So here it is, a month since my last post. I never wanted to be like this, but my life tipped into unsustainability. It's not getting better anytime soon, so I'd better post.
I wonder what tone of voice Jonah spoke in when he said, "I'm angry enough to die." This is actually quite an important question. It reveals his character, just as getting to know his character through the story reveals how he would speak this sentence. My two main thoughts for how he sounded are that he screamed this line or he deadpanned it.
If Jonah screamed, "I'm angry enough to die," I see two options. He was a petulant little girl. Or he was genuinely, utterly enraged.
If Jonah said matter-of-factly, "I'm angry enough to die," I see another three options. He was being melodramatic. He was being ironic. Or he grew up a manipulative shrew who was used to getting his own way if he spoke out of line. The latter would probably mean his mother was a hand-wringing pushover.
Whichever way we slice it, God wouldn't have it. I think God told Jonah, "You're on Candid Camera!" Or maybe he merely said, "There you are, an object lesson for all future generations. You happy now?"
In my opinion, Jonah was a whiny brat (see "melodramatic" above). I imagine the people in his hometown of Gath Hepher would have been relieved if Jonah had remained former, now digesting, fish bait. But somehow, God used this petty chump to draw repentance from an incredibly evil, powerful empire.
I truly hope that I am available for God's work, if for no other reason than to avoid being swallowed by a fish. I'm not a seafood guy.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Words
I wrote in my very first post on this blog that I like to get the meaning of words right. I like to quibble a bit to make sure that people are using the same lexicon. This ensures that misunderstandings are kept to a minimum.
However, I read through 1 and 2 Timothy today, and toward the end of each letter, Paul says not to quarrel over words. I understand that there were some sh'nanigans going on with false teachers trying to get believers to follow certain practices that didn't have a place in the assembly of Jesus. But I wonder what these quarrels over words were.
From 1 Timothy: "They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain" (all references TNIV).
From 2 Timothy: "Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen."
Again I ask: What are these words? Surely we need to be able to define our terms, especially when we're trying to figure out what a third party is saying.
However, I read through 1 and 2 Timothy today, and toward the end of each letter, Paul says not to quarrel over words. I understand that there were some sh'nanigans going on with false teachers trying to get believers to follow certain practices that didn't have a place in the assembly of Jesus. But I wonder what these quarrels over words were.
From 1 Timothy: "They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain" (all references TNIV).
From 2 Timothy: "Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen."
Again I ask: What are these words? Surely we need to be able to define our terms, especially when we're trying to figure out what a third party is saying.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Meditation
Read the following as a Scriptural meditation. Post a comment if you see anything awry.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our souls. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our souls. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Deity pronouns
Another odd obsession of mine is whether or not to capitalize pronouns referring to deity. I fall pretty firmly on the side of not doing so. The general reason is that historically no one has capitalized these pronouns, so why start now. In fact the early manuscripts of the New Testament had all capital letters with no spaces. How on earth will I know when Jesus does stuff?!
A second angle is similar to my dislike for red letter editions. These practices privilege words that were never meant to be privileged.
My latest reason came the other day as I was reading some unedited copy with pronouns referring to Jesus capitalized. I was struck with the strong sense that the capitalized pronouns were used almost as a name so that the antecedents didn't really need to be defined. If this is the case, then that simply points out authorial laziness.
We should never use specific words as an out so we can avoid good writing. (See "stuff" above.)
A second angle is similar to my dislike for red letter editions. These practices privilege words that were never meant to be privileged.
My latest reason came the other day as I was reading some unedited copy with pronouns referring to Jesus capitalized. I was struck with the strong sense that the capitalized pronouns were used almost as a name so that the antecedents didn't really need to be defined. If this is the case, then that simply points out authorial laziness.
We should never use specific words as an out so we can avoid good writing. (See "stuff" above.)
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Devotional promiscuity
In my years of obsession against versejacking, I've often heard and thought that the way we often do "devotions" can be pretty damaging. Freewheeling devotional thoughts on a verse or less does not constitute knowing the Bible or even getting to know it.
I had a conversation today where we were talking about jumping around from verse to verse in different books in the Bible. The positive aspect of Bible engagement is getting to know a story, loving it, and living it well (akin to Peterson's Eat This Book). We form a relationship with the story. However, if we skip blindly about, we commit the worst sort of relational damage. And perhaps that activity is best called "devotional promiscuity."
I had a conversation today where we were talking about jumping around from verse to verse in different books in the Bible. The positive aspect of Bible engagement is getting to know a story, loving it, and living it well (akin to Peterson's Eat This Book). We form a relationship with the story. However, if we skip blindly about, we commit the worst sort of relational damage. And perhaps that activity is best called "devotional promiscuity."
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Spirit?
It's not uncommon to be reminded in books, articles, or sermons that the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma share the semantic domains spirit, wind, and breath. It's funny to me that in English we have three different words to communicate something that only needed one in our "sacred" languages. (By that I mean the languages that bring us our sacred writings.)
I think the relative explosion of words in English to translate the single word from Hebrew or Greek hurts our understanding. The fact that translators try to parse whether the word means breath here and spirit there hurts our ability to see resonances that would have been obvious to the original readers.
Take for instance the idea that the Holy Spirit dwells in us. What if we looked back to Genesis and saw that God's creative act that made humans human was his breathing into our nostrils? How about translating Paul this way: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the holy breath, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" With that, you see that this Holy Spirit is what actually rehumanizes us. Naturally, there's the question of the pronouns that follow. I left them as "who," but in Greek they're neuter, as is pneuma. The translators moved from a pronoun that might more appropriately be translated "which" to "who" in order to personalize the holy pneuma. No doubt the Spirit is a person, but if you translate it as God's holy breath, it sounds awkward in English to say "who."
