I came across an interesting quote by Paul Tillich the other day. It reads "The first duty of love is to listen." Since I found it, I have been considering what it means and what it would look like if we practiced this idea. I see that we often go about our daily interactions with the idea that we have everything figured out. When our friends, family, or co-workers begin to tell us about what is going on in their lives, we often wish they would simply hurry up, let us tell them how to fix their problems, and leave us alone. This stems, partly, from the fact we have so many of our own problems we would like to fix that we do not feel we have time for those of others. This, I believe, is a mistake. As Christians, we are called to live in community with one another; we worship together, pray together, take communion together, and fellowship together. There is no such thing as the solitary Christian. If we do not love each other, life within the body of Christ becomes impossible. The problem with loving each other lies in the reality that each of us enters into the body with all the nasty baggage this life throws on us. We all have different likes, dislikes, sins, struggles, personalities, and ideals.
If we are expected to live together without killing each other, being able to sit down and listen to what the other is saying is imperative. When we lose the ability to try to see things from a perspective other than our own, we cannot expect to live in peace and fellowship. When we become too busy to care about the struggles our fellow Christians are undergoing, we become afflicted with a sort of spiritual leprosy. Someone with leprosy cannot feel pain, and as a result, cannot tell when a member of their body is injured. This eventually can result in the death of the member, and ultimately the person, due to infection. When we cannot feel the pain of our brothers and sisters, we are like the person who cannot tell when he or she has lacerated his arm. The first step to avoiding this is to sit down and listen.
Who better to emulate in this than Christ? Jesus genuinely cared about the people he was with. The woman he met at the well in the Gospel of John, he listened to her and took personal interest in her. This was done in a time when a good Jewish man was not expected to speak to a woman. When Nicodemus came to Jesus in the night, Jesus listened to the pharisee's questions and explained to him the way of the kingdom of God. When sincere seekers came to Jesus, he took them very seriously and poured out the love of the Father on them. We must take this example when we are living our lives among people in the church who do not understand things like we do. We must also live like this in the secular world. We need to sit down with those who do not understand the Kingdom of God and patiently explain to them what we believe. We must also take them and their doubts, questions, and problems seriously. While the temptation is always there to become defensive when questioned, or to try to hurry the conversation along until the person "gets saved," we must remember that Jesus did not become defensive, nor did he try to hurry his way through conversations. Jesus listened to people. Jesus took them seriously. Jesus loved them into the kingdom.
If we are going to love our brothers and sisters in the Lord, we will listen to what they have to say. We cannot simply shut down because the person we are talking to is a "narrow-minded fundamentalist," or a "liberal Christian." That will only cause us to alienate them (Note: there is a time to split away from other Christians due to doctrinal error, but that is an entirely different subject. Splitting should only be a last resort, however). If we listen to them, and they to us, we can have a fruitful discussion that can help us all to see where we might need to change our thinking a bit. One does not win people to the truth by brow-beating them with arguments and polemics, but by listening and correcting in Godly love. This goes for the brothers and sisters with personal problems as well. We must learn to care and to empathize with them in all their struggles. We need to ask ourselves if our brothers and sisters in Christ feel they can share with us. We need to ask ourselves if we are willing to help them when they do, or if we are simply to busy to be Christ to others. "The first duty of love is to listen." Let us fulfill that duty.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
National Day of Prayer
Something that's been in the news lately is a controversy surrounding the constitutionality of a government approved and endorsed "National Day of Prayer." So far, it seems the judges going over the case see it as a form of government-imposed religious observance and are systematically striking it down. To many Christians, this seems like a form of persecution; the lawmakers are trying to remove God from the public sphere and promote atheism and secularism. This, they claim, is an attempt to take America further and further away from being a "Christian nation."
