"For at last I believe life itself is a prayer,
and the prayers we say shape the lives we live,
just as the lives we live shape the prayers we say;
and it all shapes the kingdom which expresses itself in and among us,
and for which we are guerrillas."
(found in introduction of Guerrillas of Grace by Ted Loder)
I find Loder's words to be right on. There is a mysterious interaction that takes place between earth and heaven, between the divine and the human, between words spoken and actions lived out. Our prayers shape the universe and the universe shapes our prayers.
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
3.31.2010
3.01.2010
Predestined 3: Characters, Plots, and Scripts on the Stage of Life
Like many raised in the church, I grew up thinking that I must discover God's will and plan for my life. God's sovereign will seemed to be very specific, involving very detailed plans of everyday life as well as the large decisions of life. This divine plan had to be sought out daily in prayer, reflected over while pouring over the Holy Scriptures, and always seemed like something that was just out of reach. Does God want me to go to this college or that one? Does God want me to go to college at all? Should I go up to the clerk at the gas station and "tell them about Jesus?" These were the kind of things that consumed me growing up and I find that many Christians are still consumed and anxious about such questions.
Along the way I have given up such a view of God and life. In the previous two posts, I have sought to explain a very different understanding of God's Sovereignty and the idea of predestination. Whereas in the past many have considered finding God's will as a scripted life, I have characterized it as the unscripted life. Rather than some script that one must discover each new page, or some sort of cultural script that defines certain accomplishments, possessions, and circumstances as happiness or success, the Jesus follower must live an unscripted life. In the second post, I described the kind of things that our human will and volition should be pointed towards-- that of stewarding ourselves and the process of continually putting off that which burdens and keeps us from living a full life and opening ourselves to the new things that we encounter while following behind Jesus.
I am continually persuaded that God's will is about character rather than circumstances. Such character involves a death to the old ways of life and putting on the life-giving traits of the Spirit. In my last post, Jason Thomley commented on how this process is described in Jeremiah 1 where God gives Jeremiah the two-pronged vocation of tearing down and planting. In Colossians 3, Paul describes this two phased process (that one could probably break-down into much more detailed steps). First, Paul starts out with the primary goal: Set your mind on things that are above (v. 2)! This is like the two greatest commandments of 1) Love God & 2) Love Neighbor that some of you lifted up in your comments on the last post. But like most of us, we look at Paul and say, "Yes, that's right, seek the things that are above... okay, but how do I do that and what does that look like." The same sort of thing happens when Jesus gives the two greatest commands in Luke 10. A religious scholar sly asks, "You have answered correctly, but who is my neighbor?" Just as Jesus provides the story commonly known as the Good Samaritan, Paul lays out some key ideas of what it means to set one's mind on thing above. In verse 5, he says that we must put to death fornication, impurity, passion, and evil desire, as well as, get rid of anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language. Then in verse 10, he says that we must clothe ourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience while bearing with one another and forgiving one another and having love and thankfulness and peace, and letting the Word of God dwell in you while you sing to God. In verse 18, Paul he gives some practical steps for households. I'm sure if he wasn't working with parchment or papyrus scrolls he might have written more and got more detailed.
What is God's will? I might not be able to give a full answer, but I do know that it starts with character-- with putting to death many things in our lives and clothing ourselves with traits that open up our spirits to Spirit of life.
Along the way I have given up such a view of God and life. In the previous two posts, I have sought to explain a very different understanding of God's Sovereignty and the idea of predestination. Whereas in the past many have considered finding God's will as a scripted life, I have characterized it as the unscripted life. Rather than some script that one must discover each new page, or some sort of cultural script that defines certain accomplishments, possessions, and circumstances as happiness or success, the Jesus follower must live an unscripted life. In the second post, I described the kind of things that our human will and volition should be pointed towards-- that of stewarding ourselves and the process of continually putting off that which burdens and keeps us from living a full life and opening ourselves to the new things that we encounter while following behind Jesus.
I am continually persuaded that God's will is about character rather than circumstances. Such character involves a death to the old ways of life and putting on the life-giving traits of the Spirit. In my last post, Jason Thomley commented on how this process is described in Jeremiah 1 where God gives Jeremiah the two-pronged vocation of tearing down and planting. In Colossians 3, Paul describes this two phased process (that one could probably break-down into much more detailed steps). First, Paul starts out with the primary goal: Set your mind on things that are above (v. 2)! This is like the two greatest commandments of 1) Love God & 2) Love Neighbor that some of you lifted up in your comments on the last post. But like most of us, we look at Paul and say, "Yes, that's right, seek the things that are above... okay, but how do I do that and what does that look like." The same sort of thing happens when Jesus gives the two greatest commands in Luke 10. A religious scholar sly asks, "You have answered correctly, but who is my neighbor?" Just as Jesus provides the story commonly known as the Good Samaritan, Paul lays out some key ideas of what it means to set one's mind on thing above. In verse 5, he says that we must put to death fornication, impurity, passion, and evil desire, as well as, get rid of anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language. Then in verse 10, he says that we must clothe ourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience while bearing with one another and forgiving one another and having love and thankfulness and peace, and letting the Word of God dwell in you while you sing to God. In verse 18, Paul he gives some practical steps for households. I'm sure if he wasn't working with parchment or papyrus scrolls he might have written more and got more detailed.
What is God's will? I might not be able to give a full answer, but I do know that it starts with character-- with putting to death many things in our lives and clothing ourselves with traits that open up our spirits to Spirit of life.
2.10.2010
Faithful Stewards & the Unscripted Life
When we give up the illusion that we can control our lives and destinies, when we forsake the idols of self-worship and being self-made gods, when we depart from the way of pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, we have the chance to live by trust on the road of the unscripted life. This is the journey of following Jesus who is out in front of us forging the way to a place we cannot even imagine.
In my last post, several of you asked plenty of questions and made several statements about choices, plans, being responsible, and free-will. In my language, these all revolve around the idea of faithful stewardship. Instead of attempting a "how to get there" kind of life where we use, abuse, manipulate and scheme, the Jesus journey is one where we consider who we are, what we are carrying, and how we journey. First, it it is to be a light journey where we let go of a lot of baggage and burdens. This is a continual process as we are distracted, tempted, and even good-intentioned along the way to pick up plenty of stuff that we eventually find that we must set down. Second, it is journey where certain resources are vital and necessary. How will we use those resources and plan for their best use along the way? Third, along the way we find ourselves encountering all sorts of opportunities... circumstances to use gifts and talents, to love and be loved, to give and to receive. We look and find ourselves in possession of so many different gifts. We encounter persons and circumstances along the way where these gifts can be used. Plans, choices, and free-will were meant to be used in faithful stewardship along this journey.
In my last post, several of you asked plenty of questions and made several statements about choices, plans, being responsible, and free-will. In my language, these all revolve around the idea of faithful stewardship. Instead of attempting a "how to get there" kind of life where we use, abuse, manipulate and scheme, the Jesus journey is one where we consider who we are, what we are carrying, and how we journey. First, it it is to be a light journey where we let go of a lot of baggage and burdens. This is a continual process as we are distracted, tempted, and even good-intentioned along the way to pick up plenty of stuff that we eventually find that we must set down. Second, it is journey where certain resources are vital and necessary. How will we use those resources and plan for their best use along the way? Third, along the way we find ourselves encountering all sorts of opportunities... circumstances to use gifts and talents, to love and be loved, to give and to receive. We look and find ourselves in possession of so many different gifts. We encounter persons and circumstances along the way where these gifts can be used. Plans, choices, and free-will were meant to be used in faithful stewardship along this journey.
