One of the longest running discussions that I have witnessed (and participated in) among the theologically literate is over the truth or untruth of Calvinism. Do we choose to become Christians, or is it completely the work of God calling us into his family? Do we have any free will in the matter? Those are the typical questions that we ask to begin these long and drawn out conversations. And Before long we are proof texting each other to oblivion. It is a good conversation to have, to be sure. The contributions to Christianity that Calvinists have brought are innumerable. I have the highest respect for Calvinists because their theology tends to be very intellectually robust. In fact, that in my opinion is one of the best features of Calvinism, its logic and intellectual vigor. I cannot say that I have ever met a dumb Calvinist. However, I am loathe to throw myself into the lot with the systematic theology that we call Calvinism. Here I will explain why I cannot bring myself to fully embrace the Calvinist label.
One of my problems with Calvinism is that it does tend to systematize Salvation History a little too much. Lying at the heart of Calvinism is the doctrine of Predestination; that is, how God chose some to be saved and others to be damned. In Calvinism, the story of Adam and Eve, Israel, Jesus, and the church become something of a great, divine script that is fulfilled whether we like it or not. There is little to no room for human autonomy. One of my theology professors has pointed out that in Calvinism, God the father becomes highly implicated in the death of Jesus. It is common among Calvinists (who tend to take a more substitutionary view of the atonement) to emphasize that God is punishing Jesus on the cross. While I do not have time to go into the particulars of why that way of phrasing it may not be entirely accurate, Biblically, I would like to point out that within the Biblical text, Jesus' death is portrayed as being "at the hands of sinners." In the preaching of the apostles in Acts, while Peter affirms that the people bear responsibility for crucifying the Son of God (Acts 2:23,36; 3: 14-15). The Biblical witness does affirm that somehow God knew all of the particulars of the crucifixion would happen to His son. He also planned to work out redemption through it. However, I have yet to find in the Biblical text where it explicitly says that God the father was punishing Jesus on the cross. It seems to be more accurate to say that Jesus was obedient to the father even though it led to death at the hands of "godless men."
My second problem with Calvinism is the doctrine of Unconditional election combined with the inescapable doctrine of Limited atonement. It seems to me that these two areas are the place where Calvinism has dug itself into a pit. The doctrine of Unconditional election, the idea that God chooses to save us based not on any of our merits, but solely out of grace, is a good doctrine. It is Biblically justified, I believe. It is tied in with predestination, which in Calvin's day, was a pastoral comfort to his people. Predestination was not always, as it often is today, this question of "Oh no! Did God choose me or did He not?" Predestination and election were taught to Calvin's people in the Biblical sense of something to be excited about. You don't have to worry about losing your salvation and going to Hell because God has chosen you! However, it seems to be that after Calvin, Calvinists became a bit concerned about who was chosen to be in and who was chosen to be out. Since God chooses some to be saved, that must mean he chooses others to be damned. If that is the case, then the atoning work of Jesus must not have applied to the whole world, but only to the elect. This, I believe, is a terrible misrepresentation of the work of the cross. Not only does the Bible explicitly say that Jesus has covered the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Paul repeatedly affirms how much greater power the cross has over all men than sin (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22).
The idea that God has chosen some to be damned and some to be saved leaves one with very little choice than a doctrine of limited atonement. This is why if I were to be a Calvinist, I would have to be a Universalist also. After all, if God chose to let sin pass to all people through the sin of one man, as Paul says, but only let the redeeming work of Christ apply to a chosen few (as Paul does not say), why does God not override the wills of all humans? If those few elect have their wills overridden by God and are saved, why does not God override the wills of his whole creation. After all, the Bible does affirm that God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:1-6). It seems to me that it if we are to take any human autonomy out of the picture, it would make sense to say that God will save all humans.
The Bible does affirm, as I pointed out earlier, that the grace of God is available to all humans, and that the redeeming work of the cross is greater than the death of sin. While some may take this to mean Universalism is the end result, the Bible does seem to suggest that there will be those who do not make it. By the way, John Stott, in his commentary on Romans points out that many Calvinists including Hodge and Calvin himself, believed that the number of the saved would far outweigh the number of the damned, based on Paul's arguments in Romans 5. It seems to me that it is most consistent with God's nature to allow human freedom in choosing whether or not to follow him. How many times in the scriptures does God throw the ball into the human court, telling his people to choose Him (life), or sin (death).