Think also of Jesus at the end of the gospel according to John. "With that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' " This is Jesus taking seriously his role in the creation process from the beginning of the gospel. Perhaps if he did this in America today, he would say, "Breathe the breath of God, which makes you truly human." He continues by saying that those he just breathed on are capable of dispensing forgiveness. The Pharisees questioned Jesus for doing that, but in a sense it is a capacity that resides in humans, especially because Jesus re-created those he breathed on.
Regardless, it's helpful to remember that wherever the Holy Spirit is referenced, it should remind us that humans were always intended to breathe God's breath. Perhaps it's the Holy Spirit that/who sets us apart from more apish living as in Francis Collin's fascinating anthropology expounded in his book, The Language of God.
I think the relative explosion of words in English to translate the single word from Hebrew or Greek hurts our understanding. The fact that translators try to parse whether the word means breath here and spirit there hurts our ability to see resonances that would have been obvious to the original readers.
Take for instance the idea that the Holy Spirit dwells in us. What if we looked back to Genesis and saw that God's creative act that made humans human was his breathing into our nostrils? How about translating Paul this way: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the holy breath, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" With that, you see that this Holy Spirit is what actually rehumanizes us. Naturally, there's the question of the pronouns that follow. I left them as "who," but in Greek they're neuter, as is pneuma. The translators moved from a pronoun that might more appropriately be translated "which" to "who" in order to personalize the holy pneuma. No doubt the Spirit is a person, but if you translate it as God's holy breath, it sounds awkward in English to say "who."
Think also of Jesus at the end of the gospel according to John. "With that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' " This is Jesus taking seriously his role in the creation process from the beginning of the gospel. Perhaps if he did this in America today, he would say, "Breathe the breath of God, which makes you truly human." He continues by saying that those he just breathed on are capable of dispensing forgiveness. The Pharisees questioned Jesus for doing that, but in a sense it is a capacity that resides in humans, especially because Jesus re-created those he breathed on.
Regardless, it's helpful to remember that wherever the Holy Spirit is referenced, it should remind us that humans were always intended to breathe God's breath. Perhaps it's the Holy Spirit that/who sets us apart from more apish living as in Francis Collin's fascinating anthropology expounded in his book, The Language of God.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Fun assumptions
Wow, it's been a while. I just ran across a fun quote in my Greek exercises.
[Therefore the Jews said to him,] "Now we know that you have a demon."
I'll be watching carefully for every opportunity to quote Scripture, let me tell you.
[Therefore the Jews said to him,] "Now we know that you have a demon."
I'll be watching carefully for every opportunity to quote Scripture, let me tell you.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The Bible and slavery
I took an American church history class last month, and I've had an idea percolating since then.
What if versejacking was the reason we had good Anglicans and Baptists and Methodists in the South saying that the Bible doesn't have a problem with slavery? They would grab a verse or two to show how slaves were a part of Jewish society in the First Testament, and they would use the verses from Paul to show that slaves are to submit to their masters. This wouldn't have been a monolithic perception. In the early 1800s, people would say that slavery was a necessary evil. By the mid-1800s, they were saying slavery was a positive moral good. American society had a covenant with God to be the best society. Whites were put at the top of the hierarchy to oversee a millennial kingdom of Christ. God in his sovereignty had ordained that Blacks were inferior to the Whites and therefore were slaves. All of this perception was wrapped up in Southern American civil religion. They were trying to maintain order (God-ordained order), while the Northern Progressives saw the millennial reign of Christ coming with the equality that the Declaration of Independence offered. Both sides used the Bible to prop up their cause. However, the Northerners saw in the scriptural metanarrative that all people are equal (okay, all men, not women). The Southerners saw order in a hierarchy brought about by versejacking.
Another interesting point is how religion was meted out to the slave populations. There was always a debate about how much religion slaves should be given. If they were taught to read the Bible, they would get uppity. If they were baptized or educated, the economy would lose the benefits of slaves, because they would start to demand equal rights. Southern slaveholders felt varying levels of compunction toward salvation for slaves. If they weren't human, they didn't need salvation. If they were inferior humans, they might need to get to heaven. They would be given enough religion to "save" them, but not enough to let them feel the egalitarian impulse in Paul: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (TNIV).
One thing the slaveholders never counted on was the fact that Judaism and the Christianity that sprang from it were primarily oral traditions. They kept the Bible and literacy from the slaves, but they didn't count on the narrative element of the faith energizing the slave populations. The slaves were able to tell the story of the exodus as their own story, looking toward heaven as the promised land. It doesn't seem like they held much hope for deliverance in this world. Ironically, the slaveowners held that they were the new Israel in the promised land subjugating the Canaanites and bringing about the reign of Christ. The slaves believed they were Israel waiting to be brought into the promised land and delivered from the tyranny of the Egyptians. America had two groups of people, both claiming to be the same group, one mature, one nascent. The slaves could look at the owners and say, "There's no way they're Israel." The owners didn't really think much about the slaves as long as they kept working, but even if they did. they probably didn't see the slaves grasping the narrative of Israel as their own.
It's very intriguing to me that this historical snapshot shows how different groups used the Bible so differently. And in the justice of history, the group that used the Bible badly had no concept that their slaves were gaining hope from the same Bible. Further, it appears to me that those with literacy and the written word emasculated the storied context of the Bible. The uneducated grasped the story. The story ended up winning (with help from some people who also seemed to grasp a larger story in the Bible, although they did their share of versejacking).
What if versejacking was the reason we had good Anglicans and Baptists and Methodists in the South saying that the Bible doesn't have a problem with slavery? They would grab a verse or two to show how slaves were a part of Jewish society in the First Testament, and they would use the verses from Paul to show that slaves are to submit to their masters. This wouldn't have been a monolithic perception. In the early 1800s, people would say that slavery was a necessary evil. By the mid-1800s, they were saying slavery was a positive moral good. American society had a covenant with God to be the best society. Whites were put at the top of the hierarchy to oversee a millennial kingdom of Christ. God in his sovereignty had ordained that Blacks were inferior to the Whites and therefore were slaves. All of this perception was wrapped up in Southern American civil religion. They were trying to maintain order (God-ordained order), while the Northern Progressives saw the millennial reign of Christ coming with the equality that the Declaration of Independence offered. Both sides used the Bible to prop up their cause. However, the Northerners saw in the scriptural metanarrative that all people are equal (okay, all men, not women). The Southerners saw order in a hierarchy brought about by versejacking.