1.15.2010
Sovereignty, Predestination, and the Unscripted Life
Are some predestined to for salvation? Did God fore-ordain and elect some before the beginning of the world? Are some predestined to damnation? Do we have free-will? Is God in control of everything? Are we just robots in some cosmic game? These and other similar questions bubble to the surface in Christian conversations, especially in Reformed circles. Usually the conversations take place in abstract and ethereal ways with many hypothetical cases and dependent hypotheses. Rarely do such questions and conversations ever "get-real."
As a guest speaker last week for a class on the Quarterlife Crisis, I spoke on the topic of "Vocational Crisis." In it, I addressed the American desire and ambition to script out the future of our lives. In fact, such an idea is so ingrained in our culture that one is considered to be irresponsible and foolish not to script out, plan out, and spend an inordinate amount of time stressing about the future. We are told that if we wish to be responsible and successful (a.k.a. "moral" in an American sense), then we must be self-made and script our lives. This involves what clubs, sports, and classes you take school as children, what universities we attend,what corporations one works for during summer and after graduation, when and who one marries, and where and what type of housing one chooses. It's all scripted.
The "scripted life" is one that does not acknowledge a Sovereign God. The scripted life is one where "I" am in control of my life and future. The scripted life is one where God is not needed, where I am the salvation of my own world.
To believe in a Sovereign God, to believe in the predestined existence, is to have an unscripted life. It is a life where I am not in control of my future or destination. It is one where I am not self-made. Instead, I am formed by Another. I am created for Another's good will, pleasure, and purpose. It is a life where "I belong to God." It is the counter-cultural life. A life that is very "un-American." It is a life that exposes the fallacy and illusion that we have control. The unscripted life is the only way we as followers of Jesus Christ can truly be faithful.
9.18.2009
And Darkness Was Over The Face of the Deep
Darkness.
Abyss.
Nothingness.
Ignorance.
The unknown shrouded in mystery.
The universe is shrouded in a perpetual darkness. The more we see, the more we don't see. The more we learn and know, the more we realize just how much we are ignorant. We expand farther and farther outward gazing at the cosmos, while examining deeper and deeper discovering every quark or nuance of matter and energy. Each step brings with it a revelation of a much larger world, a whole existence that we are unaware, a reality that is at once close and yet so distant. In the midst of such darkness, God breathed. Revelation occurred. Life emerged. Light broke forth.
9.01.2009
Abysmal Life-Giving Knowledge
"Revelation is not somethign that confirms what we already know. Basically, it has to do with knowledge of God and ourselves that is utterly surprising and disturbing. It is an event that shakes us to the core. Although it comes as a gift, offering us a glimpse of 'the very heart of mystery,' it si resisted because it is so threatening and frightening. The knowledge it conveys is an 'abysmal life-giving knowledge,' but it also demands a kind of death because it turns upside down the lives of people who receive it. Revelation compels momentous decisions about who God is and how we are to understand the world and ourselves."
-- Excerpted from p21 of Faith Seeking Understanding by Daniel Migliore
8.25.2009
Bumping Into God
Occasionally my dog gets excited enough to run across the room, try to make a corner, misses and runs into the wall... something that is both very sad and very funny! The wall, of course, does not give at all, it has no way of responding or cushioning or shifting. However, when my dog runs and jumps on me, I move, cushion, and shift in order to take the impact.
Is God a wall that does not move, respond, or cushion? For some, the immutable, unmovable God is a comfort. For some, if God changes or is moved, then there entire system of theology begins to crumble.
Indeed, there are statements in Scripture that seem to paint God as an immovable wall, one who does not change and remains the same no matter what circumstance comes along. There are verses that describe God as knowing all things, having every detail of human history already worked out in advance, foreknown, and chosen.
Yet, much of the Bible describes God in very different language than this. Many scriptures describe a very movable God-- A God who repents, relents, is suprised, and regrets. When I read the story of Moses interceding on behalf Israel in Exodus 32 and God "repents of the evil he was about to do", I am overwhelmed by such a God who would respond to the passionate pleas of a human being. I am overcome with emotion at a God who takes the time to listen and shift perspective and change action. This is a God who is so powerful that vulnerability is not seen as a weakness but the hope of creation. This is a God who allows the dog to jump and cushions the blow. This is a God that is in relationship-- a true relationship, a give and take relationship.
Let us stop striving to create bomb-proof systematic theologies and allow each scripture text to move us as it sees fit. When in Exodus 32, let us fall in love with a God who could be moved. When in James 1, let us feel strong that we have a God who does not shift like shadows. Both are true and both have something very amazing to teach us.
11.24.2008
Theology vs The Bible-- 1.0
From my earliest days, I was immersed in the Holy Scriptures. My parents would read the bible to me each night when I was really young and then somewhere around age 8 I started reading the bible daily on my own. By the time I was 10, I was reading several chapters a day and by 13, I was reading anywhere between 10-30 chapters each day. Needless to say, I'm a bit of a fanatic when it comes to reading the Bible. Perhaps a bit crazy as well.
Because of all of this Bible reading, from an early age I've been acutely aware of the inconsistencies in the way we read and understand the bible, especially as it relates to how Christian theology and the scriptures do not line up all of the time. As a kid around the age of 7, I remember learning the story of Samuel and how Hannah took Samuel o the temple of YHWH at Shiloh. As a keen observer at the age of 7, I noticed the immediate inconsistency with what we had been taught. The temple was built by Solomon several decades after the time of Samuel. Up until this time, there was supposed to be a tabernacle as described in Exodus. However, when we come to the book of Samuel, hardly any mention is given to a tabernacle. But here in 1 Samuel 1, we have a temple at Shiloh.
As a child, some adult gave me the explanation that temple and tabernacle are used interchangeably. That sounded like garbage even when I was a kid. As an adult who can now look this stuff up, I now understand that there are various textual traditions in the scriptures. One tradition creates a priestly line that must be descendants of Aaron, another tradition believes priests can be any Levite, other traditions allow for lots of people to make sacrifices before YHWH. One tradition centers on the temple at Jerusalem whereas other traditions allow for worship and sacrifice at other locations. One tradition makes it out to have God living in a tabernacle until the day that YHWH descends in a pillar of smoke on Solomon's temple whereas another tradition has a temple in Shiloh before the Solomonic age.
All of this to say that our traditions and theology do not always align with the bible and even the bible contains many voices, sometimes in contention with one another. In our humanity, we create constructs to understand God and talk about theological ideas. These constructs each have their failings. As such, our scriptures present to us a diversity of constructs and voices by which to discuss and contemplate the interaction between heaven and earth (a phrase which in itself is a construct).
In the future, I want to continue to explore these various contentions in scripture and between the scriptures and theology.
Because of all of this Bible reading, from an early age I've been acutely aware of the inconsistencies in the way we read and understand the bible, especially as it relates to how Christian theology and the scriptures do not line up all of the time. As a kid around the age of 7, I remember learning the story of Samuel and how Hannah took Samuel o the temple of YHWH at Shiloh. As a keen observer at the age of 7, I noticed the immediate inconsistency with what we had been taught. The temple was built by Solomon several decades after the time of Samuel. Up until this time, there was supposed to be a tabernacle as described in Exodus. However, when we come to the book of Samuel, hardly any mention is given to a tabernacle. But here in 1 Samuel 1, we have a temple at Shiloh.