I do not call myself a Calvinist in the typical five-point sense. I cannot stomach the idea of limited atonement, which I believe is inescapable when you start to believe in Double Predestination (i.e. you're saved, you're damned). When it comes to what I do believe about what saves us, I have to answer that I believe that God at once chooses us, but that we bear responsibility for our choices. Karl Barth and the New Perspective on Paul has helped me out in this. I believe, as Barth did, that we need to view our calling and election through Jesus. Jesus is the one called by God, and his calling is representative of humankind's calling, just as Adam's sin is representative of humankind's condemnation. As Jesus suffered on the cross, he also experienced the condemnation of our sin, and in so doing condemned sin. The grace of the cross is greater and more effective than the sin of the world, and all the sins of the world have been forgiven by God. However, I believe that we still bear some responsibility on whether or not we enter that forgiveness. Barth said we can pray for the salvation of all human beings, and I believe that we should. I do not think that all will be saved, unfortunately, but I do hope that the work of the cross will bring in a great majority.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
The Beauty of John Steinbeck
During literary discussions I have had with many of my friends, the name John Steinbeck always seems to come up. Usually by me. While I do not pretend to have read all, or even a small majority of what he wrote, I still count him as one of my favorite authors. In John Steinbeck, I meet a man who is both deeply realistic (sometimes even despairingly so), but yet seems to hold on to a shred of idealistic hope that somehow humankind can become better than we really are. He is a man who understands the life of the common working man, but by no means portrays his life as simple. His characters lives' are often incredibly complicated, much how we all perceive our own lives to be. His writings grapple with the existential anxieties, joys, and let downs that make up this life in a way that, in my opinion, few other authors do.
I've often said that being a true Californian almost requires one to love Steinbeck. I've joked with friends from Idaho that California produced Steinbeck, but Idaho took Hemingway (Hemingway committed suicide while living in Ketchum, Idaho). For me, California seems to pulse with the spirit of John Steinbeck; or perhaps it is the other way around. Wherever I am in the state of California, I can find something to remind me of Steinbeck. I can scarcely pass by any orchards without being reminded of the trials of the Joad family. I can scarcely hear the word Monterey without images of Cannery Row coming into my head. I can't hear Salinas without an entire plethora of Steinbeck imagery invading my brain. Anything remotely agricultural makes me think of Steinbeck, even up in my northeastern corner of California, which as far as I am aware, Steinbeck never mentioned. However, I often hear his words from "The Grapes of Wrath" about the great diesel tractors tearing up Oklahoma whenever I drive a tractor myself. When I think about the land, I can almost hear it being described in a way that only Steinbeck could do it.
The characters that Steinbeck creates, mostly the agricultural ones, I can imagine vividly. Though the characters he wrote about, and the people that I know are about a century apart, I can catch glimpses of his creations in the people I see everyday in my area. I believe that because Steinbeck worked on ranches in the Salinas area, he was able to give his literary agricultural workers the kind of life that only someone who has spent time among them is able.
His solidarity with the working man is something else that makes him great. It's hard for his works to raise sympathy for the rich and powerful in the world. From what I have read, his best characters are the poor and the working class. Steinbeck was known for this; "The Grapes of Wrath," for example, did draw criticism for what some considered to be a socialist bent. It is true that Steinbeck was associated with communists and leftists, for which he faced some government persecution. However, the working man deserved (and still does) deserve a voice in a world in which the rich and powerful often become so at the expense of the working classes.
Steinbeck's love of the land is also something that draws me to him. He clearly has a respect for the natural beauty of the world, but at the same time he does not come across as deeply anti-agricultural as many environmentalists do (I am not necessarily trying to throw him into the environmentalist camp, as I do not feel I know enough about him to place him anywhere). When he writes about land, he does so in such a way that makes me hate its destruction.
