I’m really excited to be offering my new mini-course, The Trinity & the Christian Life, this Fall, starting on October 14 and running Wednesday nights for 6 weeks, online via Zoom.

My mini-courses are geared toward a popular but thinking, intellectually curious audience. They provide a place to learn and engage with others at a deeper level, “between sermon and seminary.” They are accessible (live, online), affordable, and aim to enrich mind and heart, as we seek to know, love, and serve God more deeply and effectively together.

This particular course is near and dear to my heart, as reflecting on the Trinity has been deeply transformative and enriching for my own Christian thinking and experience. The Trinity is the most uniquely Christian doctrine and it names and frames our experience of God and our joining with him in life, ministry, vocation, and mission.

Would love to have you join! Please share with those you think might be interested (here is a downloadable PDF of the poster).

Share

Share

“TRUST THE SCIENCE!”

Most people are probably reacting one way or another (the opposite way) to this statement. As in, yes, trust the science . . . or no, we cannot trust the science.

Personally, I affirm that we should trust the science. But what does it mean to “trust science”? Science is a method, not a person, an institution, a corporation, a consensus of opinion, or a body of knowledge. At least, it is not primarily any of those things. Primarily, science is a method, or set of methods, for asking rational questions (and testing our provisional answers) about the physical, material world. And based on the theories it develops, the scientific method makes testable predictions which can in turn be tested by the consistent application of the same basic methods. And science is quite powerful at doing its job. One need think only of the exponential advances in technology, medicine, engineering, and so on to see this immediately.

Secondarily, in a kind of metaphorical sense, “science” is a body of knowledge. But speaking precisely, such knowledge is “scientific” only because it is the product of the scientific method.

For science to work properly (accurately, effectively, predictably, etc.), a set of prior and ongoing commitments embodied in action is necessary. These include commitments to honesty and truth-seeking, courage (to pursue the latter), humility (because many/most initial hypotheses are incorrect), transparency and openness (because what is scientifically convincing is not “authority” per se - “Because we say so!” - but results that are public, verifiable, reproducible, and shown to rule out alternate explanations), democratic discussion and deliberation (scientific knowledge is authoritative in a self-evident kind of way; “science” becomes distorted if its practitioners become authoritarians), self-criticism and scepticism (welcoming doubt and reasonable pushback, because newer ideas and claims always bear the burden of proof over-against established paradigms), and free / uncoerced (i.e., given space to pursue scientific questions for their own sake and to follow the evidence wherever leads), rather than controlled or manipulated by political and ideological agendas (even ‘good’ ones, because no one believes their own ideological agendas are truly evil). Science is not served by a pre-commitment to a theory in search of evidence, but rather curiosity and formulation of hypothesis toward establishing illuminating and evidence-explaining theories.

This isn’t to say that the scientific method should be practiced in a moral vacuum: we need shared moral values, principles, rules, and the like to protect human dignity and to pursue science justly and fairly. And it isn’t to say that every individual person is automatically an intelligent critic of scientific results or conclusions (i.e, because science is “democratic:); many scientific methods, and the technologies enabling their execution, are complicated and require education and training. At the same time, the logic in moving from conclusion to application, or from discipline-specific results to the formulation of more complex social policy, should be transparent, understandable, communicable, and humble (recognizing limitations and the need to hear the contributions of other relevant disciplines and fields), so as to facilitate, build, and maintain public trust.

If we thought of “science” in this primary, methodological sense, perhaps both “sides” in the culture wars could engage with the other side more charitably. Those resistant to “the science” might not actually be resistant to the scientific method itself and its legitimate results; instead, they might be worried about something else (rightfully or needlessly worried), such as the potential violation of the conditions that make science effective listed above. As concrete examples, consider conflicts of interest, questionable funding sources or management of funding (or the self-interests of funding corporations and organizations), the loosening or ignoring of checks and balances designed to prevent self-deception, confirmation bias, and so on, the influences of power and authority in relation to the “pure” exploration of the scientific enterprise, and so on.

