In each instance, Yahweh promises reversal—Israel's oppressors will fall and Israel will regain its rightful place in the land of Palestine and once again enjoy God's providence rather than his judgment. "The cup that made you stagger," Yahweh promises, "You will never drink from again." Rather "I will put it into the hands of your tormentors" and they will fall down drunk in the streets and Israel will walk over their fallen bodies.

The reference to the "pit from whence you were dug" in Isaiah 51:1 does not point to the depth of Israel's moral failure, but rather to the very foundation of Israel's existence—the promises of God to the patriarchs. Look at the larger context of this passage from a modern translation.

"Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness
    and who seek the Lord:
Look to the rock from which you were cut
    and to the quarry from which you were hewn;
look to Abraham, your father,
    and to Sarah, who gave you birth.
When I called him he was only one man,
    and I blessed him and made him many."
The Lord will surely comfort Zion
    and will look with compassion on all her ruins;
he will make her deserts like Eden,
    her wastelands like the garden of the Lord.
Joy and gladness will be found in her,
    thanksgiving and the sound of singing.
                                             (Isaiah 51:1-3 NIV)

The "rock from which you were cut" is Abraham. The "quarry from which you were hewn" is Sarah. Yahweh is calling exiled Israel to remember its roots in the promises God made to Abraham and his descendants.

"I will make you into a great nation,
    and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you."
                                             (Genesis 12:2-3 NIV)

The exile has NOT negated the covenant promises that God made to the fathers. Rather—after a brief moment of judgment resulting from Israel's covenant unfaithfulness—God will completely fulfill his ancient promises, restoring the lost homeland and once again extending his providence.

Isaiah 51:1 is a promise to those of Israel who endure the exile: they will soon witness God's liberation and their return to the homeland. Yahweh calls the exiles to have the same faith as their ancestors—the childless Abraham and Sarah—who did not give up on God's promises because of their hopeless situation, but believed God in spite of their current circumstances.

Isaiah 51 tells us that difficult—even impossible—circumstances do NOT nullify the promises of God. Rather than despair, we should hold fast to the promises of God to our fathers and show the same faith they did—the faith that will ultimately witness the salvation of God.

David, Jerusalem, and Biblical Minimalism

In light of the recent post on archaeology and the book of Joshua, I thought I would expand the discussion a bit to focus on the period that I find to be most central in the minimalist-maximalist debate about archaeology and biblical history: the tenth century BCE, the time of the United Kingdom, the reigns of David and Solomon.

First, look at this definition of minimalism and maximalism:

The labels "maximalism" and "minimalism" were coined in the debate about the historical reliability of the Bible. For more than a century, archaeologists have been digging in the Near East, and inevitably, they found contradictions between the archaeological record and the story told in the Bible. This is neither unique nor problematic. Information about Antiquity is always fragmentary, and the scholars studying ancient Rome, Greece, Israel, Egypt, Persia, or Babylonia often have to cope with contradictory evidence. For example, Julius Caesar claims to have subjected the Belgians, but this has so far not been confirmed archaeologically. Although contradictory evidence can be frustrating, it is preferable to having only one source: in that case, we can not establish whether it is correct or not; if the evidence is inconsistent, we can at least evaluate its quality.

When we are dealing with the history of the Jews, there is, after the sixth or fifth century BCE, no real contradiction between the main written source (the Bible) and the archaeological record. No one denies that the Jews returned from their Babylonian Captivity: archaeologists have identified the new villages, although it is not entirely clear when the return took place exactly. Moving backward, the discrepancy increases: in the age of the two kingdoms (Judah and Israel), the Biblical account is sometimes at odds with the results of archaeology, and if we look at the events before, say, king David, the fragmentary nature of our evidence is even more striking.

"Minimalism" and "maximalism" are two principles to cope with this situation. Maximalist scholars assume that the Biblical story is more or less correct, unless archaeologists prove that it is not; minimalists assume that the Biblical story must be read as fiction, unless it can be confirmed archaeologically. "Minimalism" and "maximalism" are, therefore, methods, approaches, or theoretical concepts. (Livius.org)
 

The minimalists are often associated with the University of Copenhagen (in particular, Thomas Thompson and Niels Peter Lemche) although many others like John van Seters, Keith Whitelam, and Philip Davies contribute to this view.

The maximalists are often dubbed "neo-Albrightians" (followers of the famous biblical archaeologist, William Foxwell Albright). The Biblical Archaeological Review represents this view and is the most consistent opponent of the new minimalism, along with archaeologists and writers like William Dever, Iain Provan, and Kenneth Kitchen.

I strongly recommend the following online article that introduces the minimalist-maximalist debate and the main issues at its center.

Three Debates about Bible and Archaeology (Ziony Zevit)

The following online articles might also prove helpful.

Did David and Solomon Exist? (Eric H. Cline)

The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant (Amihai Mazar)

The United Monarchy Under David and Solomon

Find of Ancient City Could Alter Notions of Biblical David

Has King David's Palace in Jerusalem Been Found? (Israel Finkelstein)

Finally, see these online articles for a broader perspective on the entire debate.