As a child, some adult gave me the explanation that temple and tabernacle are used interchangeably. That sounded like garbage even when I was a kid. As an adult who can now look this stuff up, I now understand that there are various textual traditions in the scriptures. One tradition creates a priestly line that must be descendants of Aaron, another tradition believes priests can be any Levite, other traditions allow for lots of people to make sacrifices before YHWH. One tradition centers on the temple at Jerusalem whereas other traditions allow for worship and sacrifice at other locations. One tradition makes it out to have God living in a tabernacle until the day that YHWH descends in a pillar of smoke on Solomon's temple whereas another tradition has a temple in Shiloh before the Solomonic age.
All of this to say that our traditions and theology do not always align with the bible and even the bible contains many voices, sometimes in contention with one another. In our humanity, we create constructs to understand God and talk about theological ideas. These constructs each have their failings. As such, our scriptures present to us a diversity of constructs and voices by which to discuss and contemplate the interaction between heaven and earth (a phrase which in itself is a construct).
In the future, I want to continue to explore these various contentions in scripture and between the scriptures and theology.
11.12.2008
What is Government?
Two blog posts in the past month from very different voices (Tony Jones and Travis Gilbert) have me thinking a lot about the nature of government the past few days. Over my life, I have given much thought to the idea of government, what is considered a legitimate government, and how Christians are to respond to government(s).
Americans tend to assume that government refers to the nation-state. Thus, the government is the United States of America or Great Britian or Russia or Iran. We remember that other types of governments used to exist such as the city-state of the ancient world, but for the most part government has come to mean nation-state. We understand that local government do exist, but believe in a hierarchy of government where the city is in a county, and a county in a state/province/district, and a state in a nation.
However, I have always seen government in terms of power. Who is in charge? Who is ruling this place? Because of this, I see many types of government in our lives everyday-- sometimes in cooperation with one another; often in conflict and in competition with one another.
Anyone living in the inner-city knows that there are at least two forms of government: 1) is the local gang or mafia; 2) is the supposedly "legitimate" government of the city in the form of police, judges, and jailors.
When I was a child in school, I knew that several authorities or governments existed when I was at school. One was the principal and teachers. Second was the very powerful peer groups. Third was the bullies on the playground and in the locker room.
Today, I watch and feel the power of corporations on my life. I am governed and ruled by Verizon, AT&T, the electric company, etc. Sometimes these various companies cooperate with the United States government and even with one another. Sometimes they are at odds with the US government and with one another. But these companies often have more power, rule, and control over me than any nation-state or local government.
In addition to all of this is the question of what makes a government legitimate. If my government doesn't recognize your government and I'm theoretically supposed to submit to my government and you are to submit to your government, then what are we to do? I dwell on this because my friend Travis brings up the argument that we are to submit to all earthly authorities except when their authority is in opposition to God. This creates for a very complex situation. First, when will any government not be in opposition to God in some way? Every government is always asking its citizens to do something that opposes the ways of God. Second, how are we to respond when we do feel like we should resist or disobey? Is this an active disobedience that results in some sort of action against the government (perhaps violence)? Or is this a peaceful resistance or non-participation? Something in between?
Finally, if you are a Christian who believes violence can be okay and even God's will for a particular moment, then how do you respond to the revolutionary war, or the civil war here in the United States? One could make the case that Christians should not have rebelled against England because it was the legitimate government. However, at what point did the colonialists become a legitimate government that Christians should submit to? Also, if the colonial powers did become legitimate, were Christians supposed to submit and against the English army and the Christians in that army? Were Christians from England then supposed to submit to their government and kill Americans? (Questions adapted from blog reply to Travis.)
The nature of government is very complex. Even more complex is the Christian's relationship to government. The Bible presents very different voices on this relationship. Jesus seemingly cooperates with government while also using rhetoric that questions the legitimacy of these human governments (essentially asking, "Are they real?"), Paul seems to support submission to government in Romans 13, uses his Romans citizenship in Acts, but also makes trouble with various local governments. Peter tells us to submit to earthly authorities and to honor the king. John's Revelation is a stark contrast that places the kingdoms of this world in sharp opposition with the kingdom of God. Even participation in the economy of Babylon makes one a follower of the beast.
Very complex indeed!
Americans tend to assume that government refers to the nation-state. Thus, the government is the United States of America or Great Britian or Russia or Iran. We remember that other types of governments used to exist such as the city-state of the ancient world, but for the most part government has come to mean nation-state. We understand that local government do exist, but believe in a hierarchy of government where the city is in a county, and a county in a state/province/district, and a state in a nation.
However, I have always seen government in terms of power. Who is in charge? Who is ruling this place? Because of this, I see many types of government in our lives everyday-- sometimes in cooperation with one another; often in conflict and in competition with one another.
Anyone living in the inner-city knows that there are at least two forms of government: 1) is the local gang or mafia; 2) is the supposedly "legitimate" government of the city in the form of police, judges, and jailors.
When I was a child in school, I knew that several authorities or governments existed when I was at school. One was the principal and teachers. Second was the very powerful peer groups. Third was the bullies on the playground and in the locker room.
Today, I watch and feel the power of corporations on my life. I am governed and ruled by Verizon, AT&T, the electric company, etc. Sometimes these various companies cooperate with the United States government and even with one another. Sometimes they are at odds with the US government and with one another. But these companies often have more power, rule, and control over me than any nation-state or local government.
In addition to all of this is the question of what makes a government legitimate. If my government doesn't recognize your government and I'm theoretically supposed to submit to my government and you are to submit to your government, then what are we to do? I dwell on this because my friend Travis brings up the argument that we are to submit to all earthly authorities except when their authority is in opposition to God. This creates for a very complex situation. First, when will any government not be in opposition to God in some way? Every government is always asking its citizens to do something that opposes the ways of God. Second, how are we to respond when we do feel like we should resist or disobey? Is this an active disobedience that results in some sort of action against the government (perhaps violence)? Or is this a peaceful resistance or non-participation? Something in between?
Finally, if you are a Christian who believes violence can be okay and even God's will for a particular moment, then how do you respond to the revolutionary war, or the civil war here in the United States? One could make the case that Christians should not have rebelled against England because it was the legitimate government. However, at what point did the colonialists become a legitimate government that Christians should submit to? Also, if the colonial powers did become legitimate, were Christians supposed to submit and against the English army and the Christians in that army? Were Christians from England then supposed to submit to their government and kill Americans? (Questions adapted from blog reply to Travis.)
The nature of government is very complex. Even more complex is the Christian's relationship to government. The Bible presents very different voices on this relationship. Jesus seemingly cooperates with government while also using rhetoric that questions the legitimacy of these human governments (essentially asking, "Are they real?"), Paul seems to support submission to government in Romans 13, uses his Romans citizenship in Acts, but also makes trouble with various local governments. Peter tells us to submit to earthly authorities and to honor the king. John's Revelation is a stark contrast that places the kingdoms of this world in sharp opposition with the kingdom of God. Even participation in the economy of Babylon makes one a follower of the beast.
Very complex indeed!
11.07.2008
Original Sin, Capitalism, and Socialism
Suprisingly to some of you, I hold a decently historical and orthodox view of original sin. Overall, it seems to me that humans are born in a state of sin that is inherited in some way-- I'm not tied in to any particular theory on transmission, in fact they all seem a little off and crazy.