Those who seem to be wholly committed to “the science” in a way that can seem to others almost uncompromisingly ideological (the “walking labcoat,” the mythical pure, dispassionate observer, or the “human calculator”) might instead just be worried about the integrity, reputation, and influence of the scientific enterprise itself (perhaps threatened by charlatans and genuine conspiracy theorists, both of which can so easily prey on the desperate, the vulnerable, and the needy). Scientists, after all, are human beings with concerns, worries, values, goals, hopes, and viewpoints.

In summary, I’m suggesting that the culture wars tend to make “the science” into something that actual science was not designed to be. Both “sides” point fingers at the other side for doing this in different ways.

The solution is not to double down and blindly follow “the scientists” (shout out hear to the hilarious John Cleese video of the same name) or to retreat into the irrationality of science denialism (and the echo chambers of self-appointed ‘experts’). The solution is to recognize science for what it is, acknowledging both its importance (legitimacy/efficacy/explanatory power) AND its inherent limitations, beyond which it cannot speak authoritatively (and ventures into authoritarianism when it does). The solution is to emphasize and embrace the fundamental nature of science as science. To do this, we must be alert to the distorting effects of politics and ideology, coming from both Left and Right of the political spectrum.

Science cannot explain everything or solve every question; when it claims to do this, it ends up undermining its own reputation (because it can’t possibly live up to this task . . . even attempting to do so is ruled out methodologically, at least in good, rigorous, and genuine science). On the other hand, non-scientific answers to properly scientific questions make lousy (and possibly destructive and harmful) substitutes, with consequences that impede and/or diminish human wellbeing and flourishing.

So, my advice to non-scientist friends (and to myself): “Trust the science” - yes! Trust science to do what science is designed to do. Trust the scientific method to answer scientific questions.

My advice to scientist friends: Renew your public commitment to the purity and integrity of the scientific method itself, to the values and practices that undergird it, and to holding colleagues accountable to stick resolutely to the duly esteemed and honourable vision and practice of the scientific enterprise, even and especially in the midst of disagreement and misinformation. Beware ideology, , and the allure of authoritarianism and paternalism , and political agendas masquerading as “the science” (politics is always MUCH more than science!).

Our world needs scientists who are gifted to pursue knowledge and wisdom and called to serve human beings and the creation itself as God’s gift. A high calling and a huge responsibility indeed!

Scientists deserve our respect and also need from us (rational) public accountability, meaning accountability structures and mechanisms that are fair, consistent, appropriately empowering and constraining, and properly procedural - ensuring due process and the protection of core values and aims.

Share

Introduction

Recently (March 30, 2026), Dr. Rick Waldholm (a friend of mine whom I respect very much) published a post warning about the dangers associated with doing theology in certain ways. On the surface, the piece appears to be a critique of the discipline of systematic theology, but - as I pointed out and as Dr. Waldholm agreed - what he’s really c…

Read more

Last week, I gave a Keynote address at a Bonhoeffer Conference held at McMaster Divinity College. The conference theme was “Life Together Amidst the Cost of Discipleship: Exploring the Theology and Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

The video recording of my address is below. The paper will be published next year in a book containing the best papers of the …

Read more

Considering the Claim: The Spirit Has Inspired a New (and more faithful) Way to Interpret the Bible and Revise the Church’s Traditional Teachings on Sexual Ethics.

Recently, I have been participating in a discussion group about sexual ethics, made up of Christians in various academic fields related to the physical, biological, and social sciences. I am participating in the group in a professional capacity as a theologian and ethicist (and one who has done a fair bit of work on hermeneutics and biblical interpretation).

Centrally, the group is concerned with questions related to the wellbeing and flourishing of LGBTQ+ people in the church, considered in an integrated way: physically, socially, medically, spiritually, etc. This is an important discussion, because both the science and the (biblical/theological) ethics related to these questions can be complicated and confusing, not least because there has been much misinformation (and even disinformation) circulating the Internet and other media. Unfortunately, ideologically motived people on both ends of the political spectrum wittingly or unwittingly publish and/or disseminate what is basically pseudoscience, often making claims not actually supported by the data/studies or by making generalizations not warranted by the same.