In regard to the lawmakers striking down this piece of legislature I say, "Thank you. You are doing your job well! We do not want or need a government instigated National Day of Prayer." If you live in the United States of America, you are in a country that protects the separation of church and state. The government has no right to influence religious practice in any way, shape, or form. The government cannot make an atheist observe a National Day of Prayer any more than it can make a Hindu observe Yom Kippur. Instituting a National Day of Prayer is not only unconstitutional, but can violate the freedom of conscience of millions of the people.
Let me explain some of the problems associated with a National Day of Prayer. Who are we going to pray to? Are we going to pray to the triune God of Christianity? Jews do not believe in a Trinitarian God or that Jesus is God. Are we going to pray to Allah? As a Christian I will not. Buddhists do not believe in a god. Hindus have millions of gods. What about the atheist or agnostic who does not believe in a deity? If this is to be a government endorsed event, there is no way it can do this in a way that will satisfy all of its citizens without calling us all to compromise our faiths in some way. As a Christian, compromising my belief in the Triune God who revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ is not something I will do. Nor does the government have a right to force me to do so. The other alternative is for the government to simply adopt one god as its official national deity and pray to that. Presumably. this would be the Christian God because the majority of the people in the country identify themselves closest with Christianity. However, it is a dangerous thing to adopt a form of religion as the official one of a nation.
In case any of us are forgetting out history, let us remind ourselves that many of our earliest founders came here fleeing the state-allied religions common in Europe since the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine. The governments of Europe gave special preference to certain religious groups whether it was Roman Catholicism in the last stage of the Roman Empire and Middle Ages, or the Reformed and Anglican faiths of the post Reformation age. Even today, many of those nations' governments give money or power to ecclesiastical authorities. For example, one of my favorite theologians, N.T. Wright, is a member of the House of Lords in England because he is the Bishop of Durham. The Puritans, Anabaptists, and others fled from Europe because the result of a state-sponsored religion is persecution from deviants of the established faith. Our founding fathers recognized this and included the Separation of Church and State clause in the constitution. As soon as the government gets its hands into the realms of religious practice, either the government becomes subservient to the church as happened with Roman Catholicism, or the church becomes a subject of the state as happened with the Lutheran church of Germany during the Nazi reign.
The United States is not a theocracy. It is not, nor was it ever, a "Christian Nation;" the countries our ancestors were fleeing were "Christian Nations," and many still are. The United States is a nation where it is safe for us to be Christians of whatever persuasion our conscience dictates. It is also a safe haven for those who are not Christians. No religious group has the authority to impose its views on the people, and a government cannot impose religious views or practices on its people. A day of prayer is a matter of personal conscience. Let me say it again; when the state becomes involved in religion, we find ourselves on a fast track towards totalitarianism. Should we have a National Day or Prayer? Let's have it as long as it is organized and executed solely by the federally independent churches that make up this country. If the government wants to make it a law, I believe as Christians who believe there is no religious authority except Christ and the Bible, we should oppose it.
In regard to the lawmakers striking down this piece of legislature I say, "Thank you. You are doing your job well! We do not want or need a government instigated National Day of Prayer." If you live in the United States of America, you are in a country that protects the separation of church and state. The government has no right to influence religious practice in any way, shape, or form. The government cannot make an atheist observe a National Day of Prayer any more than it can make a Hindu observe Yom Kippur. Instituting a National Day of Prayer is not only unconstitutional, but can violate the freedom of conscience of millions of the people.
Let me explain some of the problems associated with a National Day of Prayer. Who are we going to pray to? Are we going to pray to the triune God of Christianity? Jews do not believe in a Trinitarian God or that Jesus is God. Are we going to pray to Allah? As a Christian I will not. Buddhists do not believe in a god. Hindus have millions of gods. What about the atheist or agnostic who does not believe in a deity? If this is to be a government endorsed event, there is no way it can do this in a way that will satisfy all of its citizens without calling us all to compromise our faiths in some way. As a Christian, compromising my belief in the Triune God who revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ is not something I will do. Nor does the government have a right to force me to do so. The other alternative is for the government to simply adopt one god as its official national deity and pray to that. Presumably. this would be the Christian God because the majority of the people in the country identify themselves closest with Christianity. However, it is a dangerous thing to adopt a form of religion as the official one of a nation.