Another interesting point is how religion was meted out to the slave populations. There was always a debate about how much religion slaves should be given. If they were taught to read the Bible, they would get uppity. If they were baptized or educated, the economy would lose the benefits of slaves, because they would start to demand equal rights. Southern slaveholders felt varying levels of compunction toward salvation for slaves. If they weren't human, they didn't need salvation. If they were inferior humans, they might need to get to heaven. They would be given enough religion to "save" them, but not enough to let them feel the egalitarian impulse in Paul: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (TNIV).
One thing the slaveholders never counted on was the fact that Judaism and the Christianity that sprang from it were primarily oral traditions. They kept the Bible and literacy from the slaves, but they didn't count on the narrative element of the faith energizing the slave populations. The slaves were able to tell the story of the exodus as their own story, looking toward heaven as the promised land. It doesn't seem like they held much hope for deliverance in this world. Ironically, the slaveowners held that they were the new Israel in the promised land subjugating the Canaanites and bringing about the reign of Christ. The slaves believed they were Israel waiting to be brought into the promised land and delivered from the tyranny of the Egyptians. America had two groups of people, both claiming to be the same group, one mature, one nascent. The slaves could look at the owners and say, "There's no way they're Israel." The owners didn't really think much about the slaves as long as they kept working, but even if they did. they probably didn't see the slaves grasping the narrative of Israel as their own.
It's very intriguing to me that this historical snapshot shows how different groups used the Bible so differently. And in the justice of history, the group that used the Bible badly had no concept that their slaves were gaining hope from the same Bible. Further, it appears to me that those with literacy and the written word emasculated the storied context of the Bible. The uneducated grasped the story. The story ended up winning (with help from some people who also seemed to grasp a larger story in the Bible, although they did their share of versejacking).
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Mutiny
Today, a roll of paper towels was my muse as I . . . mused.
I wonder if the biblical "deceitfulness of riches" might be better expressed as the "mutiny of the bounty."
I wonder if the biblical "deceitfulness of riches" might be better expressed as the "mutiny of the bounty."
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Evangelical gospel
I was just talking to a co-worker about the previous blog post and how sad I get when people talk about the great news of going to heaven when they die—forever. It's good news that we're in God's presence after we die, sure. But if we look forward to the resurrection, and live anticipatorally today, the good news that Jesus preached makes sense: captives are set free, the poor are fed and the oppressed are liberated. All creation will be liberated from sin permanently at the resurrection.
When I hear "Christians" damning the creation to fire as if it is a bad thing, they haven't read enough. And I mean they ignored the next sentence. What people know as 2 Peter 3:10–12 says: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat." It's an awesome and fearsome thing to read those sentences. But we evidently get lost in the awe, because we completely ignore the next sentence: "But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells." Can it be more clear? This righteousness that Peter is referring to is the good news: liberation and plenty for all. Hebrew righteousness has everything to do with equality and justice and almost nothing to do with the Roman idea of the gavel falling condemning a prisoner to a sentence.
Of late, I've taken to calling what Evangelicals preach the "evangelical gospel." I have felt that it defines things well enough, and distances the Scripture from that heresy sufficiently. But I just realized that if you translate the roots of "evangelical gospel," you get "good newsical good news." That's an injustice at the very least, since it gives too much credence to the "goodness" of that news. At other times I speak of "kakangelion," the opposite of "euangelion." Maybe I need to stick with that.
When I hear "Christians" damning the creation to fire as if it is a bad thing, they haven't read enough. And I mean they ignored the next sentence. What people know as 2 Peter 3:10–12 says: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat." It's an awesome and fearsome thing to read those sentences. But we evidently get lost in the awe, because we completely ignore the next sentence: "But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells." Can it be more clear? This righteousness that Peter is referring to is the good news: liberation and plenty for all. Hebrew righteousness has everything to do with equality and justice and almost nothing to do with the Roman idea of the gavel falling condemning a prisoner to a sentence.
Of late, I've taken to calling what Evangelicals preach the "evangelical gospel." I have felt that it defines things well enough, and distances the Scripture from that heresy sufficiently. But I just realized that if you translate the roots of "evangelical gospel," you get "good newsical good news." That's an injustice at the very least, since it gives too much credence to the "goodness" of that news. At other times I speak of "kakangelion," the opposite of "euangelion." Maybe I need to stick with that.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Food for thought (perhaps literally)
I'm reading The Crucified God by Jürgen Moltmann for my SysTheo class, and I read a particularly thought-inspiring (partial) paragraph.
"The cultic division between the religious and the profane is potentially abolished in faith in the Christ who was profaned by crucifixion. Thus the eucharist, like the meals held by Jesus with 'sinners and publicans', must also be celebrated with the unrighteous, those who have no rights and the godless from the 'highways and hedges' of society, in all their profanity, and should no longer be limited, as a religious sacrifice, to the inner circle of the devout, to those who are members of the same denomination. The Christian church can re-introduce the divisions between the religious and the profane and between those who are within and those who are without, only at the price of losing its own identity as the church of the crucified Christ" (44).
He takes my eucharistic conviction a step further, to a place I had wondered about, but hadn't dared go. The step before this, which is where I am currently, is that the Lord's Table was always meant to be a potluck, not some solemn religious ceremony where trays are passed with wafers and grape juice. Even the Anglican (and others') model of going up to a rail, while better, doesn't get to the idea of table fellowship.