Recently, I've been discussing the ideas of capitalism and socialism with a highschool senior in my former youth ministry. Our discussion have made me take a longer look at the ideas of capitalism and socialism and how each looks at the idea of sin.
From what I can tell from my research, capitalism seems to believe that humans are totally depraved (meaning that every aspect of our existence is affected by selfishness) and sort of sees an original sin idea at the heart of humanity.
Socialism, on the other hand, seems to take the opposite view that individuals are mostly good and want the good but that institutions (such as corporations and the power classes of society) are corrupt.
Many American Christians lean towards a capitalist view, and even make the claim that capitalism has a better theology because it takes into account sin and depravity whereas socialism seems to be naive about human nature.
Here are the two problems that I see: both individuals and institutions are depraved. As well, both are need of redemption. Throughout the Bible God works in two directions: from the bottom up and from the top down. God works through individuals such as prophets to bring repentence to individuals. God also sends these prophets to governors and kings. God sends missionaries to save jailers but also sends these same missionaries to emperors. God seeks to set up governments and laws, transform whole cosmic states such as death, and take on the means and ways of the empire (crucifixion at hands of Rome). God also heals individuals on the road, plays with children, and has three really close friends among the disciples.
The problem with capitalism that I see is that it not only believes in original sin and depravity but also succeeds by thriving on such sin and depravity. It is a philosophy and system built around greed and selfishness and self-interest. It seems to take a non-ethical view of entities (corporations) and believes that the State/government is meant to protect the right of the individual and corporation to amass wealth while promoting self-interested competition. Rather than seeking any means of redemption of the depravity and sin in the world, this system thrives on it. Without such depravity, the system would stop.
The problem with socialism that I see is that it does not accurately view the individual, dismisses any potential for the corporation, and views the state as ultimately good if it redistributes wealth fairly.
Christianity and salvation must have a vision to redeem all of this. Although, we will fall and fail in our attempts to redeem, we must see ourselves as part of the missio dei to redeem all things and see our part as ambassadors of the kingdom of God. This requires a rejection of the socialist system because it leaves no room for redemption of the individual (because it basically sees the individual as good), and leaves no room for the redemption of the the corporation (because it basically sees such entities as inherantly evil). This also requires a rejection of the capitalist system because it does not want the individual, the state, or the corporation to be redeemed. It, instead, thrusts its uninhibted appetites of self-interest on the whole world.
We must believe the entirety of the gospel--that God seeks the redemption of the individual as well as creation. This is done from the bottom-up, as well as from the top-down. It involves the person, the corporation, and the state.
What are your thoughts?
Recently, I've been discussing the ideas of capitalism and socialism with a highschool senior in my former youth ministry. Our discussion have made me take a longer look at the ideas of capitalism and socialism and how each looks at the idea of sin.
From what I can tell from my research, capitalism seems to believe that humans are totally depraved (meaning that every aspect of our existence is affected by selfishness) and sort of sees an original sin idea at the heart of humanity.
Socialism, on the other hand, seems to take the opposite view that individuals are mostly good and want the good but that institutions (such as corporations and the power classes of society) are corrupt.
Many American Christians lean towards a capitalist view, and even make the claim that capitalism has a better theology because it takes into account sin and depravity whereas socialism seems to be naive about human nature.
Here are the two problems that I see: both individuals and institutions are depraved. As well, both are need of redemption. Throughout the Bible God works in two directions: from the bottom up and from the top down. God works through individuals such as prophets to bring repentence to individuals. God also sends these prophets to governors and kings. God sends missionaries to save jailers but also sends these same missionaries to emperors. God seeks to set up governments and laws, transform whole cosmic states such as death, and take on the means and ways of the empire (crucifixion at hands of Rome). God also heals individuals on the road, plays with children, and has three really close friends among the disciples.
The problem with capitalism that I see is that it not only believes in original sin and depravity but also succeeds by thriving on such sin and depravity. It is a philosophy and system built around greed and selfishness and self-interest. It seems to take a non-ethical view of entities (corporations) and believes that the State/government is meant to protect the right of the individual and corporation to amass wealth while promoting self-interested competition. Rather than seeking any means of redemption of the depravity and sin in the world, this system thrives on it. Without such depravity, the system would stop.
The problem with socialism that I see is that it does not accurately view the individual, dismisses any potential for the corporation, and views the state as ultimately good if it redistributes wealth fairly.
Christianity and salvation must have a vision to redeem all of this. Although, we will fall and fail in our attempts to redeem, we must see ourselves as part of the missio dei to redeem all things and see our part as ambassadors of the kingdom of God. This requires a rejection of the socialist system because it leaves no room for redemption of the individual (because it basically sees the individual as good), and leaves no room for the redemption of the the corporation (because it basically sees such entities as inherantly evil). This also requires a rejection of the capitalist system because it does not want the individual, the state, or the corporation to be redeemed. It, instead, thrusts its uninhibted appetites of self-interest on the whole world.
We must believe the entirety of the gospel--that God seeks the redemption of the individual as well as creation. This is done from the bottom-up, as well as from the top-down. It involves the person, the corporation, and the state.
What are your thoughts?
11.05.2008
Render Unto Caesar...
In Mark 12:13-17, Jesus is put to the test by the Pharisees and Herodians by these questions: "Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?" Jesus then takes a denarius (one day's wage-- the sum of money one gets for giving his body to work for a whole day) and asks, "Whose head is this, and whose title?" Jesus then says, "Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's."
This text often gets quoted in our modern day by Christians wishing to make a case for obedience to the government. However, such an interpretation is to miss the larger point of what Christ was teaching. Jesus uses a particualr type of Aristotlian argument and rhetoric here-- everyone in that day knew that whatever bears the image of someoe belongs to that one. Knowing his audience, Jesus also knew that the people believed themselves to be made in the image of God. What Jesus does with his words is deliver a stinging critique on our lives... although we are made in the image of God, we are giving ourselves daily in the work of Caesar. For that daily work to the empire, Caesar gives us his coin for a day's wage. If we are giving ourselves to Caesar in the first place, then why not give him his money back.
Jesus subversively is telling the crowd, why do you work for Caesar and his empire? Why do you work for his economy? Why are you participating in the world of Caesar?
In other passages, Jesus helps the people imagine a different world wehre everyone has their own vineyards and where everyone is invited to the banquet table and where everyone is given the same day's wage for their service to God. The parables are these new imaginations and dreams for the future. Jesus imagines an alternative world with an alternative vision for economy, commondity, and community.
If we work for the empire and recieve its wages, then we must pay its taxes. But Jesus is asking, "Why are you working for Caesar in the first place? You bear the image of God, not Caesar's!"
This text often gets quoted in our modern day by Christians wishing to make a case for obedience to the government. However, such an interpretation is to miss the larger point of what Christ was teaching. Jesus uses a particualr type of Aristotlian argument and rhetoric here-- everyone in that day knew that whatever bears the image of someoe belongs to that one. Knowing his audience, Jesus also knew that the people believed themselves to be made in the image of God. What Jesus does with his words is deliver a stinging critique on our lives... although we are made in the image of God, we are giving ourselves daily in the work of Caesar. For that daily work to the empire, Caesar gives us his coin for a day's wage. If we are giving ourselves to Caesar in the first place, then why not give him his money back.
Jesus subversively is telling the crowd, why do you work for Caesar and his empire? Why do you work for his economy? Why are you participating in the world of Caesar?
In other passages, Jesus helps the people imagine a different world wehre everyone has their own vineyards and where everyone is invited to the banquet table and where everyone is given the same day's wage for their service to God. The parables are these new imaginations and dreams for the future. Jesus imagines an alternative world with an alternative vision for economy, commondity, and community.