In case any of us are forgetting out history, let us remind ourselves that many of our earliest founders came here fleeing the state-allied religions common in Europe since the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine. The governments of Europe gave special preference to certain religious groups whether it was Roman Catholicism in the last stage of the Roman Empire and Middle Ages, or the Reformed and Anglican faiths of the post Reformation age. Even today, many of those nations' governments give money or power to ecclesiastical authorities. For example, one of my favorite theologians, N.T. Wright, is a member of the House of Lords in England because he is the Bishop of Durham. The Puritans, Anabaptists, and others fled from Europe because the result of a state-sponsored religion is persecution from deviants of the established faith. Our founding fathers recognized this and included the Separation of Church and State clause in the constitution. As soon as the government gets its hands into the realms of religious practice, either the government becomes subservient to the church as happened with Roman Catholicism, or the church becomes a subject of the state as happened with the Lutheran church of Germany during the Nazi reign.
The United States is not a theocracy. It is not, nor was it ever, a "Christian Nation;" the countries our ancestors were fleeing were "Christian Nations," and many still are. The United States is a nation where it is safe for us to be Christians of whatever persuasion our conscience dictates. It is also a safe haven for those who are not Christians. No religious group has the authority to impose its views on the people, and a government cannot impose religious views or practices on its people. A day of prayer is a matter of personal conscience. Let me say it again; when the state becomes involved in religion, we find ourselves on a fast track towards totalitarianism. Should we have a National Day or Prayer? Let's have it as long as it is organized and executed solely by the federally independent churches that make up this country. If the government wants to make it a law, I believe as Christians who believe there is no religious authority except Christ and the Bible, we should oppose it.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
An Indictment Against the Word "Literal"
There is a word which, especially in regard to Biblical Studies and theology, is almost always misused. That word is "Literal." How often when I am in the presence of theological discussion I invariably hear phrases tossed around like, "Should we take this story literally?" "So do you believe Jesus literally rose from the dead?" "I take the Bible literally." I have a problem with this kind of language. The problem is that the word "literal" is a literary term meaning the author is using language in its plain meaning, rather than in a metaphorical sense. "Literal" or "literally" are terms that are confined exclusively to the world of the text. They have no bearing on reality, or what actually happened in space and time.
Allow me to provide an example. In one chapter of "The Lord of the Rings," J.R.R. Tolkien describes how Gandalf kills the Balrog. One can say that Gandalf "literally" killed the Balrog. That is, the story of Gandalf's battle with the Balrog is not a metaphor in the story. Tolkien means the Balrog was really a Balrog and Gandalf really did kill it. However, this story can be literal without having actually happened within space and time in our dimension.
When the Biblical authors say Jesus healed a blind man and people ask if it literally happened, we should say, "Well, it's not a metaphor. The blind man and the miracle in the story is not representative of something else." However, I do realize what people are asking. They are asking a question not of literary genre or form, which is what the term "literal" in its correct sense should be limited to, but "Did this event the author records really happen in space and time." He or she is then asking a question about the world that exists behind the events recorded in the text, not a question of the text itself.
The terms we should be using in place of "literal" is "historically." One can believe in a "literal" resurrection of Christ in that he affirms the Gospels are describing Christ brought back to life without believing it was an event that occurred historically. As Christians we believe in both the literal and historical meaning of the text. We believe the gospel writers actually did mean the body of Christ was resurrected, and weren't trying to make some sort of abstract metaphor. We also believe in the historical meaning of the text in that if we were to hop into our time machines and travel back to that first Easter morning, we would be able to see and touch Christ.