Compared to Moltmann, my eucharistic model was the Last Supper, where it seems to be an intimate group of Jesus' followers. On the other hand, God's point through the sacrificial system was to dine with his beloved humans estranged as they were. What's to say that the Lord's Table isn't meant to be block parties? Some will object that Communion is a sacred celebration. "Can't have the riffraff defile the Lord's Table." By that standard, I don't think Jesus did a sacred thing his entire life. Conversely, as Rob Bell stated in the title of his speaking tour two years ago, "everything is spiritual." Perhaps the first step is figuring out Jesus' view of sacred v. profane. Then a rethinking of the eucharist. Anybody up for that?
How about non-Christians at the Eucharist?
"The cultic division between the religious and the profane is potentially abolished in faith in the Christ who was profaned by crucifixion. Thus the eucharist, like the meals held by Jesus with 'sinners and publicans', must also be celebrated with the unrighteous, those who have no rights and the godless from the 'highways and hedges' of society, in all their profanity, and should no longer be limited, as a religious sacrifice, to the inner circle of the devout, to those who are members of the same denomination. The Christian church can re-introduce the divisions between the religious and the profane and between those who are within and those who are without, only at the price of losing its own identity as the church of the crucified Christ" (44).
He takes my eucharistic conviction a step further, to a place I had wondered about, but hadn't dared go. The step before this, which is where I am currently, is that the Lord's Table was always meant to be a potluck, not some solemn religious ceremony where trays are passed with wafers and grape juice. Even the Anglican (and others') model of going up to a rail, while better, doesn't get to the idea of table fellowship.
Compared to Moltmann, my eucharistic model was the Last Supper, where it seems to be an intimate group of Jesus' followers. On the other hand, God's point through the sacrificial system was to dine with his beloved humans estranged as they were. What's to say that the Lord's Table isn't meant to be block parties? Some will object that Communion is a sacred celebration. "Can't have the riffraff defile the Lord's Table." By that standard, I don't think Jesus did a sacred thing his entire life. Conversely, as Rob Bell stated in the title of his speaking tour two years ago, "everything is spiritual." Perhaps the first step is figuring out Jesus' view of sacred v. profane. Then a rethinking of the eucharist. Anybody up for that?
How about non-Christians at the Eucharist?
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Universalism revisited
In a couple of previous posts, I queried whether God's grace might be so overpowering as to redeem the entire creation—Hitlers, Stalins and Amins included. In a Systematic Theology lecture I listened to today, I found a rather illuminating outline point in the notes. "God's love is universal, Christ's act is universal, and the atonement is universal, but some resist this love. That is the mystery of sin and evil."
I still won't discount the pleasant thought of God redeeming everyone, but this helped me to make sense of that austere nagging in the back of my mind, saying, "There's no way everybody gets in." (Not that nagging in my broken mind is the source of truth or anything.) It seems to me that God isn't stopping anybody from "getting in." Perhaps it's our hardness of heart rejecting God.
That opens a whole new can of worms about how free we really are. The professor of this course said early on that "the Bible has no place for free will." He laughed a bit and said, "Maybe I'll have the TA explain that to you later." He sounded dead serious, but I have a really (really) hard time believing that.
No mysteries will be solved at this hour, I'm sure. I've got a bit more reading to do, then off to bed!
I still won't discount the pleasant thought of God redeeming everyone, but this helped me to make sense of that austere nagging in the back of my mind, saying, "There's no way everybody gets in." (Not that nagging in my broken mind is the source of truth or anything.) It seems to me that God isn't stopping anybody from "getting in." Perhaps it's our hardness of heart rejecting God.
That opens a whole new can of worms about how free we really are. The professor of this course said early on that "the Bible has no place for free will." He laughed a bit and said, "Maybe I'll have the TA explain that to you later." He sounded dead serious, but I have a really (really) hard time believing that.
No mysteries will be solved at this hour, I'm sure. I've got a bit more reading to do, then off to bed!
Monday, July 7, 2008
The only way
This post is pretty important to me in that it has consumed my thoughts a quite a bit of late. However, I'm listening to Weezer's Red Album for the first time, and it's pretty catchy at the moment. I don't have the discipline to quit one or the other of these two activities, so who knows how this post'll turn out.
I read recently (regretfully, I can't recall where) that a Barna-esque poll found that 67% of Evangelicals don't think that Jesus is the only way to heaven, including President Bush. (Not that I look to politicians to be theologians, or even Christians, but that fact was part of the point of the article.) For all I know, Bush could have been giving homage to the most important religion to a president, that is, America. The hallmarks of this religion include vague references to God, but always affirming self, capitalism and inclusivity.
I've posted some wonderings about universalism of late. I'm coming more to the conclusion that universalism is an open question, but that any salvation is definitely only through Jesus. Usually when someone affirms Jesus is the only way, that indicates they are extremely conservative, say-the-prayer-or-else type of folk. But in my christology studies, I'm seeing the broad effectiveness of Jesus's life, sacrifice and resurrection. I'm also seeing anew the Father's extravagant grace (which is a significant understatement). It would be scandalous for a person to be as open and gracious as God is, let alone for a deity. For the righteousness, justice and holiness that are ascribed to (and surely true of) God, he sure behaves irresponsibly. I have a feeling that non-Christians don't know of this, and Christians aren't willing to tell. We've reverse engineered the image of God onto himself from our own twisted reflection of him.
What if God really wanted to redeem everyone (including the rightly infamous Hitlers, Stalins and Amins)? If we attribute infinite power, glory, grace, etc. to God, wouldn't that be his prerogative? Particularly if we engage the big story of the Bible, we will begin to see how insane God's graciousness appears. If we continue with our systematic denuding the Bible of its message by picking sentences that we think fit our picture of God the best, we will continue to create our god in our own image.