Steinbeck is truly an amazing author. The Nobel Prize in Literature that he was awarded should come as absolutely no surprise to anybody who has even cracked one of his books. I have enjoyed what I have read of his, and look forward to more. What he had to say about culture, people, and the land sixty years ago, still deserves a hearing today. It is my belief that people really do not change, and that history is more cyclic than linear. People still face the same existential anxieties that his characters did. The land is still precious and needs protection from exploitation. The working middle class still do often get the short end of the stick while the rich get richer. Steinbeck still has a lot to say.
I've often said that being a true Californian almost requires one to love Steinbeck. I've joked with friends from Idaho that California produced Steinbeck, but Idaho took Hemingway (Hemingway committed suicide while living in Ketchum, Idaho). For me, California seems to pulse with the spirit of John Steinbeck; or perhaps it is the other way around. Wherever I am in the state of California, I can find something to remind me of Steinbeck. I can scarcely pass by any orchards without being reminded of the trials of the Joad family. I can scarcely hear the word Monterey without images of Cannery Row coming into my head. I can't hear Salinas without an entire plethora of Steinbeck imagery invading my brain. Anything remotely agricultural makes me think of Steinbeck, even up in my northeastern corner of California, which as far as I am aware, Steinbeck never mentioned. However, I often hear his words from "The Grapes of Wrath" about the great diesel tractors tearing up Oklahoma whenever I drive a tractor myself. When I think about the land, I can almost hear it being described in a way that only Steinbeck could do it.
The characters that Steinbeck creates, mostly the agricultural ones, I can imagine vividly. Though the characters he wrote about, and the people that I know are about a century apart, I can catch glimpses of his creations in the people I see everyday in my area. I believe that because Steinbeck worked on ranches in the Salinas area, he was able to give his literary agricultural workers the kind of life that only someone who has spent time among them is able.
His solidarity with the working man is something else that makes him great. It's hard for his works to raise sympathy for the rich and powerful in the world. From what I have read, his best characters are the poor and the working class. Steinbeck was known for this; "The Grapes of Wrath," for example, did draw criticism for what some considered to be a socialist bent. It is true that Steinbeck was associated with communists and leftists, for which he faced some government persecution. However, the working man deserved (and still does) deserve a voice in a world in which the rich and powerful often become so at the expense of the working classes.
Steinbeck's love of the land is also something that draws me to him. He clearly has a respect for the natural beauty of the world, but at the same time he does not come across as deeply anti-agricultural as many environmentalists do (I am not necessarily trying to throw him into the environmentalist camp, as I do not feel I know enough about him to place him anywhere). When he writes about land, he does so in such a way that makes me hate its destruction.
Steinbeck is truly an amazing author. The Nobel Prize in Literature that he was awarded should come as absolutely no surprise to anybody who has even cracked one of his books. I have enjoyed what I have read of his, and look forward to more. What he had to say about culture, people, and the land sixty years ago, still deserves a hearing today. It is my belief that people really do not change, and that history is more cyclic than linear. People still face the same existential anxieties that his characters did. The land is still precious and needs protection from exploitation. The working middle class still do often get the short end of the stick while the rich get richer. Steinbeck still has a lot to say.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Some Theological Reflections on Pirates of the Caribbean 4
Last night I went to see "Pirates of the Caribbean 4: On Stranger Tides." To be sure, it was a pretty good movie; I have loved pirates since I was young, and there is something appealing about the life of a free pirate. Who wouldn't want to live a life free from the restraints of law? Who wouldn't enjoy the adventure? Wouldn't finding buried treasure (guarded by ancient Aztec curses, of course) give one's life both pleasure and purpose? All these aspects of piracy lend the life a devilish appeal. And devilish it truly is.
As I watched the movie last night, I thought of something as Jack Sparrow evaded Royal Soldiers for the umpteenth time. I realized that, as a human being, I am sympathizing with the wrong person! The Pirate, Jack Sparrow, should not be the hero. He, after all, is a criminal who lies, cheats, steals, and murders people! The Soldiers, who are portrayed as the enemy in the movie, are actually the ones who we should be rooting for. They, after all, are trying to uphold the rule of law that keeps us safe from people like Jack Sparrow. Yet we still cheer for the pirate. Why? I realize that the pirate exemplifies all human hubris, that is, the pride and arrogance that makes us attempt to ascend toward places that only God should hold. The appeal of the pirate is that he makes his own rules. He is not bound by any rules from heaven or men. He acts solely on his own selfish impulses, and at some level, that is what we all want as human beings.