This also goes for the Creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. This is perhaps where the word "literal" gets abused the most. It saddens me to see people asking whether the days of Genesis are literal or not. In Hebrew, whenever the word for day (yom) is coupled with a numerical value (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc), it means a day as people would understand it. So of course in the text the "day" literally means "day". Those words are not metaphors. Neither are the creation accounts metaphors for something else. However, the question we are to ask is "what kind of literature is being written? What is the author trying to say or argue?" It is at that point we can begin to textually examine them and deduce that the author is making arguments about how the universe is structured, who made it,a reason for the six day work week prescribed in the ten commandments, and man's relation to God and the world. We can then ask "what historically happened?" Did the events happen exactly according to the two accounts the author describes, or is he trying to show something else while using "days" as a narrative framework to portray reality? We can then begin to examine the universe, the product of creation, to attempt to make sense of it. (note: we must also realize here that if there is any science in these stories, it will reflect the understanding of the men of the time it was written. We should not expect it to contain modern, scientific insights, as that is not the purpose of the Bible.). However, by this time we have moved out of the realm of the text.
Let's remember, then, to keep our terms under control. Use the word "literal" when appropriate, and the word "historical" when appropriate. It will ultimately lead to greater and more accurate understanding of the text. This is the Word of God we are dealing with, and we should deal with it in the most accurate terms possible.
Allow me to provide an example. In one chapter of "The Lord of the Rings," J.R.R. Tolkien describes how Gandalf kills the Balrog. One can say that Gandalf "literally" killed the Balrog. That is, the story of Gandalf's battle with the Balrog is not a metaphor in the story. Tolkien means the Balrog was really a Balrog and Gandalf really did kill it. However, this story can be literal without having actually happened within space and time in our dimension.
When the Biblical authors say Jesus healed a blind man and people ask if it literally happened, we should say, "Well, it's not a metaphor. The blind man and the miracle in the story is not representative of something else." However, I do realize what people are asking. They are asking a question not of literary genre or form, which is what the term "literal" in its correct sense should be limited to, but "Did this event the author records really happen in space and time." He or she is then asking a question about the world that exists behind the events recorded in the text, not a question of the text itself.
The terms we should be using in place of "literal" is "historically." One can believe in a "literal" resurrection of Christ in that he affirms the Gospels are describing Christ brought back to life without believing it was an event that occurred historically. As Christians we believe in both the literal and historical meaning of the text. We believe the gospel writers actually did mean the body of Christ was resurrected, and weren't trying to make some sort of abstract metaphor. We also believe in the historical meaning of the text in that if we were to hop into our time machines and travel back to that first Easter morning, we would be able to see and touch Christ.
This also goes for the Creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. This is perhaps where the word "literal" gets abused the most. It saddens me to see people asking whether the days of Genesis are literal or not. In Hebrew, whenever the word for day (yom) is coupled with a numerical value (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc), it means a day as people would understand it. So of course in the text the "day" literally means "day". Those words are not metaphors. Neither are the creation accounts metaphors for something else. However, the question we are to ask is "what kind of literature is being written? What is the author trying to say or argue?" It is at that point we can begin to textually examine them and deduce that the author is making arguments about how the universe is structured, who made it,a reason for the six day work week prescribed in the ten commandments, and man's relation to God and the world. We can then ask "what historically happened?" Did the events happen exactly according to the two accounts the author describes, or is he trying to show something else while using "days" as a narrative framework to portray reality? We can then begin to examine the universe, the product of creation, to attempt to make sense of it. (note: we must also realize here that if there is any science in these stories, it will reflect the understanding of the men of the time it was written. We should not expect it to contain modern, scientific insights, as that is not the purpose of the Bible.). However, by this time we have moved out of the realm of the text.
Let's remember, then, to keep our terms under control. Use the word "literal" when appropriate, and the word "historical" when appropriate. It will ultimately lead to greater and more accurate understanding of the text. This is the Word of God we are dealing with, and we should deal with it in the most accurate terms possible.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Some Thoughts on Suffering and Tragedy
I have not posted for some time now, due to various circumstances. However, this morning I felt the need to address the very difficult topic of suffering and tragedy, once again. Recently I have learned of two fellow Simpson students who were involved in a serious car accident. Needless to say, the entire campus is fervently praying for them and their families, asking God to bring healing to the injuries sustained in the collision.