We've made up a lot of stuff about how the righteous people before the time of Jesus were looking forward to him as the means of their salvation. That's mostly a crock. They trusted in the Creator God, firstly, and if they were privy to the revelation, they trusted in the Covenant God. But there were people who got that people are meant to love and serve one another. I would say that this is a result of revelation as well. Regardless, God will be faithful to his faithful, whether they name Jesus or not. This idea stops short of universalism, but it's still good to muse about. If, in fact, people who haven't heard of Jesus are "in," what does that mean for missions? Shouldn't this fact just make us lazy? No, I would contend that the more understanding we have, the better off we are; the less understanding, the less we are able to live as fully human.
TF Torrance posits in his book/lecture series "The Mediation of Christ" that Jesus reveals God to humanity and reconciles humanity to God (and God to humanity). These twin functions of revelation and reconciliation are held together in Jesus as the nexus of deity and humanity. Jesus bore all our struggles as the new Adam, meaning all the temptation that fallen humanity has given in to over the generations, he bore in himself. As the new creation, Jesus has emptied temptation and sin and death of its power. But he is also God who is showing his creation how to live. If God chose to have all the horrors done to Jesus, and his response to them, be sufficient to show humanity in its entirety how to live in the new, restored creation, I guess I'd be content with that.
All that to say, Jesus is the only way of reconciliation to God. Whether that means only the people who say some pagan incantation (sinner's prayer) get to heaven forever when they die, or whether that means that God is hopelessly enamored with every one of the people he has created, even though we continually, actively attempt to destroy his creation, and that he wants to restore his creation and his humans so that they can dwell forever in the new creation serving him, I'm not really sure. I would lean my inklings toward the latter in that false dichotomy.
I read recently (regretfully, I can't recall where) that a Barna-esque poll found that 67% of Evangelicals don't think that Jesus is the only way to heaven, including President Bush. (Not that I look to politicians to be theologians, or even Christians, but that fact was part of the point of the article.) For all I know, Bush could have been giving homage to the most important religion to a president, that is, America. The hallmarks of this religion include vague references to God, but always affirming self, capitalism and inclusivity.
I've posted some wonderings about universalism of late. I'm coming more to the conclusion that universalism is an open question, but that any salvation is definitely only through Jesus. Usually when someone affirms Jesus is the only way, that indicates they are extremely conservative, say-the-prayer-or-else type of folk. But in my christology studies, I'm seeing the broad effectiveness of Jesus's life, sacrifice and resurrection. I'm also seeing anew the Father's extravagant grace (which is a significant understatement). It would be scandalous for a person to be as open and gracious as God is, let alone for a deity. For the righteousness, justice and holiness that are ascribed to (and surely true of) God, he sure behaves irresponsibly. I have a feeling that non-Christians don't know of this, and Christians aren't willing to tell. We've reverse engineered the image of God onto himself from our own twisted reflection of him.
What if God really wanted to redeem everyone (including the rightly infamous Hitlers, Stalins and Amins)? If we attribute infinite power, glory, grace, etc. to God, wouldn't that be his prerogative? Particularly if we engage the big story of the Bible, we will begin to see how insane God's graciousness appears. If we continue with our systematic denuding the Bible of its message by picking sentences that we think fit our picture of God the best, we will continue to create our god in our own image.
We've made up a lot of stuff about how the righteous people before the time of Jesus were looking forward to him as the means of their salvation. That's mostly a crock. They trusted in the Creator God, firstly, and if they were privy to the revelation, they trusted in the Covenant God. But there were people who got that people are meant to love and serve one another. I would say that this is a result of revelation as well. Regardless, God will be faithful to his faithful, whether they name Jesus or not. This idea stops short of universalism, but it's still good to muse about. If, in fact, people who haven't heard of Jesus are "in," what does that mean for missions? Shouldn't this fact just make us lazy? No, I would contend that the more understanding we have, the better off we are; the less understanding, the less we are able to live as fully human.
TF Torrance posits in his book/lecture series "The Mediation of Christ" that Jesus reveals God to humanity and reconciles humanity to God (and God to humanity). These twin functions of revelation and reconciliation are held together in Jesus as the nexus of deity and humanity. Jesus bore all our struggles as the new Adam, meaning all the temptation that fallen humanity has given in to over the generations, he bore in himself. As the new creation, Jesus has emptied temptation and sin and death of its power. But he is also God who is showing his creation how to live. If God chose to have all the horrors done to Jesus, and his response to them, be sufficient to show humanity in its entirety how to live in the new, restored creation, I guess I'd be content with that.
All that to say, Jesus is the only way of reconciliation to God. Whether that means only the people who say some pagan incantation (sinner's prayer) get to heaven forever when they die, or whether that means that God is hopelessly enamored with every one of the people he has created, even though we continually, actively attempt to destroy his creation, and that he wants to restore his creation and his humans so that they can dwell forever in the new creation serving him, I'm not really sure. I would lean my inklings toward the latter in that false dichotomy.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Dobson v. Obama: The cage match
I guess the cage match is more of a foil that I always fantasize about. And in this case, it runs directly counter to what I'm talking about. Perhaps you heard in the news that James Dobson, erstwhile president, but still very actively in control of Focus on the Family, condemned Barack Obama's twisting of Scripture. In one of the greatest cases of "does he realize his mouth is talking without him thinking (again)?", Dr. Dobson said, "He's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology." I'm not terribly careful about saying that about other people, but when I say it, at least I realize that I'm exactly as subject to that judgment as the person I'm talking about.
The distortion in question has to do with Obama's statement that "said Leviticus suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination. Obama also cited Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, 'a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application' " (from Yahoo! News). I love that Obama is probably the first presidential candidate in history that has noted that Jesus wouldn't christen (as it were) our Defense Department. I don't know how Obama handles the other passages hermeneutically (I haven't taken the time to chase that down yet), but this is the first time in my memory someone so public has called into question the infallible doctrine of American self-preservation.