If we work for the empire and recieve its wages, then we must pay its taxes. But Jesus is asking, "Why are you working for Caesar in the first place? You bear the image of God, not Caesar's!"
10.24.2008
The Truth of God
This is a quote from Debra Dean Murphy in her book Teaching That Transforms: Worship as the Heart of Christian Education (a book I highly recommend and am reading again since two years ago):
The truth of God-- what catechesis seeks to impart-- is not a thing to be grasped but a way of life to be embodied. This way of life-- living true to the cruciform pattern of Jesus' own life-- is a doxological practice, learned over time in the worshipping body gathered regularly for prayer and praise.
10.18.2008
Small Government, Military, and Colonialism
By and large, many conservative "believe" in having a smaller federal governement. This, of course, is stretching the use of the word "believe."
Of course, the military, which is where a lot of this deficit came from, is not considered as a part of this "big government." Although the military ultimately answers to the Big Chief and the Pentagon commanders and the Department of Defense are the biggest expenditures of the executive branch of the government, most conservatives do not consider the military as part of an expanded federal government.
However, in the eyes of the globe, this is precisely how the American federal government is expanding, and how "big brother" finds his way into everyone's lives. In fact, our reach is so far and has so much influence over trade policies, interational disputes, etc. that many call our government imperialistic. Although we are not technically colonized other nations in the classical sense, it seems that we have in many ways colonized many, many places on the globe.
Many citizens here in the United States will speak about how great of a country we have, sing the virtues of the USA, and talk about patriotism and spreading democracy. They will speak about a grand history of liberation, wealth, and freedom. However, when put under the microscope, such ideas seem to be distorted. In its history, this land never belonged to "us." In fact, the whole land from Atlantic to Pacific was inhabited by Native Americans tribes. We took the land and kept taking the land even up through the 20th century.
Then there is the problem of slavery and racism. Up until the early 1970s, blatant disrimination was rampant. Even now, passive forms of discrimination still function towards African-Americans. Then there is the issue of immigrants-- legal and illegal. At some point, "we" began thinking that this land belonged to "us." Although a majority of Americans claim to be Christian, this idea of the land belonging to "us" seems to be very anti-biblical-- especially since "we" took the land from the Native Americans.
Put these things together with dozens of botched military activities, economic programs, and international policies, and what you get is not a benevolent nation with great actions of compassion and justice. Instead, you have a nation that was founded on killing and stealing, who has oppressed an entire skin color of people, and who still govern out of fear from the "other." Indeed, perhaps we should be afraid of the other. Eye for an eye seems to be the ideology of the day. We took, stole, manipulated, oppressed, and killed. Perhaps, we will reap what we sowed. Perhaps, we sowed in unrighteousness and will reap more unrighteousness.
To be sure, there is another side of the story shared here. There are plenty of good deeds, good policies, and good people trying to do good in the world-- in the past and now in the present. However, the story that I have shared is rarely shared (in my opinion of course). Perhaps some will feel that "we need to focus on the positive." This is just a stunt of words to prevent us from taking a sobering look at the oppressive policies and manipulative actions being done today.
I am always amazed at how we are willing to be 100s of billions of dollars in debt for a war on the other side of the world, but we would be unwilling to spend $500 billion in deficit on education. I can hear someone saying right now, "Well, we should not be in deficit for any reason-- military or education." That same person will scream, shout, and send a letter to his congressman when a "liberal" suggests spending that much on education, but will call it patriotic when we shoot a smart bomb that destroys an entire neighborhood halfway around the world.
I'm tired... very tired of the rhetoric and contradictions. I'm tired of people who call themselves Christians who sanction or at least turn a blind eye to "collateral damage" (a nice phrase for murdering innocent people!!!). I'm tired of Christians who believe in a large military apparatus that literally is in every region of the globe-- this is far beyond national security. I'm tired of Christians who say they believe in stewardship who continue to elect officials who wasted money in deficit spending. I'm tired of Christians who say they are pro-life and yet advocate for larger military budgets. The United States has committed the very worst atrocity in the history of the planet-- two nuclear bombs dropped on two cities full of innocent people-- including many, many children!!!
And yet, I will be the one who is questioned for writing this post. American Christians from the evangelical tradition question my faith-- in fact many don't even question... they believe that I am really not one. The first Christians sacrificed their lives without weapons in hand-- that is the true sacrifice. Just as Jesus told Peter, "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." It's time for us to listen to Jesus. We must be Christians who live in America rather than American Christians. And in the end, this will actually make for a better America. The best way to be patriotic is to be Christian because it will make our communities better places which will in turn make a better nation which will in turn create a better world.
10.11.2008
Pendulums, Converts, and Robust Faith
Growing up in a fundamentalist, evangelical Baptist congregation in rural Indiana, my congregation had a constant in-flow of "new converts" from liberal, mainline Protestant congregations and from the Roman Catholic Church. These new members would hear the message of individual repentence and the hope of being "saved." Often, these converts were middle-aged adults who had stopped going to church after high school. They would talk very negatively about their past church experiences as dead ritual, as places that produced a lot of guilt, and as places that believed you "work your way to heaven."
As an adult, I have found so many people like myself who grew up in a fundamentalist, evangelical, conservative background who have "converted" to these more liturgical based denominations-- often liberal Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. We long for a worship that does not depend on me and my experience and what I can get out of church/God. We want a faith that is about the community and world rather than the individual. We long for rituals that will create space for worship, and we want a faith that seeks to do God's will here on Earth just as it is in heaven. These former evangelicals, including myself, often talk negatively about our conservative backgrounds.
In some ways, these two groups represent two seperate faiths. But I always believe they were meant to be one faith that is balanced. Each strand by itself is a fallacy. Together they make up the truth of the Christian faith. God wants to change me, convert me, and save me. God also is greatly concerned with communities, social justice, the ritual of worship. God cannot be bound by ritual and thus speaks openly and newly to us. We cannot just have such a casual relationship either, thus we have orders of worship that story us in the ways and nature of God. I have the hope of being changed because I am part of a greater community. That community as a chance of being renewed and becoming God's kingdom because God has changed me.
As an adult, I have found so many people like myself who grew up in a fundamentalist, evangelical, conservative background who have "converted" to these more liturgical based denominations-- often liberal Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. We long for a worship that does not depend on me and my experience and what I can get out of church/God. We want a faith that is about the community and world rather than the individual. We long for rituals that will create space for worship, and we want a faith that seeks to do God's will here on Earth just as it is in heaven. These former evangelicals, including myself, often talk negatively about our conservative backgrounds.
In some ways, these two groups represent two seperate faiths. But I always believe they were meant to be one faith that is balanced. Each strand by itself is a fallacy. Together they make up the truth of the Christian faith. God wants to change me, convert me, and save me. God also is greatly concerned with communities, social justice, the ritual of worship. God cannot be bound by ritual and thus speaks openly and newly to us. We cannot just have such a casual relationship either, thus we have orders of worship that story us in the ways and nature of God. I have the hope of being changed because I am part of a greater community. That community as a chance of being renewed and becoming God's kingdom because God has changed me.
10.06.2008
The Denial of Jesus Christ
I have wondered at times throughout my life why martyred Christians refused to sacrifice to Caesar or deny that they followed Christ. Indeed, as I've been reading from the ancient church fathers and mothers this semester in my church history class, this same question has come to mind several times. Why not just deny? Your life is spared for another day and then you get to go back home and be Christian, share the good news of Jesus with others, and continue building the church community. God will forgive, the church will forgive, and everyone's good.
