A
Refutation of John G. Lenhart’s Concept of “ModeleticsTM” and His
Resulting Theology
A Brief Summary and Refutation of John G. Lenhart’s Concept of “ModeleticsTM” and His Resulting
Theology Outlined in His Book “Modeling God.”
Exposing Lenhart’s Modeling Process. 6
1. Can
You Say “Dynamic” When It Comes to Language?. 7
2. Can
You Say “Dynamic” When It Comes to Defining and Relating to People?. 9
3. Isn’t
Our Theology Supposed to be Derived from the Scripture?. 11
4. Can
We Get Some Hermeneutics Into The Process!?. 13
5. Does
Lenhart Know that Theological Modeling Has a Direction?. 15
6. Is
Non-Contradiction Adequate to Determine Truth?. 17
A Summary of Why Lenhart’s Modeling
Process Is Inadequate. 18
A SUMMARY AND REFUTATION OF
LENHART’S THEOLOGY.. 19
Lenhart’s Teaching on Who God Is. 19
Lenhart’s Teaching on Jesus’ Nature. 21
Lenhart’s Teaching on Grace. 25
Lenhart’s Teaching on Salvation. 28
Is there a Moment at Which We Are
Saved?. 29
Are We Saved by God’s Righteousness
or Ours?. 30
Do We Need to Trust In Jesus to
Save Us?. 31
So How Are We Saved According to
Lenhart?. 32
A Summary of Lenhart’s Basic
Theology. 34
A Brief Summary and Refutation of John G. Lenhart’s Concept of “ModeleticsTM” and His Resulting
Theology Outlined in His Book “Modeling God.”
By Pastor Tim Snell
Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself,
who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel
comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. I
will say it again: If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you
welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person.
Galatians 1:8-9 NLT
In
his book “Modeling God,” John G Lenhart attempts to lay out a comprehensive
framework (he would use the word “model”) of who God is, who we are, and how we
are to relate to God. In essence,
he strives to present a comprehensive theology, or worldview, of God, salvation, and life - which he hopes will then guide the
reader toward more intentional relationship with God as Lenhart has outlined
for them.
From
reading this book it is quite obvious Lenhart is extremely intelligent. He uses his background in business and chemistry
to derive principles which then serve as the basic mechanisms for building the
theological model he presents. His
sharp mind and gift of deductive reasoning are quite impressive, and are on full
display throughout the book as he “models God” for the reader.
Unfortunately,
while Lenhart appears to have quite a sharp mind, it is obvious that his
knowledge is limited to a very narrow range of fields. The result of this limited knowledge is
a modeling process that is
fundamentally flawed, and a resulting theology that moves so far outside the bounds of the core of recognized
orthodox Christian teaching that it can be called nothing less than heretical.
Make
no mistake -- “Modeling God” is not just another “Christian” theological
paradigm akin to Covenant Theology, Dispensational Theology, Arminianism or
Calvinism. In the end, despite any
differences or errors in these various theological systems, they all
fundamentally tell the story of who God is, who man is, man’s sin and God’s
ultimate redemption of mankind through the work of Christ on the cross.
Lenhart’s
theological teaching not only doesn’t embody some of these key components of
orthodox Christian theology, it goes beyond this and fundamentally denies core
tenants of the Christian faith. Similar
to other “quasi-Christian” theological offerings such as Mormonism or ancient
Gnosticism, Lenhart’s theology presents a fundamentally different god than the
God of the Bible, and offers a completely non-Biblical theological perspective
for sin and God’s gift of salvation.
As such “Modeling God” must be placed outside the bounds of what is
considered fundamentally “Christian.”
Let
me briefly share, then expose and refute, both Lenhart’s modeling process and
his resulting theology.
In
his book, Lenhart lays out four “model building” principles which he uses to
build his theological framework. Since
these principles are foundational to the conclusions he reaches, it is important
we not only lay them out here, but also understand why Lenhart sees them as
important. Listen to what he says.