There is something curious about human nature, that those who are deeply hated criminals at some point in history become heroes many years later. This is the case with figures such as Jesse James, Billy the Kid, even Robin Hood (if he was, indeed a historical figure). As these criminals and evildoers are highly detested for their deeds, we also admire the hubris that exists in all of us, but that they exhibit in a greater manner. As Rene Girard would point out, in the world's great mythologies, a person who is different from the society would often be perceived as bringing some form of evil on the society and would be killed in order to restore peace. This person would be a virtual scapegoat for the community. However, over time, as the people remembered the act of violence they performed to remove the contagion from their midst, the person would often become "divinized," in a sense. Often the characters who fulfill the role of the scapegoat in a mythology end up as gods of some sort. That, I believe, is what we sometimes do with characters like pirates or stagecoach robbers. These characters, whether truly historical, or simply archetypes of historical characters become victims of the system in our eyes. They truly did do the sorts of things that disrupted the peace of the community, and in most cases, we exacted violence against them to remove them and restore peace (I am not making a comment on whether or not the violence used against them was just or unjust, I am simply stating the fact). After they are dead, we vindicate them, not by making them into gods like the ancients did, but by overlooking the truly heinous nature of their crimes and making them out to be heroes who stand for lofty ideals such as freedom or liberty.
Pirates of the Caribbean 4, like all movies which celebrate pirates, gunslingers, gangsters, or any other type of criminal is simply what human beings have done for thousands of years. Even though as Christians we confess that the cross has revealed the hubris and sin of humankind, it is still alive in the world. When we watch movies about pirates or bank robbers, we see what we all want in our sin. When we look at the cross, we see the world's only truly innocent victim (who was accused as a criminal, remember) whose death reveals and triumphs over our sin. The vindication of the innocent Jesus in his resurrection is much greater than the vindication we give to criminals whom we rightly accuse and wrongly divinize. We must recognize this in our entertainment and also in our own selves.
As I watched the movie last night, I thought of something as Jack Sparrow evaded Royal Soldiers for the umpteenth time. I realized that, as a human being, I am sympathizing with the wrong person! The Pirate, Jack Sparrow, should not be the hero. He, after all, is a criminal who lies, cheats, steals, and murders people! The Soldiers, who are portrayed as the enemy in the movie, are actually the ones who we should be rooting for. They, after all, are trying to uphold the rule of law that keeps us safe from people like Jack Sparrow. Yet we still cheer for the pirate. Why? I realize that the pirate exemplifies all human hubris, that is, the pride and arrogance that makes us attempt to ascend toward places that only God should hold. The appeal of the pirate is that he makes his own rules. He is not bound by any rules from heaven or men. He acts solely on his own selfish impulses, and at some level, that is what we all want as human beings.
There is something curious about human nature, that those who are deeply hated criminals at some point in history become heroes many years later. This is the case with figures such as Jesse James, Billy the Kid, even Robin Hood (if he was, indeed a historical figure). As these criminals and evildoers are highly detested for their deeds, we also admire the hubris that exists in all of us, but that they exhibit in a greater manner. As Rene Girard would point out, in the world's great mythologies, a person who is different from the society would often be perceived as bringing some form of evil on the society and would be killed in order to restore peace. This person would be a virtual scapegoat for the community. However, over time, as the people remembered the act of violence they performed to remove the contagion from their midst, the person would often become "divinized," in a sense. Often the characters who fulfill the role of the scapegoat in a mythology end up as gods of some sort. That, I believe, is what we sometimes do with characters like pirates or stagecoach robbers. These characters, whether truly historical, or simply archetypes of historical characters become victims of the system in our eyes. They truly did do the sorts of things that disrupted the peace of the community, and in most cases, we exacted violence against them to remove them and restore peace (I am not making a comment on whether or not the violence used against them was just or unjust, I am simply stating the fact). After they are dead, we vindicate them, not by making them into gods like the ancients did, but by overlooking the truly heinous nature of their crimes and making them out to be heroes who stand for lofty ideals such as freedom or liberty.