I'm reading God So Loved the World: A Christology for Disciples by Jonathan R. Wilson. He puts in book form many of the things I have suspected for a while, related to whether the church/humanity gets to kill each other to get our own way. To wit, "Jesus Christ overcomes the world in his death by refusing the lies of the world and remaining obedient to the Father. When he was facing death, Jesus could have followed the way of the world and used his power to destroy his enemies; he could have played by the rules of the world's system of justice to avoid a guilty verdict. But he remained faithful to God, giving up his life in the world for life in the kingdom" (p 180). It's worth noting that Wilson is an anti-dualist; his use of "world" here isn't about "earth," but about the anti-kingdom world system. Another delightful little phrase from Wilson: "Christ's followers are misfits. But that is a blessing, because to be fit for the world is to be fit for death" (p 167).
Why is it that "Christian" "leaders" are so often pro-militarism? Why do they snuggle up in so many other ways to the world's rules? It's as if they say, "In order to expand my influence, I need to say things that will feel agreeable to my public." I'm not sure Dr. Dobson actively says that, but it sure seems like it. He gets in people's faces about raising their kids, but they flock to him. Why doesn't he get in people's faces about how killing people in the interest of or the defense of a nation plays exactly by the rules of the creation-destroying world system? Because he doesn't want to lose his audience? Because he doesn't understand his Bible? Because "he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology"? I'm just askin's all.
The distortion in question has to do with Obama's statement that "said Leviticus suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination. Obama also cited Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, 'a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application' " (from Yahoo! News). I love that Obama is probably the first presidential candidate in history that has noted that Jesus wouldn't christen (as it were) our Defense Department. I don't know how Obama handles the other passages hermeneutically (I haven't taken the time to chase that down yet), but this is the first time in my memory someone so public has called into question the infallible doctrine of American self-preservation.
I'm reading God So Loved the World: A Christology for Disciples by Jonathan R. Wilson. He puts in book form many of the things I have suspected for a while, related to whether the church/humanity gets to kill each other to get our own way. To wit, "Jesus Christ overcomes the world in his death by refusing the lies of the world and remaining obedient to the Father. When he was facing death, Jesus could have followed the way of the world and used his power to destroy his enemies; he could have played by the rules of the world's system of justice to avoid a guilty verdict. But he remained faithful to God, giving up his life in the world for life in the kingdom" (p 180). It's worth noting that Wilson is an anti-dualist; his use of "world" here isn't about "earth," but about the anti-kingdom world system. Another delightful little phrase from Wilson: "Christ's followers are misfits. But that is a blessing, because to be fit for the world is to be fit for death" (p 167).
Why is it that "Christian" "leaders" are so often pro-militarism? Why do they snuggle up in so many other ways to the world's rules? It's as if they say, "In order to expand my influence, I need to say things that will feel agreeable to my public." I'm not sure Dr. Dobson actively says that, but it sure seems like it. He gets in people's faces about raising their kids, but they flock to him. Why doesn't he get in people's faces about how killing people in the interest of or the defense of a nation plays exactly by the rules of the creation-destroying world system? Because he doesn't want to lose his audience? Because he doesn't understand his Bible? Because "he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology"? I'm just askin's all.
Monday, June 23, 2008
The ground of evil
My head is swimming with a few thoughts from my SysTheo lectures. (I never dreamed I would say that, disliking my previous Systematics experience so much.)
One incidental idea dealing with the topic is the fact that when Adam and Eve sinned, they didn't become sinners; they died. While "sinner" is a theological category with some merit, given that the word is used in the Scriptures, I'm wondering if it has become a useless word. The fundamentalist leanings of our society created a backlash against the word, and now it is in such disfavor among the culture we are trying to reach that I think we should drop it. I would characterize its use as nitpecking. Nitpicking would be a bit more genteel and productive, even though it's annoying. The church has tended to behave like a woodpecker on the heads of so many unsuspecting "sinners." If we addressed sin and evil at its root, it would be immensely more helpful (and threatening, too, because then our own sinful hearts would be revealed). Maybe in a generation or two "sinner" can become a useful word again.
The major thought from the class that struck me is that the reason Israel has had such a rough go of it throughout history is because she is in intimate relationship with the holy Creator God. (There's a side point where they suffer vicariously for the rest of humanity, which is fascinating, but not the point here.) If Israel had been left to herself, she would have gone on like the other nations, moderately evil, but appearing mostly good. However, God came near, and as he placed covenant demands on her, they kept trying to throw off the yoke. "Leave us alone! Weren't we better off back in Egypt anyway?" The amazing part of all this is, God still relentlessly pursued Israel. She kept trying to get away, but God rode the spiral all the way down with her. Only at her death did resurrection become an option.
The reason this rocked my world is I see this pattern in my own life. I always wondered why despite being married to my wonderful wife, my eyes still wander/wonder after other women. I think this is exactly the reason. Before I was covenanted with God and Susan, I was moderately evil, but appearing mostly good. There was no real reason to be concerned about appreciating an attractive woman (physical or otherwise). Wasn't that, after all, the way I knew who I wanted to ask on a date? But now in the holiness of our marriage, my heart is being revealed as deceitful and beyond cure. (Is this a surprise? I think Jeremiah called it. I've just never been willing to admit it.) This is the beauty of marriage, fallen though we are, that God uses it to sanctify us. Paul had that odd note in 1 Corinthians that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified through the believing spouse. For those who let it happen, marriage will reveal their wickedness and drive them to the Creator for reconciliation.
One incidental idea dealing with the topic is the fact that when Adam and Eve sinned, they didn't become sinners; they died. While "sinner" is a theological category with some merit, given that the word is used in the Scriptures, I'm wondering if it has become a useless word. The fundamentalist leanings of our society created a backlash against the word, and now it is in such disfavor among the culture we are trying to reach that I think we should drop it. I would characterize its use as nitpecking. Nitpicking would be a bit more genteel and productive, even though it's annoying. The church has tended to behave like a woodpecker on the heads of so many unsuspecting "sinners." If we addressed sin and evil at its root, it would be immensely more helpful (and threatening, too, because then our own sinful hearts would be revealed). Maybe in a generation or two "sinner" can become a useful word again.