The discussion group includes people who are on various points of the spectrum representing positions on Christian sexual ethics, from traditional to progressive (though not including extreme, dogmatic, or irrational perspectives at the radical ends of the spectrum). Group members genuinely want to seek the truth and the well-being of people, believing that God loves all people and that all people bear the divine image and so are precious to God and have immeasurable dignity and value that should be recognized and protected.

Several weeks ago, we read a paper together released by the CRC (Classes Grand Rapids East) Study Committee on the Bible and Life-long Same Sex Relationships), which summarizes arguments in favour of same-sex marriage in the church.

Specifically, we focused on the first section of the document (pp. 12-20), entitled “Guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Reinterpretation of Scripture.” If you are interested in reading that section of the document, click here. For the entire document (142 pp.), click here.

I have included my response to the document below, as it provides a good follow up to my first post about the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding biblical interpretation. I apply some of the ideas from that first post (and other considerations) to the claims made in the Classis paper. My conclusion is that the document’s reasoning is flawed and the case it makes for interpreting Scripture the way it does is weak. This does not mean there are NO good theological reasons for considering same-sex marriage in the church; but given close and careful scrutiny, the major proposals offered in Section 1 of the document should be rejected.

Initial Appreciative Comments

I agree with the paper’s emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation. The classical Christian tradition affirms the Holy Spirit’s role in the inspiration of the biblical authors to write Scripture (meaning not just an initial act, but the whole process culminating in the formulation of the final form of the Canon) and in the illumination (or enlightening) of present-day readers to understanding it. John Webster helpfully adds (in his Cambridge book on Holy Scripture) that the triune God has also sanctified Scripture, i.e., God has taken something of the created world produced through the agency of human beings (the scriptural writings), elected them to be set apart uniquely to serve his purposes, providentially guided the processes of collection, redaction, organization, and canonization, and has promised (or covenanted) to speak through the Scriptures such that by the Spirit and through the Word, the Scriptures participate in the communicative activity of the triune God, past, present, and future.

In addition to inspiring, illuminating, and sanctifying Scripture, the Spirit is the one who convicts human beings of their sin, who leads them to repentance, and who is the personal, indwelling sign, seal, foretaste, and downpayment of God’s redemptive and transformative work to save and finally glorify us, raising us from the dead at the end and resurrecting our bodies such that they become glorified, ‘spiritual-bodies,’ neither simply material or simply ethereal, but rather – as Gordon Fee puts it - as “bodies made fit for the realm of the Spirit.” Moreover, the Spirit is at work in bringing about the ‘fruit’ (virtues or character traits) that encourage and enable the right reading of Scripture: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. This Holy Spirit is the Spirit of holiness and is also named (in the NT) the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son (three ‘persons,’ one God, being the same Trinity that speaks and acts throughout both Testaments). Jesus promised that the coming Spirit would “not speak on his own” but pass on what is given to him to say (John 16:12-15), from the Father and from the Son. In so doing the Spirit would remind the disciples of everything that Jesus said and lead them into all truth (John 14:25-26). In saying this, Jesus implies that the Spirit will help the disciples apply what they have been given and extend it into their lives and mission in various contexts. The ministry and theological interpretation of the former Pharisee, Paul/Saul, is perhaps the most dramatic example of this.

Augustine famously articulated the “rule of love” when interpreting Scripture; essentially, it is “Love God and do what you want.” This is not a license for sin or antinomianism, rather it reflects the Augustinian insight that our salvation necessarily involves the transformation of our fallen, distorted desires, such that we begin to love God and actually desire what God wants and love what God loves. Augustine is not referring to a sentiment or feeling in saying this; he identifies the Holy Spirit in particular (amongst the three ‘persons’) as the Gift of Love (love personified!) who dwells in our hearts and catalyzes our own love, so that our loving God and neighbour is an enabled response and a participation in the Love that is God (God willing and acting in us), from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit (as we are drawn up to participate in the Spirit through the Son, as our own grace-enabled offering to the Father). For Augustine, hearing the voice of the Spirit requires careful biblical exegesis, because Scripture is the fulfilment of the promise Jesus gave when he talked about the coming Spirit (John 14:25-26) and because the triune God does not speak in three different/differing voices, but by one unified voice in a threefold pattern: God communicates through his Word and in/by his Spirit. Or, to use the actual language of the Bible, God’s speaks to us (shares his mind with us) through his Word and in/by his Breath (Ruach; Pneuma): a singular act of communication in a triune pattern.