Pirates of the Caribbean 4, like all movies which celebrate pirates, gunslingers, gangsters, or any other type of criminal is simply what human beings have done for thousands of years. Even though as Christians we confess that the cross has revealed the hubris and sin of humankind, it is still alive in the world. When we watch movies about pirates or bank robbers, we see what we all want in our sin. When we look at the cross, we see the world's only truly innocent victim (who was accused as a criminal, remember) whose death reveals and triumphs over our sin. The vindication of the innocent Jesus in his resurrection is much greater than the vindication we give to criminals whom we rightly accuse and wrongly divinize. We must recognize this in our entertainment and also in our own selves.
Monday, June 13, 2011
My Translation of the Beatitudes
I decided to translate the Beatitudes of Matthew 5 from Greek this morning. This is my translation that I did using the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and Walter Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon. I tried to make this translation as faithful to the original text as possible, while communicating theological meaning that is not always clear from a strictly literal translation. On some of the beatitudes, I wrote them out using multiple words and descriptions where in the Greek text, Matthew used only one word. The reason for this is that to get the fullest meaning of what Matthew probably had in mind, I have had to use multiple English words. By no means do I consider this a scholarly translation, but something more along the lines of the NASB version and the Message.
And seeing the crowds, he went up on a hill, and sitting down, his disciples came to him and he opened his mouth and taught them saying,
"Blessed are those lacking in spiritual worth,
For theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.
Blessed are those who grieve and mourn,
For they will be comforted,
Blessed are the gentle,
For the will posses the land.
Blessed are those who are intensely hungry and intensely thirsty for justice and righteousness,
For they will experience satisfaction.
Blessed are those concerned about those in need,
For they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are those whose hearts are clean from moral guilt,
For they will see God.
Blessed are those who reconcile,
For they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
For theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.
Blessed are you when you are mocked and persecuted, and spoken all kinds of evil about you because of me. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for your recognition by God will be great in the heavens, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you.
And seeing the crowds, he went up on a hill, and sitting down, his disciples came to him and he opened his mouth and taught them saying,
"Blessed are those lacking in spiritual worth,
For theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.
Blessed are those who grieve and mourn,
For they will be comforted,
Blessed are the gentle,
For the will posses the land.
Blessed are those who are intensely hungry and intensely thirsty for justice and righteousness,
For they will experience satisfaction.
Blessed are those concerned about those in need,
For they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are those whose hearts are clean from moral guilt,
For they will see God.
Blessed are those who reconcile,
For they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
For theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.
Blessed are you when you are mocked and persecuted, and spoken all kinds of evil about you because of me. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for your recognition by God will be great in the heavens, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Means the Same Thing
I remember approaching a theology professor in my Biblical Backgrounds class one day after we were talking about Genesis. I asked her how she thought we should read Genesis in relation to modern science. She told me that we shouldn't and I was a little bit confused. She told me that the biblical text was not written to address modern questions about science and that we should not try to read it in that way. After doing some thinking and reading, I saw how wise she was in that regard. Since then, I have heard many other wise men and women of God say exactly that. One of the best things I have learned from my hermeneutics classes is to read the Bible as the Bible and to identify where I am foisting my own cultural assumptions and questions on texts that really were not addressing those questions in the first place.
Recently, in a Sunday school class, there was a good debate about how exactly we should read Genesis 1. There were, of course, those who insisted on a type of young-earth creationism as the only reading one should consider, and then there were those (myself included) who said that there are many possible ways to read the text, the "literal 24-hour position" being one of them.
Starting from the early days of Christianity (I am not too familiar with Jewish readings from earlier periods), there have been questions raised about how to read the creation stories in the book of Genesis. Augustine believed that the days of Genesis were not days in the ordinary sense due to factors such as the sun not showing up until the fourth day. The poetic nature of both Genesis 1 and 2 have caused many theologians to have differing views of what exactly the author (perhaps Moses?) intended for his audience to consider. The advent of modern science raised more questions. After all, ever since Archbishop Ussher "calculated" the age of the earth in the sixteenth century based on biblical genealogies, the fact that geology and cosmology seems to indicate a very old earth has caused Christians to re-examine some of their previously held assumptions. The result has been a plethora of readings of Genesis 1 and 2. Again, the poetic nature of these passages makes many of these readings possible.