The major thought from the class that struck me is that the reason Israel has had such a rough go of it throughout history is because she is in intimate relationship with the holy Creator God. (There's a side point where they suffer vicariously for the rest of humanity, which is fascinating, but not the point here.) If Israel had been left to herself, she would have gone on like the other nations, moderately evil, but appearing mostly good. However, God came near, and as he placed covenant demands on her, they kept trying to throw off the yoke. "Leave us alone! Weren't we better off back in Egypt anyway?" The amazing part of all this is, God still relentlessly pursued Israel. She kept trying to get away, but God rode the spiral all the way down with her. Only at her death did resurrection become an option.
The reason this rocked my world is I see this pattern in my own life. I always wondered why despite being married to my wonderful wife, my eyes still wander/wonder after other women. I think this is exactly the reason. Before I was covenanted with God and Susan, I was moderately evil, but appearing mostly good. There was no real reason to be concerned about appreciating an attractive woman (physical or otherwise). Wasn't that, after all, the way I knew who I wanted to ask on a date? But now in the holiness of our marriage, my heart is being revealed as deceitful and beyond cure. (Is this a surprise? I think Jeremiah called it. I've just never been willing to admit it.) This is the beauty of marriage, fallen though we are, that God uses it to sanctify us. Paul had that odd note in 1 Corinthians that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified through the believing spouse. For those who let it happen, marriage will reveal their wickedness and drive them to the Creator for reconciliation.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Apology
My first book for Sys Theo 2 is "Jesus Christ Our Lord: Christology from a Disciple's Perspective" by C. Norman Kraus. I ran across an amazing paragraph about apologetics:
"Of course apologetic theology has a valid and important work to do, but we should not expect too much from it. The apologist seeks to establish a position on the presuppositions of the opponent or to show why these presuppositions are wrong. Such an approach naturally leads to minimal rather then maximal statements. These minimal statements have value in defense of the Christian belief system, but they are hardly adequate to nurture and guide the full life of the church" (33).
My experience with apologetics has been pretty negative. I don't like the tone. I appreciate hearing a confession of its limitations from a theologian.
"Of course apologetic theology has a valid and important work to do, but we should not expect too much from it. The apologist seeks to establish a position on the presuppositions of the opponent or to show why these presuppositions are wrong. Such an approach naturally leads to minimal rather then maximal statements. These minimal statements have value in defense of the Christian belief system, but they are hardly adequate to nurture and guide the full life of the church" (33).
My experience with apologetics has been pretty negative. I don't like the tone. I appreciate hearing a confession of its limitations from a theologian.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Word games
We had a meeting the other day where we talked about how the modern church has used numbers (i.e., chapters and verses) to help quantify the Bible. We've turned the Bible's different genres into one: proverbs. This allows us to quote with certainty some snippet from the Bible, ignoring its true point(s). My boss noted that this was a Cartesian use of the Bible. Definite certainty, no open questions, [sing along] I've got the whole world . . . in my hands, I've got the whole world [stop singing]. My verbal mind started playing with the word "Cartesian." [No, really, I meant it, stop singing!] So I noted, probably to the group's chagrin, that the Cartesian approach to Scripture is opposed to the courtesan approach, where storytelling would happen before the king by jesters or bards. No doubt, kings needed certainty, but before the 1500s, they didn't rely on Enlightenment Rationalism to tell them how to think. They were comfortable with the ambiguity of a story, where good guys could be a little bad and vice versa. [Ha! The song's stuck in your head! I'm not sorry!] This courtesan approach is much more true to life and the world than a Cartesian approach. There's room for empirical data, but when we approach life, the world and the Bible from an empirical mindset, we're guaranteed to screw it up. How do you approach the Bible? As a Cartesian or a courtesan?
Friday, May 23, 2008
Wacky Reformation universalism
I ran across this quote from Sebastian Franck, a Reformation era Spiritualist, that sounds like something CS Lewis might have said: "I have my brothers among the Turks, Papists, Jews and all peoples. Not that they are Turks, Jews, Papists and Sectaries or will remain so; in the evening they will be called into the vineyard and given the same wage as we."
I'm not a fan of the small amount of Spiritualist writing I've read, but gosh, this is a smart observation. From memory of the "overly kind" employer story, I think this is a pretty fair application. I don't even think I would categorize it as a versejack. More food for thought.
I'm not a fan of the small amount of Spiritualist writing I've read, but gosh, this is a smart observation. From memory of the "overly kind" employer story, I think this is a pretty fair application. I don't even think I would categorize it as a versejack. More food for thought.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Zionism
My co-workers and I just wrapped up a study of Amos today. If you're looking for a great way to study a prophet, check this out. We talked about the closing lines which describe the Jewish return from exile. The question came up whether this referred to today or to the future. (I don't see "new wine dripping from the mountains" yet, so it must be future. . . . I'm aware of the silliness of begging that out of the metaphorical.) My old Dispensational Zionist tendencies would say, absolutely, there will come a time when the reconstituted Israel will have a sweet honey of a deal with immense productivity and peace on all sides (that is, the heel of their sandal boots on the throats of the Muslims all around them). Today that seems arbitrary to me, like God has a cosmic checklist he's using to clean up a mess created by his poor planning. "Why did I choose those Jews if all along I was going use these precocious Christians? I guess need do some funky maneuvering so I don't look like I'm abandoning them. They'll get earthly props for a bit before we get to the real action in heaven. Party goin' all eternity long! (Then I'll abandon them anyway.)" (As if we Christians were that precocious.)
Some people call the view that the Christians took the Jews' place "replacement theology," and they say it with a really derisive tone. My understanding of replacement theology is where we take a few words from the Bible and replace their intended meaning with another meaning. Which is what the anti-"replacement theology" folks do. (And that's not just relative to the Jewish position in God's program. We do it to the Bible all the time.)