So, certainly, the Spirit is involved in both the production and interpretation of the Bible. However, when it comes to the human task of interpretation (i.e., the ‘science’ of interpretation), it is not clear that the Spirit is directly involved in demonstrating to us what good exegesis, good hermeneutics, and good theology looks like. If the Spirit were, we would be able to identify specific methodological criteria for discerning which interpretation is truly ‘Spirit-led’ and which is not. There are no such agreed-upon criteria. I suggest that the Spirit is certainly involved, but in a more indirect way in relation to interpreting the text (i.e., in the performance of the tasks of exegesis and theological reflection and formulation). The Spirit convicts our hearts, enlightens our minds, sanctifies and matures our character, fills us with love for God and others, opens our understanding, and renovates our will to obey and respond.

In terms of direct movement, the Spirit inspired the writing of the Bible (but didn’t dictate it) and prepares the reader to encounter God (and actualizes that encounter) while reading it. Note that a sincere and self-aware desire to listen to and obey God is something that most writers on discernment emphasize as crucial. The Spirit’s role seems to be at a deeper, more precognitive level of drawing us to Christ and opening us to God’s presence.

The Spirit does not do the work of exegesis and interpretation for us, any more than the Spirit does the work of translation for us. Since the Bible is God’s Word in human words, the task of genuine interpretation involves both divine encounter (which is about relationship with God) and the very human work – aided by the Spirit in subtle ways – of interpreting. This work of interpretation is difficult, but we are not on our own as we do it. There exists a global community of Christians, who find unity in many aspects of interpretation, and the history of the church represents a 2000-year running conversation about how best to interpret Scripture!

Concerns and Criticisms of the Paper

One concern I would raise at the outset is that while the paper mentions “guidance of the Holy Spirit” in the title, it actually says little to nothing about the Person, nature, and workings of the Holy Spirit. Little space is given to considering how the Spirit actually communicates in the Bible in a detailed and comprehensive way. No criteria are given for how to determine when the Spirit is guiding an interpretation and when he is not. If one were to remove all references to the Spirit from the paper, it would not make any definable difference to the interpretive proposals made. The paper sometimes notes that the Holy Spirit sometimes effects in New Testament figures a change of heart, which awakens their awareness of a false interpretation (as Jesus does in the Sermon on the Mount). But we are not given specific criteria of any kind for discerning how the Spirit’s activity challenges our own reading of Scripture. Moreover, in the various examples given, it’s usually the case that the corrected view (of Jesus or ‘the Spirit’) is what good exegesis demonstrates anyway.

We are told in the New Testament to “test the spirits,” because not all ‘spiritual’ impulses come from the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father and the Son. For example, the New Testament refers to the “spirit of antichrist,” to elemental spirits, and to false doctrines based upon knowledge that is claimed to have been given in secret.

Accordingly, the church Fathers were sceptical of appeals to the Spirit that could not be justified clearly from Scripture, or to invisible mysteries or secret knowledge (as in Gnosticism and the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world), or that set the New Testament in opposition to the Old Testament (as in the Marcionite heresy confronted by Irenaeus). When it came to confronting heresies such as Gnosticism or Arianism, key Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Athanasius appealed not to the Holy Spirit, but to Scripture and to the succession of bishops. For example, Irenaeus and Tertullian both challenge heretical interlocuters to show how their novel ideas can be traced by to the Apostles by the succession of bishops, because this would indicate an open and available chain of communication rather than a vague appeal to authority or mystery.

As far as I could tell from the paper, its appeal to the Spirit is empty of clear cognitive content, or interpretive criteria of any kind, other than at the level of maintaining broad biblical principles.

Some Specific Errors

Read more

Does the Holy Spirit guide us in interpreting or reinterpreting Scripture?