While Christians may disagree, as they have from the beginning, on how exactly these passages should be read, the various readings have one thing in common. Whether one adopts a "young-earth literalist" perspective or a "theistic evolutionary" perspective, these positions have been articulated and developed by Christians who are concerned to uphold the integrity of the scriptural witness. I can list many dedicated theologians who love God and are one hundred percent orthodox Christians who hold to many of these views. Perhaps some readings are better than others (the "gap-theory" way of reading the text continues to puzzle me), but all positions have their weaknesses as well. How does the theistic evolutionist square away the seemingly brutal process of natural selection with a loving God? How does a literalist reconcile the contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 (in Genesis 1, humans are created on the sixth day after everything else; in Genesis two, humans are created before plants and animals, and even the weather.)
Perhaps that is why the author, guided by the Spirit of God wrote it using such poetic imagery. The text is bad at answering our questions about nature or cosmology, but it is excellent at answering our questions about God, ourselves, and our relationship to God. The text polemicized against the pagan religions of the ancient near east which worshiped the sun, moon, stars, and other facets of nature. Many people believed humans were created as the result of angry gods in conflict with each other; humans were to be slaves of the gods in some cases. Genesis tells the world that is not the case. Yahweh created all things, including the stuff you pagans worship. Humans are the result of a loving act of creation. We are designed to partner with Yahweh in taking care of his good earth and to have perfect relationship to him and each other. These theological truths are true today. Science changes over time, but this message about God stays the same. Whether one believes in a gap-theory, literal 24 hour creation, day age creation, historical creationism, theistic evolution, creation as pictorial representation, etc., the meaning of the text is the same. Perhaps that is why none of the creeds specify a specific method of creation as orthodox other than that "I believe in God Almighty maker of heaven and earth and Jesus Christ his only begotten son, our Lord."
Recently, in a Sunday school class, there was a good debate about how exactly we should read Genesis 1. There were, of course, those who insisted on a type of young-earth creationism as the only reading one should consider, and then there were those (myself included) who said that there are many possible ways to read the text, the "literal 24-hour position" being one of them.
Starting from the early days of Christianity (I am not too familiar with Jewish readings from earlier periods), there have been questions raised about how to read the creation stories in the book of Genesis. Augustine believed that the days of Genesis were not days in the ordinary sense due to factors such as the sun not showing up until the fourth day. The poetic nature of both Genesis 1 and 2 have caused many theologians to have differing views of what exactly the author (perhaps Moses?) intended for his audience to consider. The advent of modern science raised more questions. After all, ever since Archbishop Ussher "calculated" the age of the earth in the sixteenth century based on biblical genealogies, the fact that geology and cosmology seems to indicate a very old earth has caused Christians to re-examine some of their previously held assumptions. The result has been a plethora of readings of Genesis 1 and 2. Again, the poetic nature of these passages makes many of these readings possible.
While Christians may disagree, as they have from the beginning, on how exactly these passages should be read, the various readings have one thing in common. Whether one adopts a "young-earth literalist" perspective or a "theistic evolutionary" perspective, these positions have been articulated and developed by Christians who are concerned to uphold the integrity of the scriptural witness. I can list many dedicated theologians who love God and are one hundred percent orthodox Christians who hold to many of these views. Perhaps some readings are better than others (the "gap-theory" way of reading the text continues to puzzle me), but all positions have their weaknesses as well. How does the theistic evolutionist square away the seemingly brutal process of natural selection with a loving God? How does a literalist reconcile the contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 (in Genesis 1, humans are created on the sixth day after everything else; in Genesis two, humans are created before plants and animals, and even the weather.)