The collected "Essays on Minimalism from Bible and Interpretation" from The Bible and Interpretation web site, featuring articles from many of the major players in the current debate.

 A (Very, Very) Short History of Minimalism: From The Chronicler to the Present (Jim West) which offers a refreshing breath of common sense and historical perspective to the minimalist debate.

Joshua Fit de Battle - PART 2

          In the initial post on this subject, I described archaeology as first the defender and then the attacker on the Book of Joshua. It must be admitted that the contemporary challenges to the historicity of the Bible via the Book of Joshua are formidable. In some ways, they are more formidable than the older challenges to the historicity of the patriarchs in Genesis. While Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as real people have been dismissed by skeptics for a long time (not to mention virtually all the other characters in the Book of Genesis that are earlier than the patriarchs), the fact that the patriarchs lay so far back in antiquity was, in a sense, a safeguard. No one expected to find any material evidence of individuals as far back as nearly four millennia ago, so they were largely exempted from speculation based on such things. To be sure, the new literary theories about the Pentateuch tended to dismiss the patriarchs as fictional, but literary theories are easier to ignore than artifacts, and for the most part, conservative Christians, apart from a few notable exceptions, have done just that with the literary theories—largely ignored them. However, there is a concreteness about the archaeological investigations of Canaanite city-states mentioned in Joshua that raises the bar. Conservative Christians very well may choose to ignore this area too, but it certainly will be more difficult.

          There is, however, a way forward short of blissful ignorance. Admittedly, Christians who follow this path will be a minority in the larger academic community, but they often have survived as the minority in any number of adverse circumstances throughout their history. If such Christians believe anything at all, they believe in the sovereignty of God in all things! They must mentally prepare themselves, of course, for regular put-downs from the intellectual elite, but this is not new either. What they must NOT do is abandon the field. To a large degree they did abandon the field in the old modernist-fundamentalist debate after the Scopes “monkey trial” in the early 20^th century. Their refusal to engage in dialogue with the reigning opinions of an increasingly secular culture left them marginalized and with no platform from which to speak. Isolationism was anything but helpful. Ironically, they might do well to take a chapter from their ancient Christian brothers and sisters in the Medieval World, who vigorously interacted with the likes of Aristotle, Plato and others.

The way forward must include solid scholarship at high levels, for this is where the heart of the dialogue will continue. It must also include an irenic spirit, for very little will be accomplished by a shouting match—even a scholarly shouting match. Thankfully, some high level scholars committed to biblical fidelity are deeply engaged in this discussion (for instance, Alan Millard and Kenneth Kitchen, to cite just two), and though they may be swimming against the current, they still are swimming! Here, it would seem, is the forward path.

          It should also be clearly understood that the issues concerning the Book of Joshua and the historicity of the Old Testament are part of a larger picture. That larger picture affects not only the history of the Bible, it affects the history of nearly everything! History in general is being rewritten by deconstructionist literary theorists and political activists with their own special axes to grind: New Left ideologies, radical feminists, Two-Thirds World liberation theologians, social reconstructionists, multiculturalists, New Age pop-psychologists and a host of other special interest groups are offering their versions of the past. Postmodernism, with its negative evaluation of any claims toward historical objectivity, is the handmaiden of this trend. Hence, while the historicity of the Bible is deeply important to many Christians, they should at least realize that the de-historicizing of the past is a broad cultural movement affecting everything from recent history to ancient history. It remains to be seen whether this will be a passing fancy or an enduring challenge with which to grapple. 

Kenneth Kitchen (University of Liverpool) trenchantly observes that in the biblical story the campaigns of Joshua were primarily disabling forays, not territorial conquests with Hebrew occupation as is popularly conceived. To be sure, Jericho and Ai were burned (6:24; 8:28), as was Hazor (11:13), but there is no biblical indication that this fate happened to any other Canaanite cities, though many Canaanite kings were killed in conflicts. Furthermore, after these conflicts the Israelites did NOT occupy the various cities but returned to the base camp at Gilgal (Jos. 10:15, 43; 14:6). To be sure, there was some localized occupation in central Canaan (Jos. 14:6-15; 15:13-19; 17:14-18; 18:1-2). Still, the first clear indication in the biblical text of a movement toward full occupation is not until Joshua 18:4ff. Hence, the fairly common interpretation of a sweeping conquest with nearly immediate occupation of the whole land is not what the Book of Joshua actually describes. Therefore, to expect archaeology to demonstrate such an action is misplaced. Christians, therefore, must be careful about their handling of such texts. In too many case, they have set themselves up for failure because their own hermeneutic has been deficient. Good historical method and sound principles of interpretation work hand-in-hand, and if Christian thinkers will be judicious in the use of both, they will find the way forward not nearly as gloomy as is sometimes assumed. In the end, it is always well to remember that while error is usually in a hurry, truth has time on its side. Archaeology is an ongoing discipline. Not too long ago, some scholars, particularly the Scandinavians, were dismissing David and his dynasty as a convenient fiction, no more historical than, say, King Arthur and the round table. Then Avraham Biran discovered the now-famous inscription at Tel Dan that directly mentions the "house of David". Christians can afford to wait while leaving some questions unanswered. But at all costs, they must not abandon the field!