Initially, my sense is to respond, “Yes, of course!” I do think the Holy Spirit leads and guides believers in all kinds of ways, including in their interaction with the Bible. This makes sense, because the God of the Bible is a relational, personal Being who is constantly speakin…

Read more

Universalism, Eternal Torment, or conditional immortality / terminal punishment? I will take the latter view in this friendly discussion with Brad Jersak and Steve West this coming Friday evening. Join for free (in person or online) by clicking this link. 7pm (EST / Toronto time).

CLICK HERE for more details and for the livestream link.

Share

Read more

I will be one of three keynote speakers at the upcoming Bonhoeffer conference at McMaster Divinity College on March 25, 2026, which focuses on the theme: Life Together amidst the Cost of Discipleship: Exploring the Theology and Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

The title of my keynote address is: “Bonhoeffer’s Incarnational Ethics: A Call to Resist the Sedu…

Read more

Last week, on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, I was installed as the McGrath Chair of Christian Thought and Spirituality at Tyndale University and Seminary.

This is a recording of my inaugural lecture as the McGrath Chair, given at the installation service.

Unfortunately, there were a couple of blips in the original recording. This doesn't hurt the presentation much, but it does leave out some important comments.

Near the beginning of the lecture (at 7:06), after mentioning that Dr. McGrath and Dr. Ngien are good examples of integration, the text of my address reads:

"God’s vision and design for Creation is one characterized by integration: unity, harmony, and peace, … in a word, shalom. Think of Genesis 1, where God is speaking the world into being, ordering it with His word, and blessing it with his favour: 'It is good. It is very good.' Summoned and animated into being and life by the Word and Breath of God, Creation is inherently meaningful, inherently value-laden, and inherently full of purpose, fruitfulness, and potentiality."

And then, there was one part I skipped because I was worried about time. I think it's helpful though. Right after the part I mention St. Augustine ("We pursue what we love"), the following passage should be inserted (at 18:22, after I say our search for truth is distorted to the extent that we love and desire ungodly things):

"Think of the garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were influenced by their desire: the forbidden fruit appeared desirable to them, but eating it corrupted their hearts. They sought to pursue knowledge in a way that left God out of the picture (asserting radical egocentricity and autonomy). They were naively blind to the ways their distorted desires were corrupting their pursuit of ‘the truth’. They sought not simply to know and love the truth, but to BE the truth for themselves. And they were deceived into doubting the goodness and benevolence of God."

Then, the message continues with the citation of Colossians 1:21.

Share

On February 24th, I will be installed as the Alister E. McGrath Chair of Christian Thought and Spirituality at Tyndale!

Click here to read more about the event and the Chair position.

Read more

I recently saw the following statement posted on Facebook.

Is this true? Is orthopraxy (right or just practice/actio…

Read more

Share

“You should do a doctorate.”

I logged off the zoom call with my seminary professor and sat very still. That call had begun with me apologizing because it was my very first class; I …

Read more

I began attending church on a regular basis in my late 20’s. When I found myself sitting in a local church on a Sunday morning, I didn’t fully understand denominations or the difference between Mainline and Evangelical, and I’d certainly never heard the words complementarian or egalitarian. I just knew I wanted the Jesus that the Pastor was talking abou…

Read more

Share

Please Click Here to Read the post on The Junia Pr…

Read more

Share

1 Peter 3:1-7 is another text that is sometimes used to support a complementarian position. The passage does not speak directly about women in ministry or lead…

Read more

This post was published originally on my blog, then revised slightly and re-published on The Junia Project website. I’m sharing it from the latter source.

Please CLICK HERE to read the post (the click takes you to The Junia Project post).

Share

Read more

This post was published on the Junia Project website.

Please CLICK HERE to read the post!

Share

Read more

Share

The more difficult questions are: Does one’s interpretive …

Read more

Share

My last two posts identified 10 examples of women serving in ministry and leadership positions in the Bible. The Spirit called these women to serve God through teaching, preaching, prophesying, encouraging, ministering or serving, leading, governing, and overseeing other leaders. I believe that these examples lend powerful support to the egalitarian pos…

Read more