The Romans wondered this as well. Local rulers would even plead with these Christians to deny Christ so that they (the rulers) would not have to execute them. Many of the local rulers felt that the Christians were not a real threat to the empire, were good people, and contributed in many great ways to the empire. Many of them did not want to kill the Christians, but in the end they did because the Christians were breaking the law. They even would use the reasoning I used above... just deny Jesus right now here in this court and go back to your community and be Christian and stop getting caught!
It occurred to me today what the real harm in denial is about, why the Romans would plead for a denial, and why I have wondered this as well. Empire!
Yes... EMPIRE. As a product of the American empire and the Romans a product of their empire, I have been schooled in a particular way of living in the world. A part of that way of living is "say whatever you need to say, do whatever you need to do, to advance our cause in the world (we would of course believe it to be a noble cause, even go as far as calling it a Godly cause: peace, freedom, liberty, democracy). We justify our actions in this way. If war and violence is needed to advance the cause, then we go to war in order to create peace down the road. If we have suspect in custody at a jail and need to tell him a few lies to get him to talk, then fantastic. We caught the guy. Justice is served. We feel safe again. And if we think we are doing something that is wrong, we figure that we can ask for forgiveness later. This is in fact the way empires have always acted. Some are more compassionate than others. Some are more moral than others. Some have better systems than others. But ultimately, the empire is the great deception.
The Christian martyrs of history and contemporary continue to refuse to deny Jesus Christ. They do so knowing that such a refusal is a direct confrontation of the very core values that make up the empire.
The Romans wondered this as well. Local rulers would even plead with these Christians to deny Christ so that they (the rulers) would not have to execute them. Many of the local rulers felt that the Christians were not a real threat to the empire, were good people, and contributed in many great ways to the empire. Many of them did not want to kill the Christians, but in the end they did because the Christians were breaking the law. They even would use the reasoning I used above... just deny Jesus right now here in this court and go back to your community and be Christian and stop getting caught!
It occurred to me today what the real harm in denial is about, why the Romans would plead for a denial, and why I have wondered this as well. Empire!
Yes... EMPIRE. As a product of the American empire and the Romans a product of their empire, I have been schooled in a particular way of living in the world. A part of that way of living is "say whatever you need to say, do whatever you need to do, to advance our cause in the world (we would of course believe it to be a noble cause, even go as far as calling it a Godly cause: peace, freedom, liberty, democracy). We justify our actions in this way. If war and violence is needed to advance the cause, then we go to war in order to create peace down the road. If we have suspect in custody at a jail and need to tell him a few lies to get him to talk, then fantastic. We caught the guy. Justice is served. We feel safe again. And if we think we are doing something that is wrong, we figure that we can ask for forgiveness later. This is in fact the way empires have always acted. Some are more compassionate than others. Some are more moral than others. Some have better systems than others. But ultimately, the empire is the great deception.
The Christian martyrs of history and contemporary continue to refuse to deny Jesus Christ. They do so knowing that such a refusal is a direct confrontation of the very core values that make up the empire.
4.29.2008
The Fall of Change
Many people have been outraged at Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments. On this blog, I have discussed Wright and recent lashing he has received. Senator Obama has sought to create a message that he is different than other politicians and that he will bring change. I have never gotten on the Obama train, but I did somewhat believe he would be somehow different. However, today any trace of that hope was erased. Senator Obama ridiculed and denounced his pastor's recent comments made over the past few ways. Rev. Wright had four very public interviews to defend himself, and Senator Obama further distanced himself from his pastor during this time. Senator Obama said the following regarding Rev. Wright: "What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for."
Rev. Jeremiah Wright has shared many beliefs over the past few days that I find quite invigorating. He rightly sees parallels between the Roman Empire and the United States (in the book of Revelations, John describes this empire as Babylon, the great harlot). Rev. Wright rightly contrasts the difference between the way of Christ and the ways of the empire that crucified him. Rev. Wright rightly wonders what evils our government is capable of doing.
My pastor and I were reflecting on the book of Jeremiah in the Old Testament this morning. What astounded us was the similarities between the message of Jeremiah Wright and the message of Jeremiah the prophet. The language, tone, and feeling were very similar.
Senator Obama declares that his worldview is something different than Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This I believe is true. They share very, very different worldviews-- Rev. Wright's is one schooled in scripture. Senator Obama's is one schooled in American imperialism. Thank-you Senator Obama for confirming my belief that you are just like every other politician.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright has shared many beliefs over the past few days that I find quite invigorating. He rightly sees parallels between the Roman Empire and the United States (in the book of Revelations, John describes this empire as Babylon, the great harlot). Rev. Wright rightly contrasts the difference between the way of Christ and the ways of the empire that crucified him. Rev. Wright rightly wonders what evils our government is capable of doing.
My pastor and I were reflecting on the book of Jeremiah in the Old Testament this morning. What astounded us was the similarities between the message of Jeremiah Wright and the message of Jeremiah the prophet. The language, tone, and feeling were very similar.
Senator Obama declares that his worldview is something different than Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This I believe is true. They share very, very different worldviews-- Rev. Wright's is one schooled in scripture. Senator Obama's is one schooled in American imperialism. Thank-you Senator Obama for confirming my belief that you are just like every other politician.
4.14.2008
Re-writing Scripture
Speaker & scholar Phyllis Tickle believes that our generation is seeing the end of "sola scriptura," the Protestant idea of Scriptural authority correcting and superseding Christian tradition and papal authority. She believes that this end has been brought about in three movements:
1) Christians Against Slavery-- the bible does not say that one can't have slaves or should not have slaves, and yet most Christians today believe that slavery is wrong, against the will of God, and was only permissible in the bible due to cultural constraints.
2) Christian Acceptance of Feminine Authority-- according to Tickle, Paul speaks clearly against women being in authoritative positions in the church and seems to indicate that women should have very little spoken participation in the congregational setting. Tickle and a growing majority in Christian circles believes that this was a localized teaching from Paul, that he meant something else, that such a mandate does not apply today, or that he was just plain wrong.
3) Christian Acceptance of Homosexuality-- the western church is increasingly more tolerant of homosexuality and other sexual/gender issues despite the clear teaching in scripture (Tickle believes that the Bible very clearly stands against this-- and she seems to indicate that she disagrees with the Scriptures on this point, as well as feminine authority and slavery.).
Readers of my blog will have a wide variety of views on each of these three points. The point is not to debate any of these issues, but to shine light on a shift taking place. Many Christians in America today would say they believe in the Bible as their final authority and yet most of us would say genocide is morally wrong and against the will of God-- even though it is commanded by God to the Israelites. We would add that it is wrong for us to enslave other people (and people groups) because we are all created in the image of God and deserve to be treated with dignity. Most of us would then create complicated and complex arguments for why the Bible does command genocide in a few instances and how that is wrong today, as well as complicated arguments for why slavery is wrong but not stated as such in Scripture.
Tickle believes that we come to such conclusions based out of reason and experience. We "know" that slavery is wrong. We feel it in our gut. Thus, this belief supersedes that of scripture and we will then shape the scriptures and our theology to create an accommodated argument for our belief.