“We are
going to cover the four principles that make up the foundation for every
reasoning, interpretation, and logic tool that exists today…. I have called these principles
‘ModeleticsTM’ because we are applying these modeling tools in order
to determine the non-contradictory worldview. These are the same tools, however, used to solve problems
and increase understanding in every other field (science, psychology,
economics, etc.). The limitations
of every other reasoning tool can be corrected by these four principles.”[1]
Later
on he adds:
“We all
agree on what the Bible says, yet we still disagree. This is because we disagree on what the Bible means. The four principles of ModeleticsTM
will resolve every disagreement.”[2]
Please
understand! Lenhart believes the
modeling principles he articulates, (and no others) can lead us to a correct
theology. This assertion underlies
everything within Lenhart’s book and leads to many of his erroneous
conclusions. We’ll come back to
this a little later.
Lenhart
then begins to lay out for us these modeling principles which he believes are
the foundation for building a sound and Biblical theological model. Let’s look at each of these briefly in
turn.
1. The first principle Lenhart gives us is The
Principle of Non-Contradiction. This principle states that any accurate
theological model or framework must not be self-contradictory. For example, if one part of our
theology says that salvation is only by God’s grace, we can’t have another
aspect of our theology that says we can earn it through works.
Lenhart
illustrates the principle of non-contradiction this way:
“Contradictions
don’t exist; conflicts do. For
instance, I can be both happy and sad.
This is a conflict.
However, I cannot be both happy and not happy at all. This is a contradiction.”[3]
He then
goes on, explaining how he is going to use this principle in building his
model.
“We are
going to use the words in the Bible, but we are going to determine the
definitions according to their ability to be non-contradictory.”[4]
Basically
what Lenhart says here can be summarized in two sentences:
·
No theological premise
can be inherently contradictory with another theological premise and still be
true.
·
Lenhart will use the
principle of non-contradiction to determine definitions for key theological
words which would otherwise be contradictory with other Biblical concepts.
As
we’ll note, this principle is ultimately a principle of logic through which one
eliminates certain possibilities.
2. Lenhart then gives a second principle which he labels
The Principle of Growth. This principle states that God creates and intends for
us to grow to understand him. This
is why He reveals himself. When
combined with the principle of non-contradiction, Lenhart says that a person
who grows, welcomes any contradictions in his or her “model” because it exposes
a flaw, and invites them to grow and learn more.
3. The third principle is The Principle of Contrastive
Thinking. Contrastive thinking is the principle that exposes potential contradictions in a model or theological
framework. In other words, instead
of just looking for what might agree with me or support the conclusion, I look
to see if there is something that disproves it.
To
illustrate this principle, Lenhart uses the example of trying to convince
someone he drives a Corvette when he really drives a Camry. If he only lists the things that are
the same between a Corvette and a Camry, you would not readily know he wasn’t
being truthful. However, the first
time he tells you something that is different between a Corvette and a Camry, you would immediately
know his claim of driving a Corvette doesn’t work.
That is
how the principle of Contrastive Thinking works. It exposes internal contradictions within the framework of
the theological model.
4. Finally, Lenhart gives us The Principle of
Causality. This principle states that everything must have a
cause. In other words, if God acts
a certain way, there is a reason God acts this way. In this case, His very nature as God is the cause of His specific action. That is how the principle of causality works as it is
applied to building a theological model.
In
addition to the four principles he outlines for building his “God model,” there
are also three additional concepts he utilizes. While these concepts aren’t listed as “principles,” they are
key to understanding how Lenhart proceeds in building his theological
framework. These three concepts
are:
1. The Concept of “The Wall.” Lenhart
uses the concept of “the wall” to address how we gain perspective and see “the
big picture.” If I am studying one
aspect of the wall up close, I often will fail to see the big picture. But if I back up from the wall, I can
begin to see how each piece of the wall fits together.
