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.
Monday, July 7, 2008
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.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Prayer
Yes, today's topic is prayer, but first an awful pun that indicates my relationship to my classes. (They're going well, by the way, but I have to keep motivated.) The words "diligence" and "dilly-dally" popped into my head simultaneously. Thus, my struggle is determining whether I will practice diligence or dilly-dallygence. Since I'm typing on my blog right now instead of listening to a lecture, you know what's winning.
For the SysTheo class, I'm reading a book by the professor, Ray S. Anderson, called "Judas and Jesus." There's a great quote about prayer on page 51 that I've been chewing on for a couple of days: "Prayer is not a means of removing the unknown and unpredictable elements in life, but rather a way of including the unknown and unpredictable factors in the outworking of the grace of God in our lives."
For the SysTheo class, I'm reading a book by the professor, Ray S. Anderson, called "Judas and Jesus." There's a great quote about prayer on page 51 that I've been chewing on for a couple of days: "Prayer is not a means of removing the unknown and unpredictable elements in life, but rather a way of including the unknown and unpredictable factors in the outworking of the grace of God in our lives."
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.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The gospel of anything but the gospel
Yesterday at lunch we talked about political parties. My position is that a two-party system is lousy, because it creates potential polarity. We've done okay for a couple of hundred years, but now the polarity has become actual. "If we disagree, and I'm right, then that must make you . . . " If I label myself a Republican, then naturally all Democrats are wrong. (This is why I'm registered as an independent. We're all wrong someplace, but if we have to stick to a party platform, then suddenly my party is right and everyone else is wrong.)
In the biggest scheme, that may not be very consequential. What is consequential to me is the fact that Christians are attacking each other because the other belongs to another political party. Right now the Evangelical polarizers are abortion and gay marriage. Obviously, the Republicans are "against" that (or not), so the Republicans are godly and right. Which means the Democrats are evil. (I've heard this logic spoken in my workplace.) What would happen if we realized that the Republicans were pro-life for unborn babies, whereas the Democrats are pro-life for basically everyone else, including innocent Iraqis, American soldiers, the poor, etc.? If we had a single party that was consistently pro-life, I might become partisan.
However, I think I'll have to take my religious convictions and find the best middle way possible. I don't see a third party coming in to destabilize this inhuman behemoth that many have touted as the glorious Two-Party System. This leads me to my actual point, which is how Christians have sold out by making politics the important thing rather than engaging themselves as actors in the biblical story. I've started a class called "Reconciliation and the Healing of Persons," which is Systematic Theology 2 in a much more palatable form. I read a quote in one of the required books that answered the question at the lunch table yesterday: Shouldn't Christians take a stand for the appropriate party?
"I am concerned that the gap between theology and the church has become so great that most Christians actually know more about sports, hobbies, and national politics than they know about Christian doctrine. As a result, Christians often explain their faith in terms of their own experiences or political stances that they hold as Christians. They don’t know much about the gospel, and their knowledge of the gospel isn’t nearly as profound as their knowledge of other areas of life" (Jonathan R. Wilson, God So Loved the World, p 13).
We worry ourselves about many things, which are fine pursuits in themselves, but when sports or politics or some other gospel becomes the controlling metanarrative rather than the gospel of Jesus, I guarantee you'll end up with today's America.
In the biggest scheme, that may not be very consequential. What is consequential to me is the fact that Christians are attacking each other because the other belongs to another political party. Right now the Evangelical polarizers are abortion and gay marriage. Obviously, the Republicans are "against" that (or not), so the Republicans are godly and right. Which means the Democrats are evil. (I've heard this logic spoken in my workplace.) What would happen if we realized that the Republicans were pro-life for unborn babies, whereas the Democrats are pro-life for basically everyone else, including innocent Iraqis, American soldiers, the poor, etc.? If we had a single party that was consistently pro-life, I might become partisan.
However, I think I'll have to take my religious convictions and find the best middle way possible. I don't see a third party coming in to destabilize this inhuman behemoth that many have touted as the glorious Two-Party System. This leads me to my actual point, which is how Christians have sold out by making politics the important thing rather than engaging themselves as actors in the biblical story. I've started a class called "Reconciliation and the Healing of Persons," which is Systematic Theology 2 in a much more palatable form. I read a quote in one of the required books that answered the question at the lunch table yesterday: Shouldn't Christians take a stand for the appropriate party?
"I am concerned that the gap between theology and the church has become so great that most Christians actually know more about sports, hobbies, and national politics than they know about Christian doctrine. As a result, Christians often explain their faith in terms of their own experiences or political stances that they hold as Christians. They don’t know much about the gospel, and their knowledge of the gospel isn’t nearly as profound as their knowledge of other areas of life" (Jonathan R. Wilson, God So Loved the World, p 13).
We worry ourselves about many things, which are fine pursuits in themselves, but when sports or politics or some other gospel becomes the controlling metanarrative rather than the gospel of Jesus, I guarantee you'll end up with today's America.
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.
Discipline
I finished my Church History final on Friday night, which means I now have my first seminary class under my belt! I worked my butt off last week studying for the final so that I didn't have to take my test in a panic to meet the deadline (as happened with my midterm). The studying went fairly well.
I was shooting to start the three hour exam at 8 pm so I could be in bed by 11, before the midnight deadline. I didn't quite meet that goal, but I started at 9 and e-mailed the test in about 11. I was so excited that I actually got something done an hour before the deadline! I would exactly call it early, but it was a major stride for me.
I'm going to build on that success this summer, since I'm taking two classes by distance learning. All course work is due 9/19, but I'm already panicky. I need to listen to forty hours of lecture and read 3,000 pages. And write four five-page papers and take two essay tests. Yikes.
The topics and books are interesting. I'm taking Systematic Theology 2: Reconciliation and the Healing of Persons, and Christian Ethics. I'vs at a Bible school, but the material I've encountered so far for these editions sounds far more intriguing.
Back to reading!
I was shooting to start the three hour exam at 8 pm so I could be in bed by 11, before the midnight deadline. I didn't quite meet that goal, but I started at 9 and e-mailed the test in about 11. I was so excited that I actually got something done an hour before the deadline! I would exactly call it early, but it was a major stride for me.
I'm going to build on that success this summer, since I'm taking two classes by distance learning. All course work is due 9/19, but I'm already panicky. I need to listen to forty hours of lecture and read 3,000 pages. And write four five-page papers and take two essay tests. Yikes.
The topics and books are interesting. I'm taking Systematic Theology 2: Reconciliation and the Healing of Persons, and Christian Ethics. I'vs at a Bible school, but the material I've encountered so far for these editions sounds far more intriguing.
Back to reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)