I do believe she is correct in saying that we are seeing the end of sola scriptura. I think we are beginning to see a new era emerge-- a place where theology is shaped by scripture but not controlled by scripture. Although I would argue that this is exactly what has been happening over the past 2000 years, it will become more visible and blatant in our time. Rather than appealing to cut-and-paste scripture verses as evidence for our systematic theology, theology will occur by appealing to themes in scripture and then departing from them to create something new. Essentially, we will blatantly state that our new theological thought is inspired by Jesus but contradicts Scripture in "such and such" ways and that this is okay and on purpose.
A good example of this will be departing from the Genesis narrative of creation and forming a theology that has evolution as its framing story but have a Yahwist-inspired value weaving throughout as opposed to a social-Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest value weaving throughout. Theologians will then argue that the Yahwist writer strain in the Torah was doing this when writing his parts of Genesis-- taking the general framework of Enuma Elish (the Babylonian Creation myth) but asserting Yahweh as creator who speaks forth creation in a loving, caring way rather than humanity and creation emerging out of the blood and violence and chaos of the gods. Thus, the new era will create its owns "scriptures" in the vein of the Bible, in a similar strain as that of the Bible, but wholly new and different.
We will appeal to various authorities for such a web of belief-- The Old and New Testaments, reason, science, experience, art and beauty, other religions/faiths/myths, Christian tradition and theology, technology, etc. Some believe that the Emergent churches (and Tickle seems to indicate this as well) are bringing about such a way of life. I'm not totally on board with that because many in the Emergent circles would never engage in the ways that I have outlined above. However, I do think Emergent is paving a road for this too occur and will converge with many other movements in theology and practice that will allow for such a way to EMERGE.
Thoughts? Questions? Push-backs?
1) Christians Against Slavery-- the bible does not say that one can't have slaves or should not have slaves, and yet most Christians today believe that slavery is wrong, against the will of God, and was only permissible in the bible due to cultural constraints.
2) Christian Acceptance of Feminine Authority-- according to Tickle, Paul speaks clearly against women being in authoritative positions in the church and seems to indicate that women should have very little spoken participation in the congregational setting. Tickle and a growing majority in Christian circles believes that this was a localized teaching from Paul, that he meant something else, that such a mandate does not apply today, or that he was just plain wrong.
3) Christian Acceptance of Homosexuality-- the western church is increasingly more tolerant of homosexuality and other sexual/gender issues despite the clear teaching in scripture (Tickle believes that the Bible very clearly stands against this-- and she seems to indicate that she disagrees with the Scriptures on this point, as well as feminine authority and slavery.).
Readers of my blog will have a wide variety of views on each of these three points. The point is not to debate any of these issues, but to shine light on a shift taking place. Many Christians in America today would say they believe in the Bible as their final authority and yet most of us would say genocide is morally wrong and against the will of God-- even though it is commanded by God to the Israelites. We would add that it is wrong for us to enslave other people (and people groups) because we are all created in the image of God and deserve to be treated with dignity. Most of us would then create complicated and complex arguments for why the Bible does command genocide in a few instances and how that is wrong today, as well as complicated arguments for why slavery is wrong but not stated as such in Scripture.
Tickle believes that we come to such conclusions based out of reason and experience. We "know" that slavery is wrong. We feel it in our gut. Thus, this belief supersedes that of scripture and we will then shape the scriptures and our theology to create an accommodated argument for our belief.
I do believe she is correct in saying that we are seeing the end of sola scriptura. I think we are beginning to see a new era emerge-- a place where theology is shaped by scripture but not controlled by scripture. Although I would argue that this is exactly what has been happening over the past 2000 years, it will become more visible and blatant in our time. Rather than appealing to cut-and-paste scripture verses as evidence for our systematic theology, theology will occur by appealing to themes in scripture and then departing from them to create something new. Essentially, we will blatantly state that our new theological thought is inspired by Jesus but contradicts Scripture in "such and such" ways and that this is okay and on purpose.
A good example of this will be departing from the Genesis narrative of creation and forming a theology that has evolution as its framing story but have a Yahwist-inspired value weaving throughout as opposed to a social-Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest value weaving throughout. Theologians will then argue that the Yahwist writer strain in the Torah was doing this when writing his parts of Genesis-- taking the general framework of Enuma Elish (the Babylonian Creation myth) but asserting Yahweh as creator who speaks forth creation in a loving, caring way rather than humanity and creation emerging out of the blood and violence and chaos of the gods. Thus, the new era will create its owns "scriptures" in the vein of the Bible, in a similar strain as that of the Bible, but wholly new and different.
We will appeal to various authorities for such a web of belief-- The Old and New Testaments, reason, science, experience, art and beauty, other religions/faiths/myths, Christian tradition and theology, technology, etc. Some believe that the Emergent churches (and Tickle seems to indicate this as well) are bringing about such a way of life. I'm not totally on board with that because many in the Emergent circles would never engage in the ways that I have outlined above. However, I do think Emergent is paving a road for this too occur and will converge with many other movements in theology and practice that will allow for such a way to EMERGE.
Thoughts? Questions? Push-backs?
3.27.2008
What if it isn't true?
A few weeks ago, a student was asking me a lot of theological questions about the veracity of the Christian faith and the Bible. I attempted to distill a lot of theology into simple statements that non-theology people can understand with ease. Questions such as: Did the exodus actually happen? How can the stories in the Old Testament be true when so much evidence points against them happening? Aren't the stories mostly exaggerated? Do you really think Jesus is God, Divine or was he just a human?
This got me thinking about my belief in God and Jesus. I've made a startling discovery about myself-- even if none of it is true, Jesus will still be my Lord and my King! This was startling because it goes against my skeptical nature. I tend to look for solid facts and ideas that can be proven to some degree. Yet, I am discovering that I do not believe in Jesus because of the miracles he performed, or because of the virgin birth, or because he is omnipotent, omniscient, or omni-anything else. These things are all extras for me-- not that I don't believe in them because I do. But they are not the reason I believe in Jesus.
I believe in Jesus because of the way he lived. I believe in Jesus because of the reasons for which he was crucified. I believe that his way will change the world if we imitate it as well. I believe that what he did forever changed the world-- that much is obvious from history! For me, its about not serving Caesar or any other empire's emperor. For me its recognizing the anti-Christ that exists in our world systems and how its systems do not work. For me its recognizing my natural, selfish desires and realizing that those actions that proceed from it (ie. sin) are destroying my life and our whole world. And I believe and trust in Jesus-- his ways, his life, his death-- to provide resurrection. To provide new life for me. To provide new life for the world. To spawn a new creation.
In conclusion, a hypothetical example--
Student: Do you believe Jesus is God?
Me: Yes, I do.
Student: If Jesus was not God, would you believe in Christianity?
Me: Yes, I would.
Student: Why?
Me: I think the person of Jesus Christ is the only hope for my life and a world gone wrong.
This got me thinking about my belief in God and Jesus. I've made a startling discovery about myself-- even if none of it is true, Jesus will still be my Lord and my King! This was startling because it goes against my skeptical nature. I tend to look for solid facts and ideas that can be proven to some degree. Yet, I am discovering that I do not believe in Jesus because of the miracles he performed, or because of the virgin birth, or because he is omnipotent, omniscient, or omni-anything else. These things are all extras for me-- not that I don't believe in them because I do. But they are not the reason I believe in Jesus.