Possibly one of the most frustrating things about this situation is that the accident was sustained while the driver was attempting to help a man asking for food on the side of the road. The question I am sure many of us are asking at this point is why does tragedy strike a fellow believer when he is trying to imitate Christ and give aid to the needy? Sadly, it is a question I do not think we can fully answer. We may never know exactly why tragedies such as car accidents, earthquakes, and diseases strike the righteous but not the wicked, however, we do know that God is intimately involved with the suffering occurring here on earth.
I notice in our prayers that we often call out to God and ask Him to come down and intervene in our situations. I think this is a mistake. It subconsciously presupposes that God is somehow distant from us and the situation; as if He is sitting up in Heaven, letting the world run its course, and only stops to intervene at certain times. I think what we need to remember in our thoughts and prayers is that God is already involved and working in the world in ways we cannot see. He is "working all things for good to those who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28) long before the first prayer reaches His ears. He has also promised never to leave us nor forsake us (Hebrews 13:5b-6). In Christ, God felt the pain of suffering that so often afflicts us and those we love. Our God is familiar with suffering and is present with us in it.
When suffering comes along, it not only tests our faith and teaches us perseverance (Rom. 5:3, James 1:3), but the end result of it is becoming more like Christ (James 1:4). Let's then remember, that when suffering comes along, rather than focusing on the injustice of the situation, look to Christ as an example of how to suffer (1 Peter 2:21). Christ looked ahead "to the joy set before Him" says Paul in Philippians 2. Christ suffered injustice and tragedy, not for doing evil, but for doing God's will. Christ's suffering resulted in the resurrection, making possible the salvation of mankind and the restoration of the broken world we inhabit. In the same way, when we are faced with suffering, remember that God rewards the ones who persevere with a better resurrection (James 1:12, Hebrews 11:35). That is the gospel in suffering.
Possibly one of the most frustrating things about this situation is that the accident was sustained while the driver was attempting to help a man asking for food on the side of the road. The question I am sure many of us are asking at this point is why does tragedy strike a fellow believer when he is trying to imitate Christ and give aid to the needy? Sadly, it is a question I do not think we can fully answer. We may never know exactly why tragedies such as car accidents, earthquakes, and diseases strike the righteous but not the wicked, however, we do know that God is intimately involved with the suffering occurring here on earth.
I notice in our prayers that we often call out to God and ask Him to come down and intervene in our situations. I think this is a mistake. It subconsciously presupposes that God is somehow distant from us and the situation; as if He is sitting up in Heaven, letting the world run its course, and only stops to intervene at certain times. I think what we need to remember in our thoughts and prayers is that God is already involved and working in the world in ways we cannot see. He is "working all things for good to those who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28) long before the first prayer reaches His ears. He has also promised never to leave us nor forsake us (Hebrews 13:5b-6). In Christ, God felt the pain of suffering that so often afflicts us and those we love. Our God is familiar with suffering and is present with us in it.
When suffering comes along, it not only tests our faith and teaches us perseverance (Rom. 5:3, James 1:3), but the end result of it is becoming more like Christ (James 1:4). Let's then remember, that when suffering comes along, rather than focusing on the injustice of the situation, look to Christ as an example of how to suffer (1 Peter 2:21). Christ looked ahead "to the joy set before Him" says Paul in Philippians 2. Christ suffered injustice and tragedy, not for doing evil, but for doing God's will. Christ's suffering resulted in the resurrection, making possible the salvation of mankind and the restoration of the broken world we inhabit. In the same way, when we are faced with suffering, remember that God rewards the ones who persevere with a better resurrection (James 1:12, Hebrews 11:35). That is the gospel in suffering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)