Perhaps that is why the author, guided by the Spirit of God wrote it using such poetic imagery. The text is bad at answering our questions about nature or cosmology, but it is excellent at answering our questions about God, ourselves, and our relationship to God. The text polemicized against the pagan religions of the ancient near east which worshiped the sun, moon, stars, and other facets of nature. Many people believed humans were created as the result of angry gods in conflict with each other; humans were to be slaves of the gods in some cases. Genesis tells the world that is not the case. Yahweh created all things, including the stuff you pagans worship. Humans are the result of a loving act of creation. We are designed to partner with Yahweh in taking care of his good earth and to have perfect relationship to him and each other. These theological truths are true today. Science changes over time, but this message about God stays the same. Whether one believes in a gap-theory, literal 24 hour creation, day age creation, historical creationism, theistic evolution, creation as pictorial representation, etc., the meaning of the text is the same. Perhaps that is why none of the creeds specify a specific method of creation as orthodox other than that "I believe in God Almighty maker of heaven and earth and Jesus Christ his only begotten son, our Lord."
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Quest for the Kingdom of God
The Quest for the Kingdom of God
I decided to set out into the world on a quest,
For I wanted to find the Kingdom of God.
I started in the great churches and cathedrals that the world likes so much,
For are they not so be the Kingdom’s palaces?
But I found only remnants of the Kingdom.
I then read the best of human philosophy.
For the Kingdom may be within our rational psyche?
But where wisdom lived, there folly squatted.
I then looked to the rocks, trees, animals, and stars
For, I thought, maybe the kingdom is to be found in nature?
Yet again, the Kingdom could not be found.
Finally, I while walking among the poor and hurting,
I began to see the Kingdom.
The priest, the missionary, and every ordinary person,
Who gave a cup of cold water to the thirsty in the name of the King,
Were, I realized, the earls and princes of the Kingdom.
Those who heal wounds of physical and spiritual kind,
Those who die before taking up the sword,
Those are the Kingdom’s builders.
Not a place on a map or a theory written on paper,
But thousands of souls doing the work of their Master.
When I found them, I found the Kingdom of God.
I decided to set out into the world on a quest,
For I wanted to find the Kingdom of God.
I started in the great churches and cathedrals that the world likes so much,
For are they not so be the Kingdom’s palaces?
But I found only remnants of the Kingdom.
I then read the best of human philosophy.
For the Kingdom may be within our rational psyche?
But where wisdom lived, there folly squatted.
I then looked to the rocks, trees, animals, and stars
For, I thought, maybe the kingdom is to be found in nature?
Yet again, the Kingdom could not be found.
Finally, I while walking among the poor and hurting,
I began to see the Kingdom.
The priest, the missionary, and every ordinary person,
Who gave a cup of cold water to the thirsty in the name of the King,
Were, I realized, the earls and princes of the Kingdom.
Those who heal wounds of physical and spiritual kind,
Those who die before taking up the sword,
Those are the Kingdom’s builders.
Not a place on a map or a theory written on paper,
But thousands of souls doing the work of their Master.
When I found them, I found the Kingdom of God.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
What I Love About Fundamentalists
I'm actually not kidding when I title this post "What I Love About Fundamentalists;" There are things that I believe we can all learn from them. When most of us hear the term "Fundamentalist Christian," our minds probably fill with images of rabid, hateful, "God hates you, you, and you, but loves me," fanatics. We think of the people who, if the even send their kids to school, are the ones who are up in arms when evolution is taught in science class, or when history class doesn't claim that the founding fathers of America were copying and pasting the Bible into the Constitution. We think of people who are narrow-minded and opinionated; people who hate the world, and feel that there is some sort of evil conspiracy abroad coming in the forms of post-modernism, secularism, and homosexuality. When it comes to the Bible, they believe that it practically dropped out of heaven, and offers hard and fast rules for absolutely every single area of human existence (the fundamentalist interpretation, however, is the only valid one; readings by evangelicals, catholics, or anyone else are seen as deficient). Those are definitely the caricatures of fundamentalists that we are all familiar with. Sadly, there is often a hint of truth to the caricature.
There is good news, however, and it is that those are, indeed, mostly caricatures. What fundamentalists are often portrayed as in the news and in the media, is often them at their worst, rather than their best. Rarely do we hear about the great works of love that fundamentalist Christians do in the name of Christ. Though they are painted as intolerant bigots, I have yet to meet a fundamentalist that does not truly care about people. For the most part, fundamentalist Christians love the Lord and are trying to live out the Christian life in the best way they know how.