Lenhart’s
goal in his book, of course, is to help you see the whole wall. Yes, he gets down to some of the detail
(we’ll get to some specific points of his theology later), but his larger goal
is to help you see the larger framework and outline within which all the other
pieces of the theological puzzle fit.
He believes (and to a large measure is correct) that if you get the
framework wrong, you will not get the relationship of the pieces right. What you will end with is a model full
of theological contradictions.
2. The Concept of “The Ladder of Abstraction.” Lenhart
uses this concept to speak to how we use human language in the development of
the theological model. Typically,
he says, we will use vague and general terms in speaking about our theological
model. This would be the top rung
on the ladder of abstraction. The
bottom rung would be where we have a very specific definition that is clearly
understood.
For
example, Lenhart uses the example of Bessie the cow. The most specific term is “Bessie.” That would be the lowest rung on the
ladder. On the rung above that
would be the word “cow.” I can
speak of a cow, and not be referring to Bessie. But when I am talking about my specific Bessie, it
definitely includes the notion of “cow.”
Continuing up the ladder, we would have the word “livestock,” then “farm
animals,” then “farm assets” and so on.
Each term becomes more abstract as we go up the ladder.
Lenhart
is correct when he points out that when we speak vaguely or abstractly, it
creates confusion. This is because
the person listening will understand our words to mean something other than
what we were intending. In the
development of a theological model, when we seek to remove contradictions, we
need to be speaking on the bottom rung of the ladder, as specifically as
possible.
3. The final concept is what I call The Concept of
“The Starting Point.” Now, these are my words. I am not sure Lenhart uses these
particular words to describe this concept. But it is a concept that is foundational to his model, and
one he uses in its development, so it is worth sharing.
Basically
the concept of “the starting point” says that where we start in building the
theological model matters. Put
slightly differently, how we set up our theological categories tends to
significantly impact the theological conclusions we reach.
For
example, if I start with the Sovereignty of God (a key starting point for
Calvinistic theology) I tend to interpret things such as the possibility of
human free will by whether it conflicts with that particular starting point. Conversely, if human free will is my
starting point, it will impact how I see the Sovereignty of God.
Lenhart
uses this same concept, believing that the correct starting points for
understanding God are God’s righteousness and His justice (which he seeks to
define very specifically). In the
end, he develops his entire model in relation to these two aspects of God’s
character, believing every other point of theology is properly derived only in relationship to these two starting points. Lenhart states:
“Let me
be clear about this; God has a lot of characteristics…. However, all of these characteristics
are a result of being righteous and just.
None of these characteristics outweigh righteousness and justice.”[5]
Please
bear with me here. It is
important, before we explore Lenhart’s theology, to understand the process by
which he arrives at his theology.
Lenhart’s process directly leads to the theology he articulates.
Only after examining the flaws in Lenhart’s process can we adequately
deal with the flaws in his theology.
The
problem with the process Lenhart uses to build his model is not in what he
knows, but in what he doesn’t know.
In fact, while his names for the principles and concepts above might be
unfamiliar, they are concepts and principles incorporated into the development
of all theological constructs and worldviews.
In
reality, all theological constructs seek to use “contrastive thinking” to
become “non-contradictory.” If
they didn’t, they would be internally inconsistent in key ways. For example, no theological model
that holds to God’s holiness and justice can also hold that God doesn’t have to
punish sin. Such a theological
construct would be internally inconsistent.
Lenhart
correctly understands these things.
So what he does is, he brings the principles he has learned in the
scientific world for building “models” (within which one can understand the
relationships between various truths about chemicals, atoms or molecules) and he
then applies them to building a theological model. Lenhart believes that by using these same principles, he can
also determine truths related to God.
These principles and concepts by and large, in my opinion, are not off
the mark.