The smack between the eyes that Dan brought up in our study was that we're ignoring the call of Amos (and the rest of the Bible) to take care of all of God's creation in humility and service by subjecting ourselves to an erroneous understanding of Scripture. There are congregations of Christians and governmental teams who devote vast amounts of time and money to oppressing the neighbors of the Jews because they think the Bible tells them to. Nothing could be further from Jesus's heart! Read the gospel of Matthew and see how every action of Jesus seems to reflect something from the life of Moses, David, Aaron, the prophets or Israel itself. Matthew shows Jesus to be the new Moses, the new David, the new Israel. Moses was in the wilderness for forty years; Jesus for forty days. Jesus gathered twelve new patriarchs around himself. Jesus was in the earth for three days as Jonah was inside the fish. Jesus led the creation in a new exodus. Everything Jesus did screams that he's the new Israel, the true Israel God always intended! Those who choose to follow Jesus are Abraham's children as Paul points out in Galatians, whether Jew or Gentile.
People who claim to be working to fulfill "prophecy" by helping political "Israel" to oppress their neighbors are directly controverting Jesus's commands. Surely, God has permitted this abominable diversion into the story for a reason. But I don't think it's part of God's "perfect will" such as that may be. The accuser of the saints, that ancient serpent, delights to see people who believe they are following Jesus turning their eyes away from his desire for love and service to militance and hate.
Some people call the view that the Christians took the Jews' place "replacement theology," and they say it with a really derisive tone. My understanding of replacement theology is where we take a few words from the Bible and replace their intended meaning with another meaning. Which is what the anti-"replacement theology" folks do. (And that's not just relative to the Jewish position in God's program. We do it to the Bible all the time.)
The smack between the eyes that Dan brought up in our study was that we're ignoring the call of Amos (and the rest of the Bible) to take care of all of God's creation in humility and service by subjecting ourselves to an erroneous understanding of Scripture. There are congregations of Christians and governmental teams who devote vast amounts of time and money to oppressing the neighbors of the Jews because they think the Bible tells them to. Nothing could be further from Jesus's heart! Read the gospel of Matthew and see how every action of Jesus seems to reflect something from the life of Moses, David, Aaron, the prophets or Israel itself. Matthew shows Jesus to be the new Moses, the new David, the new Israel. Moses was in the wilderness for forty years; Jesus for forty days. Jesus gathered twelve new patriarchs around himself. Jesus was in the earth for three days as Jonah was inside the fish. Jesus led the creation in a new exodus. Everything Jesus did screams that he's the new Israel, the true Israel God always intended! Those who choose to follow Jesus are Abraham's children as Paul points out in Galatians, whether Jew or Gentile.
People who claim to be working to fulfill "prophecy" by helping political "Israel" to oppress their neighbors are directly controverting Jesus's commands. Surely, God has permitted this abominable diversion into the story for a reason. But I don't think it's part of God's "perfect will" such as that may be. The accuser of the saints, that ancient serpent, delights to see people who believe they are following Jesus turning their eyes away from his desire for love and service to militance and hate.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Legacy
I attended the Urban Youth Workers' Institute conference last week(end). Good conference, but I was an exhibitor, so I didn't get to attend any workshops. (I was too distracted by the printer shipping the wrong books to place on everyone's chair.) So one of the best things about the conference was meeting new friends. I had great conversations with many people about the role of Scripture in their lives and evangelism.
The theme of the conference was "Legacy." An interesting thought emerged from this theme in one of the plenary sessions. Harvey Carey, a pastor from Detroit, spoke of legacy building on previous legacy. He called on the story of Elijah and Elisha as a example. Elisha asked for a double portion of Elijah's spirit, and seemingly carried Elijah's fantastic accomplishments to an even greater level. The question is, how does this impact us today? Carey pointed out that when we're talking about legacy, we speak of Martin Luther King, Jr. among others, usually people who did great things half a century ago. His challenge is to take King's mantle and do even greater things.
Carey also pointed out that Jesus told his disciples that they would do greater things than he. Where did that go? He took a jab at dispensationalism: "Are you telling me that my God can't do whatever he wants today?" I've been wondering about that a quite a bit lately. What's to say that this restoration of creation that Jesus started bringing about isn't supposed to continue today, e.g., healing of disease, etc.? I'm taking a systematic theology class at Fuller this summer that will address this, so I'm excited to explore this idea of healing further. Coming from my very conservative background, it surprises me to say this. But I'm feeling more and more that Christians need to look at what God is trying to accomplish in the world, and I don't think it's only Pietistic "heart change."
So whether legacy implies some filial or civic or spiritual significance, I think we should heed Carey's word and work through God's grace to bring the restoration of Jesus even more than those before us.
The theme of the conference was "Legacy." An interesting thought emerged from this theme in one of the plenary sessions. Harvey Carey, a pastor from Detroit, spoke of legacy building on previous legacy. He called on the story of Elijah and Elisha as a example. Elisha asked for a double portion of Elijah's spirit, and seemingly carried Elijah's fantastic accomplishments to an even greater level. The question is, how does this impact us today? Carey pointed out that when we're talking about legacy, we speak of Martin Luther King, Jr. among others, usually people who did great things half a century ago. His challenge is to take King's mantle and do even greater things.
Carey also pointed out that Jesus told his disciples that they would do greater things than he. Where did that go? He took a jab at dispensationalism: "Are you telling me that my God can't do whatever he wants today?" I've been wondering about that a quite a bit lately. What's to say that this restoration of creation that Jesus started bringing about isn't supposed to continue today, e.g., healing of disease, etc.? I'm taking a systematic theology class at Fuller this summer that will address this, so I'm excited to explore this idea of healing further. Coming from my very conservative background, it surprises me to say this. But I'm feeling more and more that Christians need to look at what God is trying to accomplish in the world, and I don't think it's only Pietistic "heart change."
So whether legacy implies some filial or civic or spiritual significance, I think we should heed Carey's word and work through God's grace to bring the restoration of Jesus even more than those before us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)