It is true that Fundamentalists have (unintentionally) hurt many people, both Christian and otherwise. Many non-Christians have felt condemned by the well-meaning evangelistic attempts by Fundamentalists. Many Christians have felt judged, smothered, and burdened by guilt in Fundamentalist churches. The world really doesn't like them, and, sadly, many Christians like to poke fun at them and their "narrow, judgmental" ways. However, the fundamentalists are our Christian brothers and sisters. They are sinners just like us, and while they may have many shortcomings, they also have much that is good about them. For example, their love for God, the Bible, and living a life that looks different from the world is something that all Christians can learn from.
At the turn of the 19th century, the fundamentalists were the ones who safeguarded orthodox Christian belief from the dangers of "liberal protestantism." "Liberal," in this sense, does not mean caring about the rights of people or helping the poor, but the influx of a modernist ideology into the Christian faith. Fundamentalism sprang out of a time in church history where "modern man" was becoming too "scientific" to believe in things like the virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Christ, the existence of miracles, the divinity of Jesus, etc. Clergymen were denying these essential doctrines and the fundamentalists were the ones who said that Christianity cannot function without these doctrines. (It is interesting to note that in the beginning of what became the fundamentalist movement, some of the theologians, such as B.B. Warfield, were not necessarily opposed to evolution as a mechanism of God's creative acts. The aversion to evolution, it seems, came later on.) Nevertheless, Fundamentalism in the United States helped to guard against the influxes from a theological method that would have deconstructed the Christian faith. They were the ones who refused to compromise the essentials (fundamentals, hence their namesake) of the Christian faith.
We can be thankful for the witness of our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. In the sense that they would rather be unpopular than compromise the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, we can learn from that. In the sense that they believe in the transformation of the heart by Christ, we can emulate that. As evangelicals, we cannot afford to alienate them or belittle them. While they may be too extreme at many points, we must be humble enough to remember that we don't have it all together, either, and that God is working in His people to conform them to the image of His Son.
There is good news, however, and it is that those are, indeed, mostly caricatures. What fundamentalists are often portrayed as in the news and in the media, is often them at their worst, rather than their best. Rarely do we hear about the great works of love that fundamentalist Christians do in the name of Christ. Though they are painted as intolerant bigots, I have yet to meet a fundamentalist that does not truly care about people. For the most part, fundamentalist Christians love the Lord and are trying to live out the Christian life in the best way they know how.
It is true that Fundamentalists have (unintentionally) hurt many people, both Christian and otherwise. Many non-Christians have felt condemned by the well-meaning evangelistic attempts by Fundamentalists. Many Christians have felt judged, smothered, and burdened by guilt in Fundamentalist churches. The world really doesn't like them, and, sadly, many Christians like to poke fun at them and their "narrow, judgmental" ways. However, the fundamentalists are our Christian brothers and sisters. They are sinners just like us, and while they may have many shortcomings, they also have much that is good about them. For example, their love for God, the Bible, and living a life that looks different from the world is something that all Christians can learn from.
At the turn of the 19th century, the fundamentalists were the ones who safeguarded orthodox Christian belief from the dangers of "liberal protestantism." "Liberal," in this sense, does not mean caring about the rights of people or helping the poor, but the influx of a modernist ideology into the Christian faith. Fundamentalism sprang out of a time in church history where "modern man" was becoming too "scientific" to believe in things like the virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Christ, the existence of miracles, the divinity of Jesus, etc. Clergymen were denying these essential doctrines and the fundamentalists were the ones who said that Christianity cannot function without these doctrines. (It is interesting to note that in the beginning of what became the fundamentalist movement, some of the theologians, such as B.B. Warfield, were not necessarily opposed to evolution as a mechanism of God's creative acts. The aversion to evolution, it seems, came later on.) Nevertheless, Fundamentalism in the United States helped to guard against the influxes from a theological method that would have deconstructed the Christian faith. They were the ones who refused to compromise the essentials (fundamentals, hence their namesake) of the Christian faith.
We can be thankful for the witness of our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. In the sense that they would rather be unpopular than compromise the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, we can learn from that. In the sense that they believe in the transformation of the heart by Christ, we can emulate that. As evangelicals, we cannot afford to alienate them or belittle them. While they may be too extreme at many points, we must be humble enough to remember that we don't have it all together, either, and that God is working in His people to conform them to the image of His Son.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)