I believe in Jesus because of the way he lived. I believe in Jesus because of the reasons for which he was crucified. I believe that his way will change the world if we imitate it as well. I believe that what he did forever changed the world-- that much is obvious from history! For me, its about not serving Caesar or any other empire's emperor. For me its recognizing the anti-Christ that exists in our world systems and how its systems do not work. For me its recognizing my natural, selfish desires and realizing that those actions that proceed from it (ie. sin) are destroying my life and our whole world. And I believe and trust in Jesus-- his ways, his life, his death-- to provide resurrection. To provide new life for me. To provide new life for the world. To spawn a new creation.
In conclusion, a hypothetical example--
Student: Do you believe Jesus is God?
Me: Yes, I do.
Student: If Jesus was not God, would you believe in Christianity?
Me: Yes, I would.
Student: Why?
Me: I think the person of Jesus Christ is the only hope for my life and a world gone wrong.
1.11.2008
Non-Biblical Communion
About a week ago, Dave Dack posted on the subject of communion. He had a conversation with a friend in regards to the frequency of having communion. James, a friend of mine posted a great comment to the post: "Communion is a time for us to put aside lesser allegiances for the sake of the kingdom. "
This got me thinking about my own ideas of communion. First, I should note that I think the Eucharist should be the center of our worship together. However, in saying that I know that a strong biblical argument can't be made for such a notion. Nevertheless, I do not think you can make any strong biblical argument for our modern practices of communion-- tiny manufactured bread bits, Welch's Grape Juice in tiny cups, and a table where no one actually eats. Even those who use wine like Jesus did and real loaves of bread are selling the whole act short.
Thus, I think that we practice communion in a non-biblical way-- notice I didn't say unbiblical or anti-biblical. Communion is obviously some sort of meal or bread break during the day (this is possibly where we get our phrase "take a break" from-- it was actually a time to break bread). Jesus took an everyday ritual of Jewish society-- the breaking of bread at every occasion-- and infused it with new significance. In this way, the breaking of bread was a common experience for any outsider to the Christian faith and yet had a very distinct and peculiar ritual attached to it regarding Jesus Christ. It would be common during the 1st century to take the bread and say a blessing of some sort... such as "We thank Caesar for providing this bread to us on this day." To remember Jesus Christ instead was a very radical act. Also, the act of Christian communion was always one where your neighbors were invited to partake with you... in this way the Christian breaking of bread was about extending friendship and hospitality beyond the Christian community, while also serving an important function of feeding the poor.
If you travel to the world, you will find many cultures that have such hospitality and breaking of bread practices. Back in college, I traveled to Costa Rica. Everyday around 3:30pm, everything would stop (and I mean everything) so that people could take a break. At that break would be bread. If we were walking down the road when this occurred, random strangers would invite us into their homes and share their bread with us.
This is somewhat congruent with what is going on in Luke 10 when Jesus sends out the 70 to various towns. They would come to a door and give the standard Hebrew greeting "Shalom." If the greeting was returned (i.e. an invite was given to them to come in-- this was the command to be hospitable given in the OT), they went in. If it was not received, then judgment was supposed to be declared.
All of this taken together, I would say that communion must be at least be a true breaking of bread, if not a meal. However, we need to find a complimentary ritual in our own day for it to take on the significance that it did in the first century. Is there a common thing most people do in our culture regarding food?
This got me thinking about my own ideas of communion. First, I should note that I think the Eucharist should be the center of our worship together. However, in saying that I know that a strong biblical argument can't be made for such a notion. Nevertheless, I do not think you can make any strong biblical argument for our modern practices of communion-- tiny manufactured bread bits, Welch's Grape Juice in tiny cups, and a table where no one actually eats. Even those who use wine like Jesus did and real loaves of bread are selling the whole act short.
Thus, I think that we practice communion in a non-biblical way-- notice I didn't say unbiblical or anti-biblical. Communion is obviously some sort of meal or bread break during the day (this is possibly where we get our phrase "take a break" from-- it was actually a time to break bread). Jesus took an everyday ritual of Jewish society-- the breaking of bread at every occasion-- and infused it with new significance. In this way, the breaking of bread was a common experience for any outsider to the Christian faith and yet had a very distinct and peculiar ritual attached to it regarding Jesus Christ. It would be common during the 1st century to take the bread and say a blessing of some sort... such as "We thank Caesar for providing this bread to us on this day." To remember Jesus Christ instead was a very radical act. Also, the act of Christian communion was always one where your neighbors were invited to partake with you... in this way the Christian breaking of bread was about extending friendship and hospitality beyond the Christian community, while also serving an important function of feeding the poor.
If you travel to the world, you will find many cultures that have such hospitality and breaking of bread practices. Back in college, I traveled to Costa Rica. Everyday around 3:30pm, everything would stop (and I mean everything) so that people could take a break. At that break would be bread. If we were walking down the road when this occurred, random strangers would invite us into their homes and share their bread with us.
This is somewhat congruent with what is going on in Luke 10 when Jesus sends out the 70 to various towns. They would come to a door and give the standard Hebrew greeting "Shalom." If the greeting was returned (i.e. an invite was given to them to come in-- this was the command to be hospitable given in the OT), they went in. If it was not received, then judgment was supposed to be declared.
All of this taken together, I would say that communion must be at least be a true breaking of bread, if not a meal. However, we need to find a complimentary ritual in our own day for it to take on the significance that it did in the first century. Is there a common thing most people do in our culture regarding food?
1.10.2008
Bringing It All Together
Here is something I posted on Scot McKnight's blog:
Someone earlier said the following: "baptism is not constitutive of our salvation or of our relationship with God." This is part of what I see as the problem of the individualistic influence of the reformation. Baptism and salvation parallel very closely in many scripture texts. What I think happens is that all of us define salvation very differently. The Kingdom of God is the reign and realm of God at work in the world... it is the salvation of those who have experienced injustice and unrighteousness at the hands of the oppressive and it is the judgment of those who have acted unjust with their power and authority-- those in the latter crowd must repent, turn from their wicked ways, give up their place, and become servants; those in the former crowd must learn to forgive, reconcile, and accept those who have caused them pain. Baptism introduces both groups of people-- the forgiving oppressed and the repentant oppressors-- into a community that practices and lives out such a way of life. As such it is salvation coming into their lives. At least that is the way that it was supposed to be
Note: It seems to be clear that baptism was a cultural ritual of the Middle East before and during the time of Jesus that was carried into the future through Christianity. Baptism as such has lost its cultural meaning; thus, it is possible that it has lost its spiritual meaning as well. My next post will address this idea as it pertains to Communion/Eucharist.)
Someone earlier said the following: "baptism is not constitutive of our salvation or of our relationship with God." This is part of what I see as the problem of the individualistic influence of the reformation. Baptism and salvation parallel very closely in many scripture texts. What I think happens is that all of us define salvation very differently. The Kingdom of God is the reign and realm of God at work in the world... it is the salvation of those who have experienced injustice and unrighteousness at the hands of the oppressive and it is the judgment of those who have acted unjust with their power and authority-- those in the latter crowd must repent, turn from their wicked ways, give up their place, and become servants; those in the former crowd must learn to forgive, reconcile, and accept those who have caused them pain. Baptism introduces both groups of people-- the forgiving oppressed and the repentant oppressors-- into a community that practices and lives out such a way of life. As such it is salvation coming into their lives. At least that is the way that it was supposed to be
Note: It seems to be clear that baptism was a cultural ritual of the Middle East before and during the time of Jesus that was carried into the future through Christianity. Baptism as such has lost its cultural meaning; thus, it is possible that it has lost its spiritual meaning as well. My next post will address this idea as it pertains to Communion/Eucharist.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)