What
is wrong, in my view, is not what Lenhart brings to the modeling process, but
by what he fails to bring. There are simply some key things he
doesn’t understand or know about, which he fails to bring to building a model
of theology. Furthermore, Lenhart misapplies his “model
building” principles. Although
these principles apply nicely to static and unchanging realities (such as chemicals,
elements or atoms) they do not apply so easily to dynamic realities (such as
language, concepts, and words) which can change over time, and from one context
of communication to the next.
Let
me outline the flaws of Lenhart’s modeling process below.
When
Lenhart brings his modeling process over from business and chemistry and begins
to apply it to theology, he makes a fundamental error. Things such as the properties of
elements are defined and contained within certain scientific laws. In other words, once we define them,
that definition will always fit.
Hydrogen today and hydrogen tomorrow will still be the same thing. It would be fair to say that such
things are static, at least in terms of their fundamental being. (This may not be true of how they
interact with other elements, but that is not germane to this discussion
– at least not quite yet.)
Such an
assumption is not true of language.
Language changes. It
changes over time. It has nuances
of meaning from situation to situation, from usage to usage, and from person to
person. This is especially true
when that language is referencing concepts vs. physical realities.
For
example, let’s imagine I say “I love my dog,” and then later that day I say, “I
love my wife.” Now, while both
times I use the word “love” in my sentence, and while there is perhaps some
commonality in that I have an affection for both my dog and my wife, that is
where the similarity ends. The
reality is that in many ways, even though I am using the same words, I am saying things about my relationship with my wife
which are not true of my relationship with my dog.
Here is
another example. Thirty years ago,
if I told you “I am gay,” you would have likely heard me say that I was happy. However, if I told you that same thing today, you would have
likely heard me say that I was
homosexual in my orientation. Now,
I use the same words. But language
is dynamic, not static, and as a result it changes over time and from one usage
to another.
Here is
where the problem comes in.
Lenhart apparently doesn’t understand there is an essential difference
between the nature of language and the nature of physical realities with which
he is accustomed to working, because he tries to do something with his “Ladder
of Abstraction” that simply doesn’t work when applied to how language is used. He tries to come up with a “one size
fits all definition” for key
theological words. In other words,
he assumes that what is meant by “grace” in one usage of it by Paul, is exactly
what is meant when Peter uses the word in a different context…or, what is
referenced by Paul when he speaks of “faith” in one context doesn’t have a
slightly different nuance of meaning when Paul uses that same word later, but
in an entirely different context. This
is an assumption one simply can’t make when it comes to the use of language.
The
meaning of words is not simply determined by the word itself, but also by the context,
tone, mood, voice, and other aspects of language that Lenhart is evidently not
familiar with.
The
result of this attempt to give “one size fits all” definitions to key
theological words is that he does one of two things very consistently throughout
his modeling process:
·
First, there are times
when he attempts to give us a definition of a word encompassing all uses of the word every time. The
problem is, in order to do that he must move UP the ladder of abstraction, not down.
Go back
to our illustration of the word “love.”
In order to have a definition which fits both my use of it in relation to my dog and my use of it
in relation to my wife, I’ll have to give a more general definition, not a more specific one. That is moving UP the ladder of
abstraction, not down.
Lenhart
is right when he says that in modeling, where one is trying to pare things down
very specifically, one must be sure he is using as tight a definition as
possible so that communication is clear.
We can’t have two people discussing something, using the same word and
meaning two different things. The
problem is, because he doesn’t understand how linguistics works, he constantly speaks
on the top rung of the ladder of abstraction, but thinks he is speaking on the bottom rung.
As a
result, his entire application of his other modeling principles (i.e.
contrastive thinking) for the purpose of logically identifying contradictions
becomes far too loose for the modeling process he is attempting to use.
·
On the other hand, there
are times Lenhart does exactly the opposite thing with his definitions. Instead of trying to encompass all usages of the word, he
does get down to a lower rung definition and gives a definition that is tight
– but it is tight only as it relates to certain uses of the word, not all the uses